Tuesday 11 February 1992

Waste Management Act, 1991, Bill 143 / Loi de 1991 sur la gestion des déchets, projet de loi 143

Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Ontario division

Peter Irwin, deputy chairman, environmental quality committee

Don Wiersma, manager, special projects

Douglas Sirrs, representative

Credit Valley Residents Association

Steve Galant, vice-president

Canadian Chemical Producers' Association

Barry Rose, representative

Harold Quinn, consultant

Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association

Cyril Wilding, vice-president

Paper and Paperboard Packaging Environmental Council

John Mullinder, executive director

Simcoe County District Health Unit

Dr Walter Ewing, associate medical officer

Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton

Peter Clarke, regional chair

George Brown, chair, environmental policy committee

Judy Wilson, director of solid waste

Rich Denham, commissioner of environmental services

Canadian Hardware and Housewares Manufacturers Association

Chuck Homer, president

Jim Gillies, chair, environmental committee

Larry Dworkin, government affairs consultant

Township of King

Margaret Britnell, mayor

Margaret Black, councillor, ward 3

Margery Coons, citizen

Mississauga Citizens Environmental Protection Association; Residents Against Cement Company Pollution

Carolyn Siller, president, MCEPA

Julie Desjardins Bart, chair, RACCP

Michael Izzard

John Epps

Ecosystem Approach Group

Piero Boldrini, representative

Joan Phillips

Lisa Jensen

Mississauga Landfill Site Liaison Committee

Donna Howard, chair

Sherry Lee, correspondence secretary


Chair / Présidente: Caplan, Elinor (Oriole L)

Vice-Chair/ Vice-Président: Sola, John (Mississauga East/-Est L)

Cousens, W. Donald (Markham PC)

Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)

Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)

Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND)

Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)

Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex ND)

O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND)

Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West/-Ouest PC)

Sullivan, Barbara (Halton Centre L)

Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)

Substitution(s) / Membre(s) remplaçant(s):

Abel, Donald (Wentworth North/-Nord ND) for Mr Hope

Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC) for Mr Stockwell

McClelland, Carman (Brampton North/-Nord L) for Mrs Sullivan

Also taking part / Autres participants:

Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)

Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)

McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)

Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn

Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1003 in room 151.


Resuming consideration of Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act / Projet de loi 143, Loi concernant la gestion des déchets dans la région du grand Toronto et modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement.


The Chair: The standing committee on social development is now in session. These are public hearings on Bill 143, the Waste Management Act, 1991. Our first presentation this morning is by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Ontario Division. Please come forward to the table. Begin your presentation by introducing yourselves for members of the committee. You have 20 minutes and we would ask if you would leave a few minutes at the end for questions from committee members. The normal procedure we have been using is that if there is not time for as many questions as everyone would like, then we will put them on the record and you can respond to the committee in writing at a later date. Welcome and please begin your presentation now.

Mr Irwin: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Peter Irwin. I am the president of Canada Metal Co Ltd and deputy chairman of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association's environmental quality committee. The environmental quality committee works with manufacturers and government towards the betterment of the environment. Typical of the work we do is the publication of documents to our members, and one in particular which we are just publicizing is entitled Waste Management, which will be delivered to all our members.

I am pleased to introduce Mr Don Wiersma. Don is with the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. He is manager of their policy group and manager of special projects, environment. Mr Doug Sirrs is an environmental engineer with General Motors of Canada and he will be making the presentation on our behalf.

Mr Sirrs: The Canadian Manufacturers' Association represents approximately 75% of manufacturing in Ontario. Our members, both large and small, represent all sectors of manufacturing.

The CMA strongly supports waste minimization as a cornerstone of sustainable development and is committed to working with all levels of government to achieve practical and cost-effective solutions to environmental challenges. However, the CMA has serious concerns with the approach that is proposed in this legislation and the attendant regulations. We believe this measure is seriously flawed and will hinder achievement of the common goal of responsible waste reduction.

Before turning to our major area of interest and concern, part IV, the CMA would like to make some comment with respect to part III of the bill. We believe the government is establishing an odious precedent in granting such far-reaching, overbearing and unrestrained powers to the minister. Such an approach can only harm the community's confidence that its government is dedicated to an appropriate and meaningful consultation process. We have concerns that such discretionary powers erode certainty, one of the crucial attributes of a positive business climate.

The CMA also strongly recommends that the Ministry of the Environment not limit the options for waste disposal in Ontario. A responsible waste management system relies on all levels of the waste management hierarchy; that is, reduce, reuse, recycle, recover and dispose. The first 3Rs are obviously the preferred options, but are not necessarily inconsistent with recovery of energy from waste. The recovery component plays an important role for the residuals of 3Rs programs prior to ultimate disposal. Wishful thinking is not a sound basis for policymaking or legislation.

Turning now to part IV of the bill and the attendant regulation, first, we have serious concerns respecting the consultation process surrounding these initiatives. We are extremely concerned and disappointed that the consultation process with ministry staff was scheduled after the initiative paper was published and a mere two days before formal written comment on the proposals were due. Had the consultation process been more reasonable, it may be that the government would have avoided some of the pitfalls apparent in these proposals. Some of those pitfalls are:

1. The fact that the baseline date approach for waste audits, work plan reports and purchased package reductions is quite unrealistic for many businesses. Many simply do not have such historical data. There is no provision for new developments in market growth which may take place after a given reference year.

2. The fact that a requirement for the completion of waste audits and work plans for all manufacturing facilities with 100 employees or more by July 31, 1992, is simply unrealistic and unreasonable. This does not provide enough time to adequately evaluate the recycled content of products, packaging and materials purchased or used in production.

3. Many manufacturers assemble products that are made up of hundreds, if not thousands of individual parts. It is impossible to determine the recycled content of these individual parts and other indirect materials. Many firms procure materials from outside Canada, and suppliers are not always willing to provide relevant information. Multinational companies may not control their purchasing activities in Canada and may not be in a position to directly influence those activities.

4. Most manufacturers today have reduced their head counts to bare minimums in an effort to maintain competitiveness in a fiercely competitive global economy. They simply do not have the resources to meet the requirements of these proposals. The training requirements of the proposals are exceedingly onerous and unreasonable.

5. Many manufacturers in Ontario do not control the design of their products, and for those that do, redesign is a complex, expensive and market-sensitive undertaking. You simply cannot redesign product within the time frame suggested in these proposals.

6. The imposition of a mandatory deadline of September 30, 1992, for the establishment of source separation systems for companies located in the greater Toronto area is completely unrealistic. Many companies do not have space to establish such systems. Others do not have the money available to erect the necessary structures or purchase the necessary equipment. Further, there is a serious and significant downward pressure on the price of recyclable commodities such as glass, cardboard, newsprint, etc. The imposition of this requirement is premature, given the uncertain nature of these markets. What the proposals would achieve is the significant increase in operating costs in a context in which there is no reliable market for the waste so separated.


7. Adoption of these measures by Ontario would place Ontario businesses out of step with other jurisdictions at a time when national, indeed international standards should be developed. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment endorsed the adoption of voluntary actions through the national packaging protocol. Ontario was a party to this concept, but this legislation runs directly counter to that approach. Ontario's unilateral adoption of the subject initiatives will disadvantage Ontario businesses.

8. Many of our members have embarked on extensive and successful waste minimization programs. They have learned that in order to be successful, those programs must be flexible enough to respond to highly variable conditions. Rigidity in establishing these programs dooms them. Adoption of the subject proposals would impose such a rigidity. What is not needed is an approach based on enforcement of unrealistic, unachievable mandatory requirements. Industry should be afforded the opportunity to pursue the goal of waste minimization in the manner best suited to its particular circumstances, and not on the basis of a simple-minded approach to a vastly complex issue. We believe that so long as an organization is diligently pursuing these goals, it should be able to find its own way to do it. It should not face a brand-new, ineffective bureaucracy bent on the enforcement of ideological, not practical principles.

The CMA believes that our members are not receiving credit for the significant reductions that have already been made in the amount of waste generated. We believe that guidelines, not regulations, should be used by government in this situation. We are committed to waste reduction and only ask that regulatory roadblocks and unrealistic objectives be avoided. We urge the committee to make recommendations to the minister which would allow business the flexibility it needs to get on with the job. Thank you. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Mr Wiseman: I have asked this question to a number of deputants, and it rises out of a proposal made by WMI Waste Management of Canada Inc about the content of products and the amount of recyclable material within these products. It was suggested by them that the province and in fact the government of Canada should regulate and say that products sold in Canada should contain a certain amount of recyclable material. Given what was in the free trade deal, I wonder if you can comment on whether or not we have, as a government in Canada and Ontario, the flexibility, the right and the jurisdiction to mandate recyclable content within the products that are sold in Ontario.

Mr Irwin: My answer to that would be that I am a firm believer in the free market system. If I can step back for a moment, one of my major concerns about this legislation is the very fact that it is being legislated rather than letting the free market take its place. If I think of my own company and waste minimization, the costs of disposal have become so horrendous that it is incumbent upon us as capable business people to source-separate, to reuse and reduce. If I were to make any plea, it is to let the free market forces do their job. I do not think that regulation per se is the way to go about it.

Mr Wiseman: As a supplementary to that, my understanding is that the price of recyclable glass has dropped and that one of the reasons for that is that the free market has allowed the Labatt's company to import beer bottles from Mexico, replacing Canadian-made beer bottles and causing the closing down of two companies in Ontario that could receive the glass. Again, it seems to me that what WMI Waste Management of Canada Inc and other private sector companies interested in the recycling market are saying is that if you allow that to continue, there will not be any market at all because you will always be able to find the products cheaper somewhere else and import them cheaper. Therefore, there will be no market for recyclable products from Ontario unless you legislate and regulate.

Mr Sirrs: I think what we also have to look at is that there are other factors involved. There is no one single pressure that pushes the market one way or the other. I think we also have to look at the infrastructure for glass recycling contamination rates. I think more likely to be the major pressure here are the materials and the recyclability of those materials. If there is no infrastructure available to properly handle those materials -- by infrastructure I mean the companies that provide these services. If they are not available to do that, you are going to start to experience the downward pressures on the market. By forcing, with the stroke of a pen, the recycling process for all these materials, if that infrastructure is not there to properly handle it, is just going to compound the problem. It is not going to solve the problem.

Mrs Marland: I read your very strong statement that you should not be facing an ineffective bureaucracy bent on the enforcement of ideological, not practical principles. I respect that as a strong statement. Is your concern more that it just does not work if government has not invested money in research and development for markets and the development of where the recycled and end product goes? Only so much can be done on site at the manufacturer, depending on what it manufactures, in terms of looking after its own waste, I realize, but what is your concern? I am sure every one of you, looking at it from an ideological perspective, would want, as you have already said, to reduce the cost of waste from a practical standpoint, but I think, looking down the road to the future of your children and grandchildren, you really, ideologically also, would want to remove that major nuisance in our environment. It is a major contributor to the problems our environment faces because of the waste that mankind and womankind have grown to create. What is your concern? Is it the fact that if it is mandated without the R and D into markets, it is just not practical at the moment, that ideologically it sounds great, but why legislate if there is not an end source use?

Mr Sirrs: It was presented in the paper that we agree with the intent, the long-range goal, the concern with the impact on the environment, waste reduction, etc. What we are opposed to is the implementation of a rigid structure and, "This is how it's going to be done." In order to properly look at reducing the waste materials and reaching our end goal, we need the flexibility to custom-implement or custom-design the programs for each individual, business, industry etc. By placing a rigid structure, trying to force-fit it on to industry and society as a whole, some of the gains that could be made will not necessarily be made by the fact that we were focused and forced into the channels of the regulation versus trying to make the biggest gains.

Mrs Marland: I should ask if the government of today had any discussions with you.

The Chair: Your time is almost up.

Mrs Marland: In your discussions with government, have you ever heard how it is going to control those products that come into the province packaged the way they are from other countries in the world?

Mr Irwin: We were not afforded any consultation with government on this bill.


Mr Wiersma: Perhaps I could add to that.

The Chair: By all means.

Mr Wiersma: The CMA did meet with the ministry in January. We raised this very issue. We were told that it was under discussion and that they would be coming back to us at a later time, but so far we have not had that further communication.

Mrs Marland: That was last month, after the bill was tabled?

Mr Wiersma: That is correct. May I just add that before Mrs Marland came in we introduced this paper as an example of what the association is doing. We are doing a lot with our members in terms of waste minimization and the whole principle of waste reduction. It is the regulation of it which we feel is not necessary. It is an added cost to us in dealing with this issue, plus an added cost in the bureaucracy, and will not bring any basically different results. That is our issue.

The Chair: Mr McClelland, the deputants have taken the additional time that you normally would have had. What I would ask is that you place your question for the record.

Mr McClelland: I will pass.

The Chair: There are a number of people who wish to. Mrs Mathyssen, question for the record.

Mrs Mathyssen: You have indicated in your brief that you do not have the personnel to do these audits. Will conducting these waste audits and saving resources not help create jobs and also help you to achieve the kind of profit margin by saving that you are concerned about?

Ms Haeck: Actually this is a question for the ministry with regard to the comments these gentlemen have made. Has the ministry received their document and has it responded in any way?

The Chair: The procedure now is that the clerk will make available to you the questions that have been placed on the record, which you will not have time to respond to. If we receive your written response before February 14, which I know is not very far from now, it will form part of the public record. If it is after February 14, your response will be distributed to all members of the committee so that they can consider it during our deliberations. Thank you very much for appearing before us this morning.


The Chair: I would like to call our next presentation, from the Credit Valley Residents Association. Please come forward. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. Would you begin, please, by introducing yourself to members of the committee. We ask if you would leave a few minutes at the end for questions from committee members.

Mr Galant: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Steve Galant. I am the vice-president of the Credit Valley Residents Association. Our community is situated between Creditview and Second Line, immediately north of the Britannia landfill site. We live in a partially completed community made up of approximately 500 new homes and 1,500 taxpayers.

By way of the executive summary, we wish to express the following: our history in seeking the closure of the Britannia landfill, our frustration with the political process, our loss of faith in all levels of government and all politicians and our disgust -- I stress disgust -- with the solution put forth by Ruth Grier and her ministry to solve the waste disposal crisis within the region of Peel; namely, Bill 143.

This bill has a total disregard for our rights as citizens of Mississauga. This is demonstrated by an overruling of all legal, binding agreements. Moreover, if the bill is passed and receives royal assent, all costs to our community and a whopping tax component will be at our own expense.

The residents within our subdivision entered legal, binding agreements with the developers when we purchased our homes. Prior to purchase residents actually checked the official master and secondary plans for the subdivision at the city of Mississauga. Registered documents limited the life expectancy of Britannia to 12 years or the proposed contours.

I would like to draw your attention to a brief summary of these laws, which we would like to call exhibit 1. Exhibit 1 is "Information Extracted from Landfill Site Documents." I am certain you all have a copy by this point.

The October 19, 1977, bylaw 601-77, page 1, paragraph 2, states "and whereas section 345(77)(a) of the Municipal Act states that no land may be acquired for use as a sanitary landfill without the approval of the local municipality subject to such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon."

Schedule A to bylaw 601-77, page 2, paragraph 3b, says, "The region agrees that the area to be used for actual sanitary landfill on the site area will be restricted to a maximum of 200 acres as presented to the Environmental Assessment Board with substantial non-filled areas being utilized as buffer zones, setbacks and berms."

Page 3, paragraph 3c, of the same report states, "[The region] agrees that it will restrict the landfill operation to elevations not to exceed the contours shown on the Proctor and Redfern Ltd drawing number B75420-4, dated January 1977 (as contained in the Design Report for Central Britannia Road Landfill Site (Site 4), which has been submitted to the Environmental Assessment Board and the city of Mississauga) with a view to limiting the landfill operation to a maximum of 12 years."

The second document, dated November 15, 1977, was an Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding the application of the region of Peel to amend the official city plan. Page 2, paragraph 5, states: "This site is only to be used for 12 years at which time it is to be converted into a park. If a larger site were acquired, the period would be prolonged to the discomfort of the adjacent owners."

The OMB decision, page 2, paragraph 6, stated, "There was an extensive hearing by the board under the Environmental Protection Act who recommended approval of the application and the director has issued his provisional certificate of approval subject to the conditions endorsed thereon."

The third document, dated April 10, 1978, amendment 278 to the official plan, page 6, paragraph 5, states, "It is estimated that the subject lands will be used for sanitary landfilling for eight to 12 years."

Pages 6 to 7, paragraph 6, state, "Only the lands subject of this application were approved by the Environmental Assessment Board. In view of this, any expansion of the subject site for sanitary landfill purposes or the establishing of any additional sites for this purpose will require approval of subsequent amendments to the official plan and the zoning bylaw."

So now we have introduced the official plan and the zoning bylaw. Page 8, paragraph (g), states "The landfill site shall only remain in operation for a maximum time period of 12 years."

Appendix III, page 8, paragraph 3, states:

"In the decision on the application, the board recommended that consideration be given to limiting the operational life of the site to 12 years.

"With reference to the possibility of the site being expanded (or used for the disposal of liquid industrial waste) the board reserved comment in that these issues were beyond the scope of the application and they would require further public hearings" -- I stress "public hearings" -- "if they were to be considered."

The fourth document, dated June 1, 1978, the OMB order approving bylaw 161-78, page 2, paragraph 1, states, "In addition to those uses normally permitted in an `01' zone, the lands to which this section applies may also be used for a sanitary landfill site provided however that such use shall be permitted only for a maximum period of 12 years from the date this section comes into force."

June 23, 1977, Environmental Assessment Board Report on Public Hearing, page 35, states, "The selection of a site which would last nine to 12 years would give sufficient time for the overall solid waste management plan for the region to develop and for resource recovery technology to be advanced; hence, the 200-acre size which forms part of the application."

Page 57 of the same report states, "The board, therefore, recommends that consideration be given to limiting the operational life of this site to 12 years."

The same document states, "With reference to the possibility of site 4 being expanded, at some future date, to include the property immediately to the west of the site, and, also, the possibility of site 4 being used for the disposal of liquid industrial wastes, the board reserved comment on these two issues in that they are beyond the scope of the present application, and would have to be made the subject of further public hearings if they were to be considered."

Document 6, March 5, 1990, amendment 162 to the official plan, page 4, paragraph 2, bylaw 191-90, states: "On the basis of a solid waste management study commissioned by the region of Peel, the subject lands were approved for use as a sanitary landfill site by the Ontario Municipal Board on November 15, 1977. On April 10, 1978, city council enacted the necessary official plan amendment (number 278) and bylaw 161-78, which zoned the lands `01-Section 855,' permitting the use of the lands for landfill purposes for a maximum period of 12 years. The bylaw was approved by the OMB on May 31, 1978.... Operations should continue until such time that the contours approved in an October 11, 1977, agreement between the city and the region of Peel are reached."

March 26, 1990, bylaw 192-90, page 4: "01-Section 855 (existing) permits a sanitary landfill site on the subject lands for a maximum period of 12 years from the date of the bylaw coming into force (May 31, 1978)."


Concrete and binding: this is what the legal decision-making process is all about. Twelve years is literally cast in stone by all levels of government. These laws, ladies and gentlemen, are the conditions on which we as residents, in good faith purchased our properties. If we now in turn take this piece of paper and turn it around, this is in actual fact what we have: We have these laws superseded and I think this is in effect what Bill 143 does.

When Ruth Grier decided to take over the site selection process in November 1990, we expected cooperation between the Ministry of the Environment and the region of Peel. When we petitioned with 350 signatures from area residents in April last year, prior to this Bill 143, in opposition to any expansion of the Britannia landfill, we expected to hear a response. This did not happen. According to Bill 143, this is legitimate.

Through numerous telephone conversations, we discovered that Senes Consultants and the Elora group were appointed by the Interim Waste Authority to find the next potential landfill site within the region of Peel. The Elora group would be involved in the public consultation process for the long-term site and not for the immediate situation at the Britannia landfill, so we had no public hearing process set up for us at that point in time. That was disappointing.

We invited the minister to a community ratepayers' meeting in mid-May 1991 in hopes that we would receive answers. The minister was unable to attend.

We submitted a second petition, with approximately 950 signatures, to the Environment minister's office. This was in the form of a petition, and the cover letter is available as exhibit 2: "Subject: Britannia Landfill Expansion." What this cover letter did was give a brief history of the occurrences and the activities up to that date. It also showed that we had frustration at that point in time as well.

We held a public demonstration at the landfill site in October. This demonstration was an attempt to convey to the minister that we were not satisfied with the lack of response to our letters and petitions and the level of cooperation between the minister's office and the region of Peel.

The response to our letter is identified as exhibit 3, a letter that was issued to us by Mr Jim Merritt, regional director, on November 26, 1991. In the second paragraph he states that "experience with the design and construction of the site indicates the vertical expansion of Britannia landfill site is technically and environmentally acceptable." We find this quite interesting. Where did this information come from? Why are we in the region of Peel paying for studies if the expansion is both "technically and environmentally acceptable"?

In accordance with the laws stated earlier, technically we have a 12-year site. Environmentally speaking, we must get a hearing. Was it not the minister's policy prior to being elected not to expand any landfill site without full environmental hearings? Is it the government's policy to hold public hearings after the decision has already been made?

In reality, Bill 143 is about the people surrounding the Britannia and Keele Valley sites. If we had an alternative landfill location, Bill 143, this bill here, would not exist today. This bill is about total and complete control. It denies responsibility; it denies accountability. This legislation is directed at us and we would pick up the tab.

With the disregard for our rights as citizens and all legal obligations involved, it becomes obvious why the minister, Ruth Grier, lacks the cooperation and the support needed to reach mutual, fair and binding agreements with the region of Peel. If the minister would have communicated and cooperated with the citizens at large a year ago, perhaps she could have avoided Bill 143, and Britannia might not be an issue here today. Now, we as residents and taxpayers must pay the unfair price for the bill and the delays related to finding a long-term facility.

This bill is a relatively poor solution to a long-term problem. If the minister had spent as much time finding alternative site locations and identifying an efficient and timely evaluation process, we would not be wasting our time and taxpayers' money here today.

Mr McClelland: I do not know what more I can add, other than to summarize what you have said. You have seven different documents. You specify 14 different undertakings or promises made. You have a minister who came into your community and promised there would be no expansion without a full environmental assessment. You have a Premier, who was then Leader of the Opposition, who came in and made the same promise, and now you cannot even get any assurances from the minister that there will only be one lift.

What she is saying to you is: "Trust me now. It's okay if I override the OMB. It's okay if I override the environmental assessment process. It's okay if I override binding agreements that you entered into in good faith when you as residents made perhaps the biggest purchase you will make. It's okay that my decision is going to impede the completion of the community, including the community centre. It is putting thousands of people out of work right now in terms of the construction projects that are on hold. That's okay. But trust me, because I know what is best. And by the way, when I tell you I know what is best, you are paying the tab." That is what the minister is saying to you.

I do not know how I can say it any better than you have already said it. That is basically what you have been trying to tell us. How do you feel, as people who were promised by a government -- I am not allowed to use words that are unparliamentary. But you had two people who are now leaders, front bench leaders -- one is the Premier, the other is a trusted minister who sits beside the Premier -- who made promises to you and to the people all across this province. When they were making them to you they made them to everyone. How do you feel about that?

Mr Galant: Well, it is quite simple: Disappointed and frustrated, and we feel this is not an NDP government. This is in fact a dictatorship. If they are going to tell us what our rights as citizens are within our own city and later just turn around and shake their heads and go, "What we promised you before the election is not actually the case," there is nothing more to say.

Mrs Marland: Madam Chairman, I am very curious about a process that is going on in this committee. I do not know whether it is minister's staff or ministry staff who come up and write the questions for the government members. Surely to goodness these government members, who have been in this House now for 18 months, know enough about this issue that they can compose and digest and present their own questions. I am floored to see what is going on.

The Chair: This is the time when you have the opportunity to ask questions of the deputant or of the parliamentary assistant. I would ask that you do that in order that we maintain order at this committee and also that we can use the time to hear from the public.

Mrs Marland: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will do that.

I would like to know if you yet have a response to your six-point presentation, which you have now given the minister twice, that I know of, in a public forum.

Mr Galant: We have a meeting set up with the minister, February 27 at 7:30 pm, where further discussions will take place. We are not optimistic at this point in time, but at least we are willing to listen.

Mrs Mathyssen: Mrs Marland effectively covered my question regarding the fact that the minister will meet with the ratepayers at the end of February to discuss this.

Mrs Marland: Oh, whoopee. That's wonderful.

The Chair: Order, please. I must ask for order in the committee. The deputants, if there is a final summation?

Mrs Marland: What about the word "betrayal"?


Mr Galant: That is definitely the way we feel. We do feel betrayed, not only by the city, not only by the region, but also by the Environment minister. First of all, in November 1990 she decided to take over the process herself. We may be repeating ourselves, but three months later our best candidate, namely site 6B, was thrown right out the window. Nine months later we are told that she has no choice; she is taking the power of emergency upon herself. She is saying: "I'm declaring an emergency on my behalf because I don't have an answer for you people out there. I'm sorry, but this is the next step in the process."

The Chair: I would like to thank you very much for appearing before the committee today. If there is any additional information you would like to share with us over the course of our deliberations, please feel free to communicate with us in writing. The committee thanks you very much for coming forward today.


The Chair: I would like to call next the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association. Please come forward. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We ask if you would leave some time for questions from committee members. Would you begin by introducing your delegation. Start your presentation now.

Mr Rose: Good morning. My name is Barry Rose and I represent the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association this morning, which I will hereafter refer to as the CCPA. Accompanying me is Dr Harold Quinn, a consultant with the CCPA.

The CCPA appreciates the opportunity to appear before the standing committee to discuss some concerns it has regarding certain aspects of Bill 143. In particular, our concerns relate to part IV of the bill regarding some of the proposed amendments to the Ontario Environmental Protection Act and to the waste management regulation being proposed under the amended act. The proposed regulation has been outlined in a discussion paper from the waste reduction office of the Ministry of the Environment entitled Initiatives Paper No 1. Our concerns regarding the initiatives paper have been expressed in writing to the waste reduction office; however, highlighting some of those concerns will constitute part of our presentation to you today.

To give you an appropriate perspective for consideration of our concerns, I will provide some background regarding the CCPA. It is a national association of 73 companies engaged in the manufacture, distribution and sale of chemical and allied products. In 1990, sales of this industry approached $10 billion and it employed approximately 26,000 Canadians. About 60% of the business is Ontario-based and about one third of the sales from this industry are to the export market. At the same time, about one third of the chemical sales in Canada are based on imports.

Several years ago the members of the CCPA assumed a self-imposed commitment to protection of the public and of the environment. That commitment, called Responsible Care, covers all aspects of the development, manufacture, distribution and waste management associated with the production, marketing and use of their products. Endorsement of that commitment is today a requirement of membership in the association. The specific expectations of the commitment are defined by six codes of practice, one of which addresses the responsible management of waste. That code states that "CCPA advocates waste reduction at source, followed by recycling, recovery or reuse, as preferred options to disposal."

This is particularly relevant to discussion of our concerns about Bill 143 and regulations that may arise after amendment of the Environmental Protection Act. Responsible Care is a voluntary, as opposed to a regulation-driven, program, designed to ensure a cost-effective approach to protection of the public and the environment. Regulations which are not well conceived and are difficult to administer may not be as effective, from the standpoint of either cost or protection provided, as good voluntary programs could be. In economic times such as we are now experiencing and may indeed encounter for some time to come, it is imperative that the government take advantage of the demonstrated will of industry to be environmentally responsible and give serious consideration to the encouragement of such voluntary programs. Failure to do so could impede the development of a highly productive industry, with no resultant improvement in the health of our environment.

I would now like to make some specific comments relating to part IV of Bill 143, particularly section 28, which amends section 74 of the act. This amendment extends the scope of the studies the minister may undertake to assess the need for more control of packaging, containers, disposable products and other products that pose waste management problems. The CCPA is most supportive of this amendment in that it is important that appropriate studies be conducted to assist identification of those waste management situations which have opportunities for improvement. Such studies should involve industry and can provide a stimulus for the development of voluntary programs involving a broad industrial spectrum. An example of an initiative currently under way that is reflective of that approach is the national packaging protocol. While such studies may result in new regulations, it should not be a foregone conclusion that they will.

Looking at section 29, which amends section 77 of the act: Section 77, as it stands, prohibits the use or sale for use in Ontario of packaging and packaging materials contrary to the act or regulations.

The amendment extends that prohibition to disposable products and other products deemed to represent a waste management problem. Although it possibly is inferred, it does not specify that this prohibition is for Ontario. While it is accepted that this act and its regulations would not apply beyond Ontario's borders, the phraseology of the amendment suggests it could impact upon the sale in other jurisdictions of designated products made in Ontario. CCPA recommends that it be made obvious that the intent is only to impact upon those products that have been demonstrated to represent waste management problems in Ontario.

CCPA is also concerned that without a definition of what is meant by "waste management problems," this amendment leaves the way open for unilateral identification, by the ministry, of products deemed to present such a problem.

Section 33 of Bill 143 addresses numerous amendments to section 136 of the act. While it is necessary that many of these amendments be made to allow the ministry to proceed to write waste reduction and packaging reduction regulations, CCPA is concerned that they will allow such arbitrary actions as the banning of disposable products or those deemed to pose a waste management problem. This is dealt with in subsection 33(12). Also in subsections 33(3) to 33(8), in the amendment of clause 136(6)(a) to subclause 136(6)(e)(ii), to replace the word "beverage" with the word "product" provides the opportunity for sweeping regulation of products in the marketplace.

To impose the same regulatory requirements on all packaged products that packaged beverages experience today may not be necessary and has the potential to become both onerous and unmanageable. CCPA recommends that there be reconsideration of the amendments proposed for these sections of the act. Acceptable amendments would be more restrictive than those provided by simple substitution of the word "product" for the word "beverage," and should at least define the types of waste management problem that would prompt such rigorous control.

Finally, some comments regarding Initiatives Paper No 1: It appears this is a paper upon which will be based a waste reduction regulation. As mentioned earlier, the CCPA has responded in writing to the waste reduction office regarding its concerns with some of the proposals set out in the paper. We shall now highlight for your benefit some of the comments in that document.

We recognize that the ministry is attempting to address a waste management situation that has, in some parts of the province, reached crisis proportions, thus demonstrating the need for long-range planning by both provincial and municipal governments. The solution to this must of necessity be a long-term one. The CCPA agrees with the need for waste reduction programs, but is not convinced that they should be required by regulation. There are in place today many waste reduction programs that are totally voluntary and very successful. The high cost of waste disposal itself provides a stimulus for their development. Within the context of the Responsible Care commitment, member companies of the CCPA are expected to have waste reduction programs. The CCPA has under development an annual survey for monitoring the progress of waste reduction across its membership.

Consequently we suggest that voluntary programs that meet some minimum design criteria should be acceptable to the ministry. Those, coupled with an annual report providing only information required to measure progress towards the defined waste reduction target, can be programs that are both successful and cost-effective. The ministry must be very sensitive to the demands which proposed programs will put on its own resources and those of the sectors which it proposes to regulate. For sectors of industry or business which are not inclined to develop voluntary programs, regulations may be required.

The proposed regulations are designed to address an Ontario problem and to impact upon Ontario industry and business. However, the problem is not peculiar to Ontario, nor are the affected industrial and business sectors. Unless other provinces launch similar initiatives, the Ontario-based sectors will be at a competitive disadvantage versus their counterparts. The CCPA suggests that the timing of this program is appropriate for the Ontario ministry to undertake an initiative with other provinces, presumably through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, to negotiate a harmonization of waste reduction programs and requirements. This is more of an imperative for regulated programs than it would be for voluntary ones.


The reduction of packaging waste is a major focus of this program, that focus being almost exclusively on the packaging introduced to the marketplace by four industrial sectors, of which the chemical industry is one. In this document we comment on some specific concerns which we have and wish to draw to your attention two of them:

1. The packaging used by the chemical and chemical producers must meet defined regulatory standards to assure protection of the public. Change of packaging specifications cannot be arbitrarily accomplished.

2. Much of the packaging used by Ontario industry is exported; much of the packaging disposed of by Ontario industry is imported. The proposed program offers no credit for lean export packaging, nor does it appear to address management of imported waste.

Source separation programs are also a component of this regulatory initiative. Many companies already have programs in place. One of the deterrents, however, for some potentially recyclable materials has been the lack of a viable market for them. There is a valid concern that great stockpiles of these materials will arise and that without emphasis on development of the market infrastructure, they will ultimately become landfill, but now very expensive landfill. It is the suggestion of the CCPA that the ministry take a greater initiative than it has to date to assist the development of markets for recyclables.

These then are some of the concerns regarding the proposed amendments, through Bill 143, to the Ontario Environmental Protection Act and regarding regulations that are proposed upon amendment of the act. CCPA again expresses appreciation for this opportunity to meet with you and is prepared to engage in in-depth consultation with the Ministry of the Environment on these issues.

Mr Wiseman: I am interested in a couple of the comments you made concerning packaging and concerning importing of packaging and exporting of product, the relationship that has to the marketplace and what the demand in the marketplace is doing and the regulations of various jurisdictions.

For example, we know that California is putting into place very rigid environmental standards for packaging, for air quality, for the sale of automobiles, for a whole host of things, because its environment has pushed it to that point. We know that in the northeastern United States they are having the same kinds of landfill problems that we are here. Given all those factors, is it not reasonable to assume or to expect that the people who use most of the packaging and are doing the research on the packaging will not only take a look at the national protocol as a standard, but where possible will surpass those standards in order to get the most efficient packaging at the least cost? That would give them a competitive advantage in any market in North America, because they could then market it in terms of it being cost-efficient as well as environmentally sound.

Mr Rose: I think that with the Responsible Care program that the chemical producers are supporting, these kinds of activities are now taking place. It does make sense for our members to reduce the packaging they use and to look at more cost-effective packaging coming into the country. I think that is being accomplished entirely on a voluntary basis right now. It is quite successfully being accomplished.

Mr Wiseman: Do you think we should do as some of the jurisdictions in the United States are doing, regulate the recyclable content of packaging that will be on the shelves in this country?

Mr Rose: Again, I think for our industry that is far more efficiently accomplished on a voluntary basis, given that although we are 73 chemical companies, each one produces a different product and has different restraints on how it approach the problem. It is very difficult to regulate such a diverse industry. However, on a voluntary basis with the intent that is there under the Responsible Care program, I think we are accomplishing the kinds of ends that regulation would really get in the way of.

Mr Wiseman: Are most of your companies going to surpass the national protocol standards?

Mr Rose: Their intent is to work in that direction.

Mr Wiseman: Then that would give them an advantage in markets like California that will regulate and say you must reach these certain standards. After all, cars in California are going to have very strict emission standards by the year 2003. That means the entire North American car market is going to have to come up and meet those clean air standards if it wants to sell cars in California, a 20-million-person or 23-million-person market. What I am trying to get at here is that it would make a whole lot of sense for the international competitiveness of our companies to meet and surpass any standards that will be set anywhere in the market area they supply the product to.

Mr Rose: I certainly agree that it would just make good marketing sense.

Mr Sola: I would like to carry on the same line of questioning but from a different angle. What is the effect on your industry when Ontario is out of sync or out of step with the rest of the country as far as the standards are concerned? You mentioned that there will be no management of the packaging coming into the province but that there will be strict controls on the packaging you produce here. What does that do for your industry? What does that do for the investment potential of your industry in this province?

Mr Rose: Certainly that will put an additional burden on the companies operating in this jurisdiction, and that extra burden will tend to make them non-competitive with other jurisdictions that are not faced with those kinds of burdens. One of the points we made in the paper is that we are very supportive of harmonization of the efforts. Under the Green Plan there is a plan to develop a waste inventory. We have the national packaging protocol, which is in the process of multistakeholder consultation, and we have the waste reduction plan for Ontario. We support the intent of them and we think we have an opportunity at this point to harmonize these various programs and do them better here in Ontario than maybe in other jurisdictions and turn this into an advantage rather than a disadvantage. We are very supportive of that harmonization with Canada and the other provinces. We feel that is necessary.

Mr Sola: In other words, you are not against the direction this is going in but you are against impediments being placed upon the industry in Ontario which are not placed upon the industry in other provinces?

Mr Rose: We would prefer to get there with a minimum of administrative burdens and spend our dollars on actions that are cost-effective in achieving the goals that have been set out. We certainly agree with the goals.

Mrs Marland: It is true that your industry presently is subjected to instantaneous environmental audits without notice in any case, is it not, in terms of your overall operation?

Mr Rose: I have not experienced that; our company has not experienced that but certainly we work very closely with the Ministry of the Environment in many areas.

Mrs Marland: But are not the existing regulations such that the ministry has the power to do an environmental audit on your operation, where it can come in and look at your books and records without any warning?

Mr Rose: They have the opportunity to come into our plants to deal with any suspected infraction of the Environmental Protection Act, yes.

Mrs Marland: Without prior warning?

Mr Rose: Yes.

Mrs Marland: In other words, the industry is very closely regulated at the moment in terms of the production of chemicals?

Mr Rose: We are very closely regulated, yes.

Mrs Marland: Approximately what percentage of your product is exported out of Ontario? Just a ballpark figure.

Mr Rose: I can only speak for my particular company. On the chemicals side of my particular company, probably about 50%.

The Chair: Thank you for your presentation before the committee today. We appreciate your appearance. If there is additional information over the course of our hearings, please feel free to communicate with us in writing.



The Chair: I would like to call next the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association. Welcome to the standing committee on social development. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We ask if you would leave some time for questions. Please begin now.

Mr Wilding: My name is Cyril Wilding and I am vice-president of the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the standing committee on social development as you consider Bill 143.

I would like to start by describing the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, an Ontario-based association whose members I am privileged to represent today. CCTFA membership is comprised of over 85 companies manufacturing and distributing cosmetics, toiletries and fragrances, and 125 associate companies supplying materials and services to the industry. Direct employment is approximately 8,000 persons, and of course several times this number when you consider the number of persons employed in retail stores and salespersons who sell such well-known brands as Avon and Mary Kay Cosmetics on a direct basis to consumers. Ontario is the head office location for more than 65% of the association's membership and is the key manufacturing area for Canada.

CCTFA members are committed to reducing solid waste and its impact on the environment. Just to cite a few examples, plastic and glass containers have been reduced in their thickness; toothpaste is currently being marketed without cartons; antiperspirants and deodorants are being sold without outer containers; dividers have been removed from shippers, and many other activities are taking place. CCTFA actively participated in the development of the national packaging protocol and is fully supportive of its objectives and timetables.

CCTFA has a code of environmental principles which was published in 1991 in a government of Canada publication titled An Overview of Environmental Policy in Canada. A copy is attached for the committee's review. These activities and initiatives being carried out by the member companies of CCTFA on a voluntary basis should, I believe, indicate to the Ontario government that industry shares in the need for reduction of solid waste.

The cosmetic industry is highly regulated by federal acts and their regulations, such as the Food and Drugs Act. Therefore, we must be cautious in how packaging is used, as we have a responsibility to provide safe products to our consumers and packaging plays an important role in this regard.

I would like now to go to specific concerns regarding Bill 143. There are several clauses changed or added in part IV under the title "Litter, Packaging Containers, Disposable Products and Products that Pose Waste Management Problems," that we do not understand the rationale or the necessity of.

Changes to section 136 which allow for "regulating or prohibiting the sale and use of disposable products...that pose waste management problems" are a cause of major concern. The wording in the proposed legislation would allow the minister to selectively ban any product sold in Ontario, since virtually all products pose some kind of waste management challenge. This undefined and unsubstantiated proposal could be seen as a dark and ominous cloud constantly hanging over the heads of Ontario's manufacturing industry and its employees.

Legislation under section 136 would allow for regulations defining standard refillable, returnable and non-refillable in respect of containers and returnable or non-returnable in respect of packaging. The legislation further allows for the regulation of the stocking, display, sale, advertising or offering for sale of any product. We do not understand the intent or the rationale behind the changes in the legislation. Without clear definition of how these provisions might be used and without a commitment to carry out advance consultation, we are very wary of the impact of the proposed bill.

Bill 143 creates a further concern related to "requiring or authorizing the placement of a notice or mark" on the product "to indicate such matters of waste management or environmental concern as are specified in the regulation." These proposals could impede trade, and without specifics, what does it really mean? There are certainly countless requirements for labelling identifying marks on packaging. The addition of more marks in whatever form may confuse rather than inform.

The last, and perhaps of greatest concern to industry, are the proposed regulations under the bill that would require packaging audits and work plans. While we acknowledge their value in helping to understand and develop action plans for waste reduction, we do not see the necessity for regulation by the government at this time.

CCTFA would like this committee to consider carefully the following recommendations:

1. Delete clause 136(6)(l), which would regulate and prohibit the sale or use of disposable products that pose waste management problems. The impact on investment and employment prospects must be taken into account if such actions were to be initiated by government.

2. Any legislation should consider how a level playing field is to be maintained before regulations are enacted. Ontario must maintain a vigilant posture if it is to remain the heartland of Canada.

3. The proposed work plan and audits be carried out under the national packaging protocol and no regulation be adopted until it is proven industry has failed in its voluntary approach.

4. Make public the number of additional persons to be hired by the government and the cost of the proposed programs under the amendments to the Environmental Protection Act.

5. The government clearly set out how it intends to monitor and act upon the work plans and audits which would be submitted by the many thousands of businesses in Ontario.

We thank you for your attentiveness during this presentation.

Mr McClelland: I appreciate your recommendations and I wish you good luck on number four. I might add that we asked two weeks ago if they could even tell us how many staff they brought in additional to the minister's and the parliamentary assistant's staff. It has taken two weeks and they cannot walk around the office and count up the number of staff they have there presently, so I wish you luck on that.

One of our great concerns has been what you allude to in recommendation 2. There are mixed messages, I think, clearly being sent here. The government on the one hand says: "We want to cooperate. Business is welcome." Those in the private waste management industry have said much the same thing. We do not know where we are at. I think there is a sense that people -- we hope government will begin to understand that business needs to have some sort of certainty within which it can operate -- that shareholders require that certainty, that investment requires that certainty.

I wonder if you might expand a little bit in terms of the competitive nature of your business and your industry and the requirement that you have to have certainty to operate competitively, not only within this country but indeed internationally.

Mr Wilding: I think the major thing of concern to us is that in today's marketplace you do not have to produce your goods in any one area. You have freedom to literally move around the world, wherever you produce. You are seeing a great deal of consolidation. In our industry some of the companies are turning out to be one-product plants. One particular industry in Quebec that is an international company that produced all its products in Canada has now gone down to producing one selected group of its products in Canada, and the others are produced in other areas.

Our type of products are easy to move around. There is not a great deal of weight. There is not a great deal of capital needed to set up a plant anywhere. Your plant can be a shell. Your machinery will be more costly, and certainly training the personnel. If Ontario is not careful -- and we have already seen this industry being moved out of the country -- it could lose the industry it has quite easily. We have companies which have gone to the United States and are shipping back into Canada. Over the last years, our industry has lost at least 15% of its personnel by companies moving out of the country.

Mr McClelland: What would that number reflect, that 15%, sir?

Mr Wilding: That would be about 2,000 or 3,000. We are sure that if you keep adding regulation on top of regulation -- this is not a single incidence -- and add them all together, why would you come to Ontario with your plant when you can go to other provinces, get concessions and not be overruled all the time?

Mr McClelland: You are not suggesting that you would not want to be environmentally responsible; you are saying that within the terms of the national protocol and response to market demands, what the consumers are demanding, you will meet that, and that you would like to be able to do that.


Mr Wilding: Consumers, at the end of the day, will somehow play a more important role, perhaps, than what we consider at this time. You are starting to see people go to the shelves looking for products that are "environmentally friendly," to use the wording.

Mr McClelland: I suppose Abraham Lincoln said it many years ago, that governments ought not to be doing what the people are doing themselves, and perhaps doing it better than governments. I am not sure that has changed in 200 years.

Ms Haeck: Thank you, sir, for your presentation. You have raised some interesting points. I have a couple of questions. You are part and parcel of the discussions around the national packaging protocol.

Mr Wilding: Correct.

Ms Haeck: The industry is definitely involved; am I correct?

Mr Wilding: Yes.

Ms Haeck: Has it been discussed at that level about making sure -- sort of the best guideline, and Ontario, I guess, is definitely one of the larger industrial bases -- that protocol, those regulations, will be the standard set throughout the country?

Mr Wilding: Yes, it has.

Ms Haeck: So that in fact within Canada there will be a level playing field.

Mr Wilding: We hope so, at the end of the day, if every province does not go off on its own.

Ms Haeck: Okay, but they are all part and parcel. There is an ongoing discussion and debate and trying to achieve some sort of norm.

Mr Wilding: Yes.

Ms Haeck: I am correct in that, then. Okay.

In looking at the local drugstore and trying to make a decision about what to buy, there is quite a range of products from different countries available on the cosmetic counters. I understand that in places like Germany there is in fact a very strict packaging protocol coming into place called the green dot system. You allude to it I think on page 5, that possibly you may be seeing this bill implementing a green dot system. Is that your fear as you are expressing it in your first full paragraph on page 5?

Mr Wilding: It is our fear that the way the bill reads at this particular time, there is no indication the government could not take things off the market that somebody thought was wrong.

Ms Haeck: It is strictly as far as packaging is concerned; we are not talking about chemical content.

Mr Wilding: Not chemicals, no.

Ms Haeck: But is the fact that there is this commitment to the national packaging protocol and working with the industry -- have you been given any sense in those discussions that this is about to happen?

Mr Wilding: I am not sure that I am clear on your question.

Ms Haeck: In your discussions with the other members of the packaging protocol committee and ministry officials, and obviously across various governments in the country, do you see or get a sense that there is a move towards establishing a green dot system?

Mr Wilding: There is somewhat of a green dot system, I suppose, if you were to look at the Ecologo Program, the environmental choice program. That is somewhat similar to some of the programs happening in Europe. But no, we do not see and we wish not to see a program implemented by governments into the marketplace.

Ms Haeck: Mr Wiseman had sort of raised with the previous presenters the issue about competitiveness and the various jurisdictions. I have mentioned Germany, but obviously there is this wider North American market that your industry is part of, jurisdictions like California, and I know that the eastern United States is very seriously getting involved with changing environmental regulations. Are you having similar discussions with those jurisdictions and are you trying to comply with their regulations?

Mr Wilding: From what we have been monitoring, we have not seen too much in the area of packaging in California. What our industry has been more concerned with is the NOx volatile organic compounds situation, which is the air quality. We have been monitoring that closely and Canada is in fact following some of the things that are happening in the USA. You should remember that we are a country that really, in our industry, does not do a lot of innovation. The industry is controlled from outside Canada.

Ms Haeck: We recognize that.

Mr Wilding: Therefore, what happens in some of those jurisdictions will happen here automatically. For instance, there is a call for a reduction in VOCs in hairsprays in California and in some other states in the United States. As things are reformulated south of the border, they will automatically come north, so you will get some benefit from them.

Mrs Marland: It is interesting, the example you just gave, that because something is reformed south of the border we will receive the benefit. Would it not be wonderful if it worked in the other direction, that we could be leaders in reduced packaging and have an influence on their market? But I recognize the numbers do not warrant that. I am just wondering if you see down the road that there would be two choices for your industry. Either we have to stay at the same level of merchandising -- which is what packaging is all about, I would suggest -- with the USA and the international market, or we just end up not producing here, having the job loss, and everything is imported. Then, maybe if the government wants to become totally autocratic, they stop the importation of your products made outside Canada. Is that the end run, that we would become so insular, because that is the only way we can control it?

Mr Wilding: There is that possibility. I think that Canada -- Ontario being the major portion of it -- has to be very cautious in all matters of legislation and regulation. The industry is designed to make a profit for the stockholders. Stockholders are common people who hopefully invest in companies. It is a complete circle. When you take that initiative away from manufacturers to be able to produce profits, you lose shareholders and you lose your industry. Whatever we do in this country has, I believe, a global impact today, or whatever happens globally has an impact on Canada. The days of isolation are gone, but we would be led to isolation if we do not watch some of the bills that we are putting through.

The Chair: Thank you very much for participation before the committee today. I very much appreciate your sharing your presentation with us. If there is any additional information, please feel free to communicate with us in writing.

Mr McClelland: Madam Chair, I respectfully request a five-minute recess.

The Chair: As we have five minutes until our next presentation, we will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed at 1117.



The Chair: Come forward. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We would appreciate it if you would leave a few minutes for questions. Please begin now.

Mr Mullinder: I am John Mullinder, executive director of the Paper and Paperboard Packaging Environmental Council. We are a national umbrella group for producers and converters of paper-based packaging.

The packaging mills produce rolls and sheets which are then sold to converters to be made into containers and cases, bags, boxes and cartons. Industrial waste from this process is fed back to the recycling mills for repulping and converting into new recycled packaging. This industrial recycling has been going on for decades so that today our membership can claim an average recycled content for the domestic market of 46%. That is way higher than any other major packaging material types.

The principle items we are talking about are:

1. Containerboard: essentially industrial containers to ship product. Householders know it as the container your fridge or VCR comes in.

2. Boxboard: a lighter-weight carton commonly seen in the home in the form of cereal and detergent boxes.

3. Kraft paper packaging: your grocery bag or industrial sack.

PPEC represents 116 member companies across Canada with packaging sales in the $2.7 billion range. Some 15,000 people are employed directly in the industry. Many thousands more rely on the industry's continuing existence, such as suppliers of machinery, chemicals, inks, coatings, adhesives and so on, not to mention its clients, principally food and beverage companies, for getting their product to the market.

PPEC is just over one year old. It is recognized by the federal government and is represented on the National Packaging Task Force. It is represented on the policy committee of the Recycling Council of Ontario and chairs the boxboard task group, a subcommittee of Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc, on OMMRI.

In the 12 or so months of PPEC's existence, it has undertaken experimental trials to recycle boxboard collected from households in a pilot project in southern Ontario. It has instigated the development of new glue and wax formulations to remove technical obstacles to recyclability. We are leading the world in this area. It has helped to develop new markets for post-household boxboards. Again, we are the first in the world to put household boxboard back into new boxboard. We have launched two compost projects, both world firsts, on boxboard and waxed corrugated containers. We have begun to assemble the best industry statistics available. We staged a two-day multistakeholder meeting of government and environmental groups to focus on the key issues and to recommend solutions to them. We have set up a committee to look at amending a regulation that requires Canadian packages to use more fibre than their American counterparts. We have established another task group to investigate the feasibility of converting paperboard waste into heating oil or an alternative motor fuel, ethanol, which carries the federal government's EcoLogo.

This is an organization, then, that is very proactive, open and determined to find practical solutions to the challenge of municipal solid waste.

You would think that an organization such as this, representing a significant portion of Ontario industry and its municipal solid waste, and a member of the National Packaging Task Force, would be consulted on Bill 143. Sadly, it was not. The bill was introduced just as the waste reduction office's Initiative Paper No 1 was at last becoming available, and that too had a very short consultation period.

There are very broad powers in this bill. Subsection 15(1) says "The minister may establish policies for the purposes of" operating waste disposal sites; no provision there for public consultation.

What are the products in sections 29 and 30 that pose "waste management problems"? Who decides what is a waste management problem? Is there any public input?

You could drive a bulldozer through subsection 33(9). This is the clause that requires or authorizes the placement of a notice or mark on products, containers or packaging to indicate "such matters of waste management or environmental concern as are specified in the regulation."

Is this an attempt by Ontario to bring Germany's controversial green dot system in by the back door, where all packaging is thrown back to the food manufacturer or the supplier? Does Ontario see itself as the Germany of North America? There has been absolutely no consultation on this matter, no discussion of the pros and cons, and no consideration that we are aware of given to the trade implications of such a measure on other provinces or on our competitors south of the border. It may contravene the free trade agreement and GATT. Which leads to our second point.

There is no indication of the ministry having done a cost-benefit analysis of the impact these regulations will have on the viability and competitiveness of existing business. If one has been done, then why on earth not make it public and let's discuss it. We need to know these things. We need to know the possible impact regulations might have on our operations.

Our industry is in dire straits at the moment. Just about every major packaging mill in the country is up for sale. We have very real concerns that excessive bureaucratic red tape will strangle businesses already on the ropes, that layoffs and closures will continue and that the industry's recycling capacity, or diversion from landfill, will be greatly diminished as a result. The impact of layoffs and closures flows to suppliers of inks, waxes, coatings, and adhesives. If a cost-benefit analysis has been done -- and it should have been -- what is the problem with making it public? Let's see it.

PPEC is greatly concerned about legislation which creates an even more lopsided playing field. We appreciate that Ontario's area of jurisdiction is the province of Ontario. The reality is, however, that paper fibre travels across provincial and national boundaries every day, in all directions.

The bill makes no allowance for the significant amount of imported product which ends up in Ontario's solid waste stream. PPEC figures indicate raw material imports of paper-based packaging amount to 20% overall and this does not include pre-packaged goods coming into the country. The Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada estimates that these represent a further 30% to 35% of the Canadian market. Closer to home, how is Ontario possibly going to control imports from, say, Quebec?

To not target importers or their distributors, while at the same time asking Ontario companies to add time, resources and capital to their waste reduction efforts, is to put Ontario businesses at further economic risk at a time when their very survival is at stake.

The council's fourth area of concern relates to the appearance that Ontario is jumping the gun on legislation and thereby subverting the national packaging protocol or napp. The protocol is a nationwide voluntary agreement to try to achieve milestone targets in solid waste reduction. Progress towards these voluntary initiatives is to be monitored and only if the targets are not met is legislation to be introduced.

Ontario's legislation is thus premature, since Napp's first target date is December 1992. Not only that, it raises the spectre of each province going its own way, a nightmare for industry and, we suspect, for interprovincial trade. We want packaging policies to be consistent nationally and that is why we support Napp.

The environmental impact of packaging extends beyond the effect of its disposal. Quantity of waste is not the only issue. The first step, according to Napp's policy 1, is to establish environmental profiles, life-cycle analyses. Then, based on these profiles, "industry will prepare action plans and schedules to minimize environmental impacts and manage packaging through source reduction, reuse and recycling approaches." The chronology is very clear: establish the profiles, then prepare action plans.

In conclusion, we feel the ministry put the cart before the horse, that there was a serious lack of consultation before this bill was introduced and that its very broad powers have been insufficiently defined and thought through. There is no indication of the ministry having done a cost-benefit analysis of the impact these regulations will have on the viability and competitiveness of existing Ontario businesses. If it has, let's see it.

We are greatly concerned about regulations that put Ontario businesses at a disadvantage vis-à-vis importers, again, counter to a Napp policy. We feel the Ontario approach, while well intentioned in some respects, is subverting the Napp process of progress on a nationwide, consistent basis.


Mr Wiseman: My question has to do with a comment you make on page 3 of your brief that says, "It may contravene the FTA and GATT." This comment implies that we have negotiated away our environmental sovereignty and that we do not have the control and right to perhaps implement environmentally sound policies if other jurisdictions feel that is unacceptable. I am just wondering why it is then and how you would rationalize the German green dot system and whether that violates GATT, whether the California clean air standards violate the FTA and how Massachusetts can institute a graduated tax on packaging if you are suggesting that some of these violate the free trade agreement?

Mr Mullinder: The problem arises because each jurisdiction is trying to leap-frog over the previous jurisdiction and progressively seek more and more restrictive targets. You have the situation in the United States, if we just take newsprint for example, where individual states are leap-frogging over each other for political purposes rather than trying to get a national standard, which is what we are trying to do through NAPP, the national packaging protocol, for Canada. If each province goes its own way, then we are in real big trouble.

Mr Wiseman: You did not answer my --

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wiseman. Mr McClelland?

Mr McClelland: It is interesting, sir, that you ask for a cost-benefit analysis. I want to inform you that I asked for that as well on January 23 and we received some answers to the questions this committee has put in the first two weeks. We have received less than half of the answers and predictably the question you pose was one of the majority of questions that was not answered. I suspect it is because government has not in fact done that. I think you hit the nub of the issue. The government is looking at this politically and ideologically and not practically in any sense.

We have a great difference of opinion here, where the minister on the one hand says she wants to work cooperatively with other ministers of the environment across the country and at the same time says, "Watch me; I will be the leader," and then subsequently says, "Watch us; our government will be the leader. Watch me again, because I'm going to show the way." That is the difficulty; mixed messages are there. On the one hand, the government is saying, "We want to cooperate." On the other hand, they are saying, "We don't want to cooperate." Then the assurances you get are: "Trust me. We'll play ball." Again, it seems to be the attitude of the government that this is sufficient for industry to proceed in this country or in this province.

I notice that you say there was little or no consultation. I think you used that word four or five times in your brief. It is interesting that one of the members opposite said earlier on, in the first two weeks, "There was consultation because we say there was consultation." Virtually every group that has come in here, every association, every municipality says, "We weren't consulted."

I wonder if you might want to comment in terms of your association and the businesses you represent. How do you feel about the fact that the government seems to be on the one hand saying it wants to play ball with you and on the other hand is effectively shutting you out of the process? It is vital, the impact and the potential impact of part IV. I would like your comments, sir.

Mr Mullinder: I would like to add that there has certainly been consultation after the introduction of Bill 143. We are dealing with the waste reduction office on a regular basis, but all this could have been avoided if there had been consultation prior to the introduction.

Mr McClelland: It seems to me that the definition of consultation here --

The Chair: Thank you, Mr McClelland. Mrs Marland, you have the floor.

Mrs Marland: It is really interesting to hear your presentation because really what you are describing is that if Ontario goes ahead, it is rather like a pristine, clean boat that is operating and manoeuvring in a totally polluted swamp. The outcome: It does not accomplish anything, is what you are saying. If all the rules were the same at the same time, then it could work, but to come down with this heavy hammer -- none of us would disagree with the intent, but if it is totally impractical and also unjust, it is never going to work anyway. That is really what you are saying in terms of the national committee trying to do something gradually. We have been a long time getting to this terrible situation we are in and we cannot remedy it overnight, but if we start and turn around gradually in an equitable and fair procedure, there is a possibility we can all succeed in protecting the environment by reducing something that has gotten ahead of us.

Mr Mullinder: Nobody is against waste audits and action plans, and I want to emphasize that point. We believe you have to know what you have so you can do something about it and we are working to do that. But we feel it should be done through the national organization, the national packaging protocol. Ontario cannot go it alone. The market does not work that way.

Mrs Marland: I asked one of the presenters earlier this morning about the point you raised in your presentation, that if they are not going to target the importers and their distributors, the whole exercise is useless anyway.

Mr Mullinder: It is discriminatory because you are putting something on the backs of Ontario business and everybody else is getting off scot-free.

Mrs Marland: That is right.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation before the committee this morning. A question for the record, Mr Wiseman.

Mr Wiseman: Yes, I have a question. It relates back to my other question which was not answered. What specific sections of the free trade agreement and the GATT have taken away Canadian sovereign power to clean up and mandate a cleaner environment?

Mrs Mathyssen: I wonder if the presenter is aware that these new regulations will apply to everything sold in Ontario.

Mrs Fawcett: There are about seven questions the presenter asked in his brief. I would like the ministry to provide answers for those, please.

Mrs Marland: I would like to know if any of the ministry staff had any discussions with the national packaging protocol group.

The Chair: The questions that have been directed to you will be made available to you by our clerk. If you are able to respond in writing, we would appreciate that. As I have said before, I know today is February 11, but if we receive anything in writing before February 14 it will become part of the public record. After that, it will be available for all members of the committee for their consideration.


I would like to call the next presentation. Simcoe County District Health Unit, please come forward. You have approximately 20 minutes for your presentation and we would appreciate it if you would leave a few minutes for questions from committee members.

Dr Ewing: I represent the Simcoe County District Health Unit where I am associate medical officer of health. The role of public health in environmental issues is entrenched in the public health goals outlined by the Ministry of Health in Mandatory Health Programs and Services Guidelines, April 1989.

The Chair: That document looks very familiar to me.

Dr Ewing: Your name is on it. These guidelines describe the minimum standards for health unit programs. In these guidelines the public health goal for healthy environments is stated: The community will be a health-supporting environment in which people will be protected from adverse health consequences of exposure to toxic, hazardous substances and conditions in homes, public places and the workplace.

With regard to incineration of municipal solid waste, there are diverse facts and opinions. Semantics are used to gloss over the fact that basically resources are being burned. People use phrases like "energy from waste," "refuse-derived fuel," "thermal recycling," "resource recovery," and "the 4Rs," but we know it still boils down to burning our resources. Emotions run high on both sides, often due to frustration at not having one's views accepted or programs implemented. I see that the task before this committee on looking at municipal waste management in the 1990s and beyond is a formidable one.

I appreciate the Environment minister confirming the government's decision to ban all future municipal solid waste incinerators in Ontario, but I would like to reinforce that the public supports this ban and that this ban must continue.


Incineration of municipal solid waste may have significant adverse effects on the environment and on health. These mostly relate to airborne emissions and from the solid residues. Airborne emissions from incinerators may contain heavy metals such as lead, solvents such as benzene, and complex hydrocarbons such as dioxins and furans. Although these hydrocarbons are destroyed by heat, they can reform as the gases cool down.

Current standards for emissions refer to the proportion of these toxins in the stack emissions and not to the total amounts. Over the course of a few years the total emissions may be significant, even though the concentrations may be small in the gas leaving the stack, just as 1% of $1,000 is much more than 10% of $10.

The material then accumulates downwind from the stack. It all comes down eventually. What about our soil and our water? Incinerator ash contains high concentrations of materials which do not burn, such as cadmium and lead. Metals are neither created nor destroyed in incineration. The health effects of lead, cadmium, mercury, arsenic, zinc, gallium and copper have all been studied. These should be considered not only in the design of an incinerator but also in the disposal of the resultant slag and fly ash.

There are several sources of uncertainty in estimating the possible adverse effects on health and on the environment from air emissions. Emissions can vary considerably over time, as the waste varies even from season to season. It is difficult to predict the composition of the stack emissions that may result from the burning, as high concentrations of certain plastics, for example, may result in surges in the emissions of combustible gases. Many of the existing data are not reliable, as they are based on tests of new facilities at their peak performance, typically under the scrutiny of highly trained personnel. Emissions are rarely tested under the full range of operating conditions that will be routinely encountered, including the temperature fluctuations that come with startup and shutdown. Data on the changes due to poor maintenance or simply aging of the facility are not available.

The process of incineration generates a multitude of new compounds. Only a few of these are understood with regard to their composition and toxicological properties. A total containment of these toxins is not possible. There has not yet been a good epidemiologic study of the possible effects of waste incineration on human health and the environment. It would be extremely difficult to properly study the impact and I hope Ontario is not the laboratory where such an experiment will be carried out, given the likelihood of problems.

I do not intend to blow holes in the research done by the incineration industry, as engineers would be far better at that than I am. However, I would like to refer to this document entitled, "Municipal Waste-to-Energy Facilities Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions." I mention this because this document was used by a spokesperson for the industry as a credible source of facts. The data presented have nothing to do with the issue as to whether we should have waste-to-energy facilities in Ontario. This pseudo-scientific paper ignores the fact that in Ontario we increasingly reduce, recycle and compost. The data presented in this document state that the role of recycling in municipal solid waste disposal is small. This document may reflect the way things were in the United States in the 1980s but has nothing to do with the current situation in Ontario in the 1990s.

Important points missed in this paper are that not all our electricity is generated by coal-fired generating stations and we have other sources of electricity. The conclusions of the paper are simply not supported by fact. Reading this paper, one almost gets the impression they would have us believe that incinerators could actually purify our air.

Supporters of incineration dearly love to tell us what is happening in Scandinavia or Germany or the US or Japan. Let me tell you a bit about that.

In the United States, the American Public Health Association, in a policy statement, notes the health risks of incineration. I have attached their policy for your information.

The German Medical Association, Munich region, representing 12,000 German doctors, considers "garbage incineration as troublesome waste management technique with regard to our objective of maintaining the health of the population." They give excellent evidence to support this argument. I have attached a translation of their resolution for your consideration.

I have travelled in Japan. There is no evidence that they are more aware of the link between the environment and health. Nowhere in Ontario will you find public booths where people can buy a few minutes of oxygen as they go about their business, as found in Japan. Let us not use Japan as a shining example of what we should do with our municipal solid waste. Pointing to the life expectancy in Japan shows a clear misunderstanding as to how figures related to life expectancy are derived and the impacts on health we now understand and quantify.

I will conclude this point with the example of Sweden. In Sweden, waste incineration is held responsible for increased mercury in the environment. Certain freshwater fish accumulate mercury to such amounts that they cannot be used as foods without restricting intake.

Incineration also has a negative impact on other important environment conservation efforts. There is sufficient proof that incineration of municipal wastes reduces recycling measures. It is clear that incinerators are a massive disincentive for recycling where they are in place. Already in Ontario, paper collected in blue boxes has been diverted to an incinerator to keep it going. People should at least be made aware of the collection of used newspapers for this use when it is done under the guise of recycling. If someone wanted to build another energy-from-waste plant in London, Ontario, now, it could not be done.

In Indianapolis there is an incinerator, and there is less than one half of 1% recycling. People are told that it is too expensive to recycle, as they do not want to divert waste from incineration. In Savannah, Georgia, elected officials opposed the state bill requiring 25% recycling, as they need the trash to keep the incinerator going. Hudson Falls, New York, cannot get enough trash for its incinerator, as the community recycles. Therefore, their incinerator imports waste from elsewhere. The incinerator industry will now say that this incinerator is oversized, but the same industry advised that they should plan for growth in the first place.

In Ontario, what if the industry says to build for 50% of the waste, with 50% reduction by diversion to recycling, by reuse and by reduction? The future of waste management lies in examining what is left over. There will likely always be residue. However, if it is burned, there is no examination of the residue and the residue is not challenged. We have to continue to examine this residue. If material cannot be recycled, we will look at the design and correct the bad design work for the material. Anything that becomes waste has reduction potential.

If we allow an incinerator to be built, we tie our hands for 20 years, whereas we should continuously review what we put into the waste stream. One of the many problems of incinerators is that even with the best available technology, the industry can only build for what is in the waste stream now. Who could possibly predict what will be in the waste stream 10 years from now and what technology has to be in place to protect us from the adverse health effects of emissions at that time?

The industry argues the safety of incineration, just as tobacco manufacturers still argue the safety of cigarettes, but even if it were safe, it is not sensible. There is no good sense in destroying our resources if we want them to be available for our future.

As I noted at the beginning, the task before you is a formidable one of balancing opinions and interests. Decisions must not be based on emotion and unfounded statements. As a medical officer of health in Ontario, my responsibility is to provide the best analysis and advice on health matters I can for the public. Sometimes this puts us up against popular opinions or particular interests, but we must take that duty seriously. I hope my presentation proves helpful to the committee in its decisions.

Mrs Marland: I am particularly impressed with your presentation, Dr Ewing, because of the job you hold. You are not here from a political perspective or an industrial perspective. You cannot be accused of a NIMBY syndrome, because you are representing people in an area where an incinerator exists. I do not know whether the Orillia proposal comes under your health unit.

Dr Ewing: Yes, it does.

Mrs Marland: What I found particularly interesting was your reference to other countries. I have not been in Japan since 1970, but I remember 22 years ago people walking around; they either wore masks or often carried white cotton handkerchiefs and things that they held over their nose when they were outside their offices or their automobiles. When you come forward with the evidence of 12,000 doctors about the impact of incineration in Germany, why do you think it is we keep hearing that incinerators are okay? We hear they have had them in Europe and Germany for years; we hear about them, as you mention, in Sweden; we hear that it is okay to incinerate garbage in the United States. We continually hear this, yet I think when medical doctors speak on behalf of their population and their patients -- how does it happen we continually hear that it is okay to incinerate garbage?


Dr Ewing: I think we should talk to the people in those countries and find out whether it is okay.

Mrs Marland: Do you have any comment on incinerating --

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Marland. We really do not have time for another question.

Mrs Marland: Okay.

Mr Wiseman: My question has to do with the Ogden Martin incineration attempt in Orillia and the opposition the doctors in Orillia had with respect to that. Could you tell the committee about that experience and what the doctors were concerned about?

Dr Ewing: I would rather not. I am a member of the Orillia Medical Society and there has been a threat of a lawsuit.

Mr Wiseman: Sorry?

Dr Ewing: There has been a threat of a lawsuit by Ogden Martin against the Orillia doctors. I would rather not discuss that.

Mr McClelland: I appreciate your input with respect to the issue of incineration. It is helpful. I hasten to add, though, just by way of comment, that this is not really the issue at hand. The issue is Bill 143. I appreciate your taking the opportunity to put your views forward and they will be helpful to this committee.

I would also say, with the greatest respect, that I hope we do not lose sight of the fact that what we are talking about is a comprehensive piece of legislation that is much more far-reaching than the particular issue you focused on and that the implications, I believe, of the bill itself are equally potentially dangerous as the very points you bring forward in terms of incineration. That is one of the issues people cannot lose sight of in terms of the discussions here. On what you are saying in terms of incineration and the facts you bring to the table, one could flip a coin, if you will, and simply state that Bill 143 in its totality has the potential for grave consequences, as great as or greater than some of the things you laid before us today.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr McClelland. Mrs Mathyssen, there is one minute remaining.

Mrs Mathyssen: You talked about the incinerator in London, Ontario. I am particularly interested in that because it affects my riding to a great degree. Could you explain the situation there?

Dr Ewing: It is not economically viable, and certainly the standards with which it was built would not be acceptable today as far as the pollution and potential for environmental hazards that exist in that plant are concerned. As I mentioned, it has been a bit misleading for the public because materials collected in blue boxes have been incinerated in that plant.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you. That is interesting.

Mrs Fawcett: If incineration was allowed as an option, do you believe that if it went through an environmental assessment, the facts truly would come out, and if it was a risk to the public, then it would be disallowed? In other words, do you believe an environmental assessment would work?

Dr Ewing: Yes, I do. I am not too sure I see the point of it, because although we should question dogma, it reaches a point that there is sufficient evidence to point out that it is too much of an environmental risk. If you were to suggest we put lead in gasoline again, I am sure it would not need to be studied.

Mr Wiseman: For the record, I find it puzzling that Ogden Martin would come before this committee and tell us ad nauseam how safe it is to live next to an incinerator. They even went as far as claiming that it was safer to live next to an incinerator than drink beer or herbal tea, yet they hide behind the courts to prevent responsible doctors from the community and the associated medical officers of health for the county where the incinerator was to be located from speaking freely before the very same legislative committee. I can only conclude they are afraid that what the doctors would have to say would show that living next to an incinerator is indeed riskier than drinking herbal tea. They clearly do not want this committee to get all the facts. My question to you is, have they made any attempt to rescind these legal gag orders against you or against any of the other medical practitioners of Orillia?

Dr Ewing: No.

Mrs Marland: For the record my question is, other than what you have referred to today as far as the health hazard is concerned, is the other point you have tried to make today that even if an incinerator goes through an environmental assessment, it is counterproductive to reducing and recycling and reusing because you need X volume of garbage to keep these incinerators fed and viable from a cost point of view?

The Chair: If there is additional information or you would like to answer the questions that have been posed by the members, please feel free to communicate with us in writing. We appreciate your coming before the committee today.


The Chair: I would like to call our next presentation, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. Please come forward and begin your presentation by introducing yourselves. I see a few familiar faces. Welcome, and you have 20 minutes for your presentation.

Mr Denham: It is certainly a privilege to have the opportunity to meet with this committee today. I would like to introduce our speakers, the regional chair, Peter Clark; George Brown, the chair of our environmental policy committee; Ms Judy Wilson, our director of solid waste, and my name is Rich Denham. I am the commissioner of environmental services.

Before we get to our presentation, I would like to make a little analogy for you. As residents of Ontario, and particularly in the kind of weather we are having this week, we often get stuck in the snowbank, and when that happens, as Ontarians we know how to get out of that: We back up, go ahead, rock the car a bit, and soon we are moving ahead.

Right now, I would suggest we are stuck in the snowbank of environmental assessment. Particularly in Ottawa-Carleton, we have been rocking back and forth for some number of years now since the Halton and Meaford and North Simcoe decisions came out, but we are all stuck and we are all spinning our wheels because environmental assessment in Ontario does not work.

I would also suggest that we have some concerns because at this point in time it would appear that the minister's car -- the minister responsible for the GTA -- is also stuck. Our concern is that once the minister's car is out of the snowbank and she is able to make it to work on time, the tow trucks and the other emergency vehicles that have assisted that situation will leave the scene and the rest of us will be left to flounder in the blizzard of environmental assessment in Ontario.

In Ottawa-Carleton we are certainly familiar with the issues, the problems associated with both environmental assessment and solid waste in Ontario. As I mentioned a moment ago, we were stuck in the snowbank in 1990, when we discontinued our waste management master plan when it became obvious from the Halton decision that our planning process, as it was understood at that time, would not withstand the scrutiny of environmental assessment. We have faced a number of crisis situations since then when we found ourselves faced with Metro Toronto garbage being transported to Ottawa-Carleton and when we found the transportation of Kingston waste to Ottawa-Carleton, which manifests itself in a significant threat to the capacity of the landfill sites and disposal facilities in Ottawa-Carleton.

In our continuing efforts to get out of the snowbank, we have participated in many activities initiated by the government. We have participated in the effort to improve the environmental assessment process and have submitted documents to that effect. We have regional staff who are involved in the waste reduction office and the initiatives that have been taken by that office. We have staff members who participate with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and we have staff who are on the Waste Reduction Advisory Committee. Many of the initiatives that are taken by these various organizations we support completely, and we certainly support the waste reduction activities and initiatives indicated in this bill.

What we are presenting to you today is a report that was presented to our environmental services committee on February 3 and received the unanimous support of that committee, the environmental services committee being a standing committee of regional council.

Our submission contains two key points, the first one being that the Environmental Assessment Act does not work in the field of solid waste. We need a province-wide solution to what is a province-wide problem. Our second point is that the proposed section 29 under the Environmental Protection Act would make it impossible, I would suggest, to engage in good solid waste management and solid waste planning at the municipal level.

I am going to ask Ms Wilson to expand on those issues for me.


Ms Wilson: I will divide my comments into two separate sections, first, those on environmental assessment, and second, on the intermunicipal transportation of waste.

I have watched with great interest on Channel 41 at my house the debate that has occurred over Bill 143. To some extent, to those of us outside the GTA, it looks very much like a site selection exercise elevated from the municipal level to the provincial level. Many of the comments have arisen in exactly those kinds of frameworks.

However, we would like to step back and ask whether this is good solid waste legislation for the province as a whole. We should say at the outset that the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton supports the fundamental premise that it is critical to assess the environmental impact of solid waste facilities. All too often it is interpreted that being critical of the Environmental Assessment Act means being critical of the need to assess impact. I do not think that is the case and that is certainly not our basis for comment today. It is the case, however, that the system which exists now is not working. It is inefficient, takes too long and is unpredictable. It is very much the case that at the end of 10 years mistakes made in the first months of the first year can cause significant problems.

It has been said in several circumstances, and I think it is worthy of repetition, that in Ontario we do not have a solid waste crisis; in Ontario we have an environmental assessment crisis. I think those are two very different comments.

I think Ontario needs as a solution a piece of solid waste legislation for the province as a whole. The government has begun this process and we see a number of initiatives in this comprehensive approach coming from the waste reduction office. I think Mr Clark will talk about that more specifically later.

We know of course from Halton-Peel, Meaford and North Simcoe what the inherent problems in the process are. One of the fundamental problems is that municipalities across the province are reinventing the wheel. We are all doing the same thing over and over again, because inherently solid waste facility site selection is like a class EA process. The only difference is that it happens to be more controversial, but the same kind of philosophy that goes into the class EA process can go into facility site selection in solid waste.

What we believe to be a solution to the solid waste issues in the Ottawa area and in Ontario is that the site selection exercise and the solid waste exercise must be province-wide and need a new piece of legislation. The only reason a crisis exists in landfill site selection is because the system designed to replace the capacity that is used is not working fast enough, otherwise there would not be a crisis.

On the issue of the intermunicipal transportation of waste, capacity is the fundamental tenet of planning. When we plan for the replacement of our landfill, we plan based on the capacity left and we govern ourselves accordingly. If the provincial government retains for itself a right to dramatically affect our planning process by affecting our capacity, it can make all efforts at planning virtually useless. It is critical that we have the opportunity both to plan for the future and to know when the future is here. If our capacity is affected by five years by another municipality's garbage, the future is not 10 years away for us; the future becomes four or three or two years away.

I also would like to raise the issue that we keep referring to the new section 29 of the Environmental Protection Act as an emergency section. I would simply like to say that in my view the language set out in that section is not emergency language; it is a much lower threshold than that.

In conclusion, as Mr Denham said, if there is a theme for us it is that it is a province-wide problem. It may be experienced sooner in the greater Toronto area, but it is a province-wide problem and we believe it needs a province-wide solution. Moving garbage across municipal boundaries may delay an impending crisis, but it does not solve the fundamental environmental assessment issue.

Mr Brown: You have heard from two of our senior staff in our department. I guess now it is time to hear from one senior politician and one not so senior. I am chair of the environmental services committee.

When staff originally brought this submission, the committee asked to go back and redo it to make it more emphatic, basically to clearly convey the message that Ottawa-Carleton does not accept a process that treats environmental assessment in the greater Toronto area differently from the rest of the province. It is as simple as that and it is not acceptable. The second point was raised of course that we do not accept that waste from other regions of this province can be imported into our region without any input from our region and without our concurrence.

We recognize there is a crisis in the greater Toronto area. There are crises across this province. Kingston comes to mind in particular. The way the environmental assessment legislation is working now, even with our supposed 10-year time frame for the filling up of our landfill we are in a crisis. I will tell you that the way things are going it will take us 10 years to find another landfill under the present process.

We are making and have made a significant number of very difficult and expensive decisions concerning waste planning in our region. We discontinued, at a cost of about $3 million, our waste plan because of the Halton decision. We banned leaf and yard waste from our landfills. We are about to embark on a comprehensive 3Rs study of the region instead of attacking it in a piecemeal fashion. I stand to be corrected, but I believe we have the most comprehensive waste composition study in this country, over $500,000, as to getting into just what exactly our waste is made of. We are putting our money where our mouth is when it comes to planning. Our region, as Mr Denham and Ms Wilson have said, is actively involved in the whole solid waste planning process in this province and we would hope that our staff's efforts will contribute to a province-wide solution, not the bill which is before the committee which deals with the greater Toronto area.

We as municipalities in the Ottawa-Carleton region recognize that the Environmental Assessment Act is not working and we are looking for an overall piece of legislation that will regulate solid waste across the province. On the issue of importing waste, we are putting our money where our mouth is. We do accept significant tonnages from outside our regional boundaries in the Ottawa Valley because we want to be responsible and we want to work with our neighbours. We are also involved in waste diversion planning. We have put up $500,000 a year for the next three years for short-term initiatives such as special projects and composting in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector.

We are working on this. We are planning. We see this 10-year deadline approaching and we know we do not have a lot of time, but if Bill 143 goes through and the minister is allowed to direct waste wherever she feels it is necessary, our planning, all these initiatives, are thrown out the window. That is not something we feel is responsible and in the best interests of the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton and indeed across the province. We would like a provincial piece of legislation that deals with the provincial problem.

Mr Clark: The region is committed to the principle of evaluating impact on any new solid waste facility in terms of its effect on the environment. I am not trying to duck it; in fact, what this legislation does is duck it. This legislation has the possibility, if you will, of taking away all the incentives for recycling and reduction, because if we have a problem we just dump it upward, on the province. We can just fill our dumps. It does not matter, because it will be a provincial problem. I am sorry but I do not really think that is responsible. The region believes this can be done, as far as environmental assessment for solid waste is concerned, in a very efficient and cost-effective manner. We do not believe it has to take 10 years to complete and have no certainty of a result even after 10 years.


We have in the past offered a fair number of constructive solutions, through various municipalities within the region, AMO, staff and the regional chairs of Ontario. We have been continually asking for a generic set of landfill criteria. We think the criteria for landfill site selection should be established immediately so that municipalities across the province will have a rule book with respect to this issue. We think generic guidelines are also appropriate for methods for evaluating social impact. We believe firm guidelines as to the quantity and quality of public participation required can and must be established now. We believe an overall generic approach to the issue of extensions and expansion versus greenfield sites must be established.

All these requirements must be set out in legislation which binds the Environmental Assessment Board. Responsibility for solid waste at the provincial level is now divided between the waste reduction office and the environmental assessment branch. That is a wonderful division except that now we get into bureaucratic turf wars. This division is causing artificial barriers to be placed between the waste management master-planning, which is a mandatory requirement for all municipalities in Ontario -- lots of them right now are becoming very concerned -- and environmental assessment, which we all feel is socially beneficial and necessary. We have to remove the barriers by incorporating all the solid waste planning and site selection issues in one comprehensive piece of legislation.

The solid waste planning exercise and site selection exercise should not be an all-or-nothing crapshoot where you spend years -- believe me, this is not the first; we have had at least two different waste plan initiatives that have gone south, if you wish, in Ottawa-Carleton. We have watched with some horror the Halton exercise. Essentially any system that now puts us into a situation where we cannot have any fine feeling of what the outcome is is just going to spend millions more of taxpayers' money when obviously there are better uses for that money. A system of interim approval has to be set up. It is not impossible to evaluate the impact of new solid waste facilities. It can be done in a pretty cost-effective and efficient way. The current initiatives papers, for example, from the waste reduction office and The Ministry of Municipal Affairs can form the nucleus for this overall piece of legislation we are talking about.

There has been some good work done. Can we not build on that good work and get a meaningful piece of legislation, rather than this ad hockery we are looking at with Bill 143? The initiatives papers can lead to some success in this field, but only if we bring in the environmental assessment issues. I think that with the right willpower the government can do it. We know already the system is not working. We know that. It is not working in Toronto. That is why we have this act in front of us. The problem is not just in Toronto; the problem is in Lanark county, the problem is in Simcoe, the problem is in Kingston, the problem is all over the place.

If you are going to have the provincial government providing provincial leadership and legislation in this area, then you must deal with province-wide solutions, which Bill 143 does not allow us. We are very concerned that Bill 143 gets somebody off the hook right away and does not solve the problem for the province. That is why we are here today. That is why George and I are here especially, to try to give you some feeling for the force of the argument we would like to make and the concern we have. We believe we can do things positive in solid waste planning in this province and we need your help.

The Chair: The time available has expired. However, there are a number of members who would like to place questions on the record. The deputation can respond in writing at a future time.

Mr Clark: Certainly.

The Chair: I have Mr Martin. First question only, please. We are out of time.

Mr Martin: It is going to be hard. That was a good presentation and I want to thank you for painting so clearly the picture of the devastation that is out there re the whole question of --

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Martin. Mrs Mathyssen.

Mr Martin: Can I ask a question?

The Chair: A question.

Mr Martin: It is a difficult challenge we inherited from the past government. Do you not think it takes some strong leadership in front of this to actually clear it up before we can move ahead on a provincial basis?

Mrs Mathyssen: You mentioned problems with the Environment Assessment Act. There are plans in the ministry to improve it. Two discussion papers are coming out in the next two months regarding powers and management so that it can be a better act. This has been discussed at AMO. Have you been part of that discussion in terms of how we can help municipalities to improve waste management?

Ms Haeck: My question relates to page 5 of your presentation, where you talk about emergency powers. You obviously have some concerns around that. In light of your comments, what would you do to provide for emergencies?

Mr Cousens: First of all, it was an excellent presentation. On the Environmental Assessment Act, do you have any specific ideas of things we can be doing on it? It is a big subject. Do you have any specific suggestions? It is certainly a direction I would like to see taken.

Mr Chiarelli: It was an excellent presentation which I intend to use when this is debated in the Legislature. You talked about ad hockery and a hodgepodge of legislation. What do you think will be the results down the road if this legislation goes ahead with legislation for Ottawa-Carleton, legislation for Kirkland Lake, separate legislation for Metropolitan Toronto?

Mr Grandmaître: I know that Bill 143 has been quite a problem, especially for Ottawa-Carleton. If Bill 143 passes through the Legislature as is, what will be the next step for Ottawa-Carleton?

The Chair: There are two minutes remaining for you to either try and answer the questions or sum up. If there is additional information you would like to share with the committee, you can do so in writing over the course of our deliberations. Who would like to sum up?

Ms Wilson: I think there are very real improvements to the Environmental Assessment Act that can come forth. First, I think we can carve out solid waste as a unique area that can have its own piece of legislation; second, generic guidelines with respect to hydrogeology, natural attenuation, public participation and social impact that provide at least some basic level of analysis; third, some guidelines with respect to public participation, format etc; fourth, some sequence of events, and finally and most critically, a system of interim approval so that the plans are given a blessing as they go along, not in the last analysis.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation and your participation before the committee today. We appreciate you coming. I know you realize that if there is additional information you think would be helpful to us, you can communicate with us through our clerk. I will say once again, as I have said before, that anything we receive in writing from you or from anyone watching these proceedings, if we receive it before February 14, will become part of the public record. After that it will be made available for members of the committee for their deliberations. Further, Hansards, full-record recordings of the events of this committee, are available through Publications Ontario at 880 Bay Street.

The Chair: The committee stands in recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon.

The committee recessed at 1230.


The committee resumed at 1403.


The Chair: The standing committee on social development is now in session. I would like to call in our first presentation, from the Canadian Hardware and Housewares Manufacturers Association. Please come forward and introduce yourselves to the committee. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We would appreciate it if you would leave a few minutes for questions. Please begin now.

Mr Homer: Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Canadian Hardware and Housewares Manufacturers Association, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill 143. My name is Chuck Homer and I am president of the Canadian Hardware and Housewares Manufacturers Association. I am also president of Lepage's Ltd, based in Brampton, a manufacturer of a wide variety of adhesives and home improvement products. With me today is Jim Gillies, chairman of our environmental committee at the manufacturers' association, and Larry Dworkin, a government affairs consultant to the association.

The association is comprised of 265 manufacturers and distributors of hardware and housewares products across Canada. It is primarily located in Ontario and it generates annual sales of $5.5 billion and employs about 25,000 people.

Our members are committed to reducing solid waste generation in Canada. To that end, we have endorsed the principles of the national packaging protocol and the accompanying code of preferred packaging practices. One important step in this process, which Jim will touch on a bit later, is the creation of an industry liaison committee where manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers work together to solve these problems. This organization brings together these levels of the industry and it seeks solutions to the environmental problems, and specifically we are focusing primarily on the reduction of solid waste.

Jim is going to outline a bit later some of the concrete actions being taken by our members to achieve the protocol's goals through the 3Rs of reduce, reuse and recycle. It is worth noting that these are voluntary initiatives and they are a result of the industry's commitment to the protocol, to which Ontario is a party. It also reflects the trust developed over the past few years between industry and other stakeholders towards a process based on voluntary cooperation.

Not only does our industry feel that Ontario's regulatory steps are premature, they also break the trust provided to industry and other stakeholders as signatories to the protocol. I want to stress that Ontario signed that protocol and was a participant in the development of it. We recommend that the province abandon the regulatory measures proposed unless and until it can clearly demonstrate the industry is not meeting its voluntary obligations.

In addition, by not harmonizing the province's actions with those of the rest of Canada, industry now faces the risk of each province introducing separate regulatory agendas. This then would provide Canadian manufacturers with a balkanized market in which they have to sell their products. It could lead to companies having to produce separate packages for each province, and this would lead to severe additional costs and ultimately economic chaos.

We are also concerned that the cost burden to implement the province's initiative falls squarely on Ontario-based firms. Goods imported into Ontario from other provinces or other countries are not captured under these regulations. This further tips the competitive balance away from Ontario manufacturers. The ministry has made no provision to address the above problem and the resulting net business loss by Ontario manufacturers.

We also have concerns with clause 136(6)(f) of the bill, dealing with required environmental notices or labelling. This could be seen as a tariff barrier by other countries and will potentially result in retaliatory action against Canadian goods.

We want to stress that there are other costs manufacturers must bear from the environmental initiative. We are finding, for example, that within our factory, material sorting costs are having a negative impact on our competitiveness. Jim will also talk about a specific instance of this among some firms. Nevertheless, the firms within our association are doing the sorting and we are prepared to undertake that cost to assist with the solid waste reduction.

We believe, therefore, that it is reasonable to request that the minister provide for a cost-benefit analysis of her proposed regulations and potential impacts on the industry's competitive position under the free trade agreement and GATT rules.

Our industry looks forward to furthering the trust partnership created with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment under the national packaging protocol. We therefore ask the minister to give serious consideration to our comments before proceeding with this bill. Specifically, we are asking that you abandon the regulatory measures until there is evidence that the voluntary process is not working and that the industry is not meeting its obligations. Furthermore, we suggest that it would be prudent to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of proposed regulations in concert with industry prior to the establishment of any regulations.

I would now like to call upon Jim Gillies.

Mr Gillies: Good afternoon. I am not only the chairman of the industry association but senior vice-president of Newell Industries Inc, a major supplier of hardware and housewares to North America.

Our industry association is unique in that we consult with our retail partners. Our industry liaison committee has been established to get our customers' opinion on high-profile subjects such as the environment. The committee is examining a number of problems and opportunities dealing with the development of environmentally sensitive packaging.


We are examining the use of blister packaging and whether its elimination will result in a substantive increase in theft at the retail level. I would also add here that use of blister packaging to some manufacturers in our industry is necessary to get sufficient space on the packaging to meet other government regulations, those being safety and warning hazards, bilinguality and metrication. We are examining reusable packaging where a customer can return the package to be refilled with the same product, as well as standards for recycled container content for items such as motor oil, windshield washer and other fluids.

The nature of our retail trade is such that a few retailers account for 75% of our total business. The influence of these major chains in determining the type of the product which will come to market cannot be understated.

As you may be aware, the Canadian Tire organization has been taking a strong leadership role in reducing solid waste, especially in the packaging it sells. It is conducting an audit of the items it sells as to whether they can be improved from an environmental perspective weighed against the realities of the market environment. As a result, CTC is working with its suppliers to meet these new specifications. Other major retailers in our industry are starting to follow Canadian Tire's example, which in turn will have a major impact in bringing more environmentally sensitive products to the market.

In addition, the CHHMA has sponsored a number of environmental seminars for its members on the how to's of undertaking audits, work plans and implementation of programs. It also circulates similar information to its members through numerous ongoing newsletters and other vehicles.

Some of the initiatives taken by our industry by company are as follows:

Lepage's Ltd recently introduced a refillable, child-safe glue container for use in classrooms. This new technology will divert the disposal of these containers, which previously were sent to landfill. In addition, the company has also diverted 77 metric tonnes of packaging waste which previously went to landfill.

Remington power tools, which had previously been housed in a clamshell-blister card, are now being packaged in recyclable corrugated boxing.

Numerous companies are now packaging motor oil and windshield washer in containers within a minimum 50% recycled plastic.

Regal Ware Canada Inc is now recycling all of its corrugated, stainless steel and aluminum scrap, which previously went to landfill. In addition, about 50% of its packaging is now in material which is being collected for recycling.

Similarly, the Newell Window Furnishings plant in Prescott, Ontario, has reduced landfill shipments of its monthly solid waste material from eight 40-cubic-foot containers to one 40-cubic-foot container. One of the company's biggest problems is that the cost of hand-separating material at the plant is impacting on its competitiveness. This company also has a major problem in arranging for material to be picked up, as major regrind and recycling operations are in the Toronto area.

By working with their customers, the cap and closure division of Anchor Hocking has implemented a tote system that has reduced its need for corrugated shipping boxes and reduced its annual corrugated consumption by 112 tonnes.

Stanley Acmetrack Ltd has reduced by 70% the amount of packaging to ship its retail mirror doors. The company, which has an environmental monitoring committee, is also separating and recycling its packaging.

Rubbermaid Canada Inc conducts monthly audits of its waste, most of which is sent for post-process regrind and post-consumer regrind. In addition, it has developed a line of products which specifically uses post-consumer regrind and in 1992 will be eliminating the use of blister cards. Most of the company's products use only a label directly attached to the product.

SEB Canada Inc, which has instituted an in-house recycling program this past year, has substituted foam inserts with recycled cardboard. This has reduced packaging going to landfill by about 25%. The company collects about 25 tonnes of cardboard packaging annually, which it now recycles. It is also studying ways to recycle plastic, aluminum and stainless steel in appliances.

A similar program is under way at Teledyne Water Pik Canada, which has arranged for all corrugated and wood pallets to be recycled, as well as all foam packaging. In addition, some of its corrugated shipping containers are being used by suppliers.

Pyrene Fire Security is also using recycled paper for all instruction sheets, as well as directly printing on corrugated shelf cartons, which reduces packaging by 20% through the elimination of labels.

Canadian Thermos Products Inc has diverted 146 tonnes of its waste through a recycling effort.

These are only some of the examples of the initiatives taken by members of the CHHMA. These voluntary initiatives are to a large extent a result of our industry's commitment to the protocol. It also reflects the trust developed over the past few years between industry and other stakeholders towards a process based on voluntary cooperation.

I would like to be very candid with this hearing. The company I work for, Newell Industries Inc, is a Canadian subsidiary of a large US corporation that manufactures hardware, housewares, office products, and closures for food products. About two years ago we developed a North American strategy based on, where can we get the lowest production costs? The study caused us to close five plants in Ontario. We now have three plants operating in Ontario. Our US parent is committed to be the low-cost producer in North America. More regulations, more taxation and higher labour costs will drive the three remaining plants out of Ontario. Our US parent loses patience with legislators who are committed to make laws where laws are not required.

My company and our industry association would like to work with government on a voluntary basis to explore various methods of reducing solid waste going to landfill.

A user-pay garbage system is working well in other jurisdictions. This system establishes a chain of responsibilities. The consumer, realizing the cost, puts less packaging out each week for collection. The retailer, on consumer demand, sells products with less packaging. The manufacturer, on retail demand, has little resistance to reducing packaging on products it sells. The further benefit of a user-pay system would be the sale of garbage to a separator -- a job-creating industry -- to separate and sell the garbage collected. The benefits of this system are well documented.

Other jurisdictions are using so-called high-tech incineration with excellent results. These methods, and others, should not merely be studied but copied by Ontario in a positive step to reduce solid waste going to landfill.

It has been our experience that 32% of the consumers who say in interviews that they are willing to purchase environmentally friendly items do not, especially when price is marginally higher. Almost all of them buy solely on price.

We recommend that a massive consumer education program be taken by industry and government to help consumers focus on this subject.

Our industry looks forward to furthering the trust and partnership created with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment under the protocol. We ask the minister to give serious consideration to our comments before proceeding on this matter.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mrs Mathyssen: I thank you for your presentation. One thing that concerns me is something that has appeared several times in the course of the hearings today, and that is what I think is misinformation. You are talking about the provinces not harmonizing on their packaging regulations and you also talk about goods imported not having to meet the same requirement as Ontario manufacturers. Are you aware that the packaging regulations will cover all goods sold in Ontario, not just those manufactured here, and, second, that the National Packaging Task Force is meeting on Thursday and Friday of this week to ensure a national standard, so that there is not this disharmony that you are concerned about?

Mr Dworkin: I wonder if I can respond. My name is Larry Dworkin and I happen to be a member of the National Packaging Task Force and I have been there since its inception.

The problem that we are putting forward, first of all, is that manufacturers outside of the jurisdiction of Ontario cannot be regulated by an Ontario law, period. If I am a manufacturer in Kentucky and I am shipping goods to Ontario, the province has absolutely no right to ask me to undertake an audit, to undertake a work plan, or the costs associated with them. You should know that the costs associated with some of these work plans go anywhere up to $500,000, depending upon the size of the company and the number of products which must be manufactured,

The other thing to look at and to be considered, that the National Packaging Task Force is having its lawyers look at right now, is whether or not the proposed regulations are in harmony with the free trade agreement and with the GATT. There is some concern right now, for example, that some of those laws may contravene the intent and spirit of those two agreements.


Mr Cousens: Excellent presentation. There are a couple of points to highlight. Mr Homer, in your presentation you asked for a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed regulations of the ministry. I think that is one of the questions that we have asked for earlier, just so you know that we are looking for that one too, because that is a very practical consideration.

I also liked your sense of delaying implementation of the regulations and allowing industry to try to work things through, and if you could not, then to have the government make its impositions if it had to. To that end, I think that people in industry -- you had better take a message back to your people -- are not doing a good job in telling people when they are working as hard as you point out they are right here, in cutting back on their packaging.

I think it is an impressive story when you see what LePage's is trying to do, Regal Ware, Newell Window Furnishings, Stanley Acmetrack. It is happening. You are making an effort. I think industry -- if you can take any message back from this member -- is trying, but you are doing a terrible job in explaining to the world out there that you are trying as hard as you are. I have this sense in all your presentations. But the reason you are going to start having the regulations brought in by the socialist government in Ontario is that I do not think it understands just how hard people are working towards this. Maybe there is just a sense in which you should tell us a little bit more frequently and often.

Mr Homer: I appreciate the comment. However, the effort our industry has been undertaking is directed towards the requirements of the national packaging protocol. As you know, 1992 is the year in which the first measurement occurs. The effort has really been to do the job in terms of what we accomplish by 1992, and that is a quantitative calculation. But certainly the thought about talking about individual actions is important and it is noted and appreciated.

Mr Gillies: I would also like to add, if I could, the inaccessibility of Ruth Grier's office through this whole thing. We have tried on numerous occasions to let the minister know some of the things that were happening and we have in fact not been able to; she has refused.

Mrs Marland: We understand that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cousens. Mr McClelland.

Mr Cousens: I just want to say in closing that it is just a very excellent presentation. I also have been --

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cousens. You no longer have the floor. Mr McClelland.

Mr Cousens: I only had it for a minute. I was just --

The Chair: I am going to have to deduct the time. Mr McClelland.

Mr McClelland: I simply want to reiterate what Mr Cousens said, that we indeed asked for a cost-benefit analysis on January 23. The government apparently is not prepared to provide that. I presume it is because in fact one has not been done. I share your concern in terms of accessibility, as alluded to by a comment from one of my colleagues as well. Indeed, a vast number of people who have come and presented before us has said there had been no consultation prior to enactment of Bill 143.

Quite frankly, and I will be very candid with this, you saw evidence of that in terms of the exchange that took place earlier. If somebody who is presuming to tell you how your industry runs, presuming to tell you that you do not understand your industry -- because it is the government that has said: "We don't want to listen. You know the rules." You stated very clearly here, it broke the trust provided by the industry. We have had ratepayers come here and say that there has been a trust violated by this government.

This government has called into the question the integrity of government across the board in terms of the initiatives that have been taken by Bill 143. Again I say very candidly that you are the first industry group that has come forward and said it in that direct language, although many groups have hinted at it and used much more, I would use the word "soft" language in saying the same message.

Mr Dworkin, I wonder if you could explain further the impact -- maybe our friends in government will understand in terms of what you are talking about -- of the national packaging protocol on jobs. What this government needs to do is not pretend to listen, but in fact listen to what industry is saying.

Mr Dworkin: I will make this short, if I could, Madam Chairman. This must not be taken in isolation. When we look at any bill or any regulation coming in from government, it must be measured against other things that are happening. For example, Ontario, whether we like to admit it or not, has the highest business and corporate taxes anywhere in North America. When you add this cost on top of that, you add it on top of, say, the wage rates we are already paying in Ontario, you add it on to such things as maybe the impact of the Labour Relations Act reform.

If somebody is an owner of a major multinational chain of companies in the United States and is looking at what is happening in Canada, the impression they get is that Ontario may not be a friendly place to do business. I think in terms of perceived cost as opposed to maybe what might be even the real cost, there is a perception that this is not a friendly place to do business.

We want to change that. In fact, we want to work with government at changing those perceptions. Quite honestly, it would help.

Mr McClelland: If they would talk to you, though.

Mr Dworkin: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. We appreciate you coming before the committee today. Did you want to put a question on the record, Mr Wiseman?

Mr Wiseman: Yes, I would. The first thing, David --

The Chair: We are out of time.

Mr Wiseman: I am going to be quick.

The Chair: Good.

Mr Wiseman: Are you aware of the packaging legislation in Manitoba, and if so, have you done a comparison of that legislation?

Mr Dworkin: Not only am I --

The Chair: I am sorry.

Mr Wiseman: You just have to write to me.

Mr Dworkin: Okay.

The Chair: Excuse me, please.

Mr Wiseman: I am not finished. I have two more.

The second is, I would like to know what sections of the free trade agreement and the GATT you feel have terminated the sovereignty of Ontario and Canada to make decisions.

I would also like an analysis, if you have it, of the tax on packaging in Massachusetts and the effect it is going to have, and the regulations that California is putting into place in terms of its markets and what that would mean in terms of packaging and having that market available to you.

The Chair: A quick question, Mrs Mathyssen.

Mrs Mathyssen: Does your concern about the free trade agreement confirm the environmentalists' fears that the free trade agreement fuels the race downward in terms of a jurisdiction's ability to protect its environment?

The Chair: For the questions our members have just placed on the record, if you could answer in writing, we would appreciate it. If we receive the answers prior to February 14, they will form part of the public record. If it is after that, it will be circulated and all members will be able to share that information as part of their deliberations. Thank you for joining us today. We appreciate you coming forward.


The Chair: I would like to call next the township of King. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We would appreciate if you would leave a few minutes for questions. Welcome, mayor. Please begin by introducing your delegation.

Mrs Britnell: On my right is Councillor Margaret Black from ward 3, which is a rural area of our municipality, who will speak at length on our behalf. On my left is Mrs Margery Coons, a citizen from our township. They have been very active over the years in these issues. Also, there is a map on the wall that shows the greater Toronto area and the Oak Ridges moraine. The yellow portion is King township. Fully 70% of our township lies within the Oak Ridges moraine. Thank you for hearing us.

My name is Margaret Britnell. I am mayor of the township of King. I have served my community for 30 years -- 25 years in elected various positions and mayor for 14 years.

The township of King submits that Bill 143 should be withdrawn. It is against basic laws of democracy, abrogates the rights of the individual and advocates violation of our recognized property rights. I am very disheartened and disappointed with this government. I expected more of an NDP government that has always advocated protection of individual rights and property rights.

The bill creates a sense of emergency, which does not exist. It denies and fails even to consider alternative options and sets out a procedure that is costly and unfair. One of the amendments Mrs Grier proposes to the bill as it stands even takes out the sections providing for damages for injurious affection.

The bill is filled with inconsistencies and contradictions. Mrs Grier said in her statement to this standing committee on January 20, 1992, "Shipping garbage to someone else's community runs counter to all of the principles of a conserver society." May I say I support that statement 100%. Yet this is exactly what Bill 143 does.

King township is probably the smallest producer of garbage in the whole of York region -- we know that and Metro Toronto certainly knows that -- and indeed the GTA, and has been committed to the 3Rs for many years. In fact, we call it the 4Rs because we say refusal in there as well.

Our garbage bylaw limits residents to three bags per week. Fully half of King township has reduced its waste generation to only one bag per week, and we intend to implement a user-pay system with a maximum limit. King township has a separate pickup for bottles, cans and newspapers. King township was the first municipality to officially introduce home composting in Ontario. Our household plastic and cardboard waste is recyclable, and we intend to extend this program. We have to walk before we run, in this case.

King township has, through our official plan, spent the past 20 years preserving our farm land, our beautiful, rolling countryside, the Oak Ridges moraine, fully 70% of which is in our township, and the Holland Marsh.

The truck traffic into King township serving an 800-acre landfill would in itself destroy our rural nature. A landfill of this size is so out of date with the present technology available that I do not know why we -- I say all of us in this -- are even thinking of pursuing it. I want to make it clear that King township will not accept Metro's garbage, nor does it think York region should. We will fight for our rights in this respect.

I will now ask Margaret Black, councillor for ward 3 and lawyer, to detail our submissions and I would like to speak briefly at the end of the presentation. Thank you.


Ms Black: I come here today as a newly elected councillor for the township of King. I also come as a long-life resident of the township of King, as a lawyer of 20 years practising in the township and also as a descendant of the pioneers of Ontario. My family, the Black family, came to Canada about 1800 and settled in King township in 1822. During the almost 200 years that we have lived in King township we have farmed and campaigned for the freedom of the people. In fact, in 1837 my great-grandfather John Black was one of those rebels, a farmer who came down with his pick and shovel and whatever else, and fought against an insensitive and autocratic government. He fought for the liberty of the people. He fought against the Family Compact. I am here to continue that fight. I am in the township of King government to continue that fight.

In the township of King we have many descendants from the rebels of 1837, and they are angry about their rights being taken away. Mayor Britnell, who spoke just before me, has been a one-woman crusade in our township to keep King green and to reduce garbage during her entire 30 years in the township. I wish to make my submissions starting with the first point.

This bill is undemocratic; it is autocratic and totalitarian. Section 7 of Bill 143 amazes me. It allows for an inspector to enter and inspect any land without a warrant. It allows the inspector even to conduct tests of land, including excavations of test pits, and allows the inspector to place equipment on the land for such period as the inspector considers necessary. That is an incredibly powerful and arbitrary power -- no warrant, no consent. This is a clear violation of property and of the civil rights of our citizens. This goes even beyond police powers. Yet Mrs Grier, in her statement of January 20, 1992, says she wishes to minimize the intrusion into individual privacy. Bill 143 just does not do this.

Our second point is that the process in this bill evades the Environmental Assessment Act and therefore is inequitable and discriminatory. This bill eliminates the EAA or the Environmental Protection Act for Peel, Durham and York-Metro, and yet the Ontario government requires the rest of the province, both public and private, to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions in some cases, I have learned, and these cases are well documented. Both private and public, these people must go through very complicated EPA procedures and EAA procedures. Clearly this is unfair of this government, to exempt these three areas without allowing the citizens their full rights. The government delays on the other applications are years in the present system, yet this bill proposes to strike down the EAA process for York-Metro, Durham and Peel.

We all know that Mrs Grier was a strong opponent of avoidance of the EAA; we have her letter to Jim Bradley dated March 7, 1989, urging him not to exempt Metro Toronto from the EAA process. All I can say is that this is a mockery. Once she was in power she did exactly what she had advocated against in a past government.

Third, this bill fails to consider other options and therefore is inequitable and discriminatory. Section 14 of the bill states that an environmental assessment for a landfill disposal site is not required to contain a description or statement of the rationale for any alternative to the landfill waste disposal site other than the 3Rs and other than an existing landfill in the primary service area. In our view, this is an extremely narrow approach to our goal of resolving this garbage disposal problem in the most efficient way and with the least cost to the environment.

This bill confines the area in which to look for a site, and this reduces the possibility of obtaining the best environmental site, which has always been the object of the EAA process. We understand that there are highly engineered incinerators working in other parts of the world, including Germany, Japan, Denmark and other countries, that are essentially pollution-free and that are cost-efficient. Why does this government not even allow us or yourselves to explore this process? Why has this bill not even considered such recognized alternatives? How could you ignore the facts of technology, cost efficiency and rail haulage alternatives? Kirkland Lake is a willing recipient of Metro's garbage. Why not let free enterprise become involved? Is this the message you want to send to the world markets, that you are an anti-business government?

The previous search for sites by the Ontario government found several huge quarries and mines, which were brought forward voluntarily -- when I say "voluntarily," I remind you of that -- by the private sector as candidate sites. These sites in northern Ontario and other areas can be served by rail: Kirkland Lake, Marmora and Orillia, I understand. Rail would eliminate the aggravation of trucks on our GTA roads, which are already clogged with traffic, and would eliminate the social hysteria and emotional stress that you have already caused to the citizens of King and to other regions.

I must emphasize to you the social stress on the residents. The social stress is even more dramatic because of the process set out in the Interim Waste Authority draft criteria. You first select a long list, which we felt King might be on, and cause hysteria in many communities unnecessarily, and the stress dramatically increases upon the issuance of the short list. In addition, most of King township is in the Oak Ridges moraine. It is inconceivable that you would even consider or even find an 800-acre site in King township that will not be part of the Oak Ridges moraine.

Our fourth point is cost. This bill undoubtedly will cost the Ontario taxpayers high dollars as citizen groups and individuals hire experts to protect their property rights. The funding requirements are mind-boggling. Your intervenor funding, as contemplated in section 16 of Bill 143, will be astronomical when you consider a long and a short list, although I note the bill says "assist," that is, there is no guarantee that anyone will get any funding.

On the issue of cost, on page 5-14 of the Draft Approach and Criteria for Metropolitan Toronto, dated August 1991, I wish to quote the following paragraph which I thought was quite amazing:

"Information centres will be located as close as possible to each community identified in the long list of sites." This is the long list. "For example, an information centre may be staffed by a public consultation representative who will be available to answer questions for a few hours each week at the local library. In addition, a full set of documentation will be housed in the libraries and municipal offices of affected communities."

Who pays for this?

Mrs Marland: Guess who?

Ms Black: Our fifth point is injurious affection. In King township we are concerned with section 19 denying the municipalities the right to compensation for injurious affection and even more concerned that you are proposing to remove subsections 19(1) and (2), which provide for citizens to claim for injurious affection. We insist that subsections 19(1) and (2) be put back in, and that subsection 19(3) be changed to provide that the municipalities do have the right to compensation.

Even right now in our township, trucks hauling clay to the Maple dump cross through the residential village of King City, polluting the air and causing interruption to our business section and physical injury to our roads and water services with the potential to destroy the economic base of King City. King City residential homes up to two blocks away from the road these trucks take are falling apart. The consistent and persistent traffic is taking a heavy toll of the residents' right to enjoy peaceful use of their property, not to mention the need for continual repair of their homes and the consequent loss of value because of this nuisance. These trucks start at 4 am, disturbing the peace. We want these citizens to retain their constitutional rights to sue the parties involved in this matter.

Our sixth point is that there is no emergency. When one reads the bill it is filled with a sense of urgency. When I read the act, that was the surprise. Perhaps when the first draft was made the facts were not in. The facts are now in: No emergency exists for Metro or York. So be big enough, NDP, to back off and withdraw this bill, which was obviously drawn up in haste. We will respect you for it as we have done in the past.


We want to solve this problem as much as you do. We submit that Metro must become more involved in the 3Rs and that Metro must look after its own garbage within its own boundaries.

Even if an emergency still did exist, Bill 143 does not do the job. It does not establish a process to find a long-term landfill site as quickly as possible with an environmental assessment, and that is the goal that Mrs Grier set out in her statement of January 20, 1992.

Thank you. I would like to refer back to Margaret Britnell for closing remarks.

Mrs Britnell: The township of King says the bill should be withdrawn. It is obvious from its wording that it was hastily prepared legislation with an emergency in mind that does not exist. The capacity of Keele Valley is adequate to 1999.

King township is farm land, horse farms, rolling hills, the Holland Marsh, woods and unpolluted streams. We have continuously fought hard through our policies to maintain these characteristics. In fact, the Holland Marsh supplies a great deal of food for the GTA as well as a lot of export to the market. I have personally fought for the past 20 years to maintain King's character. My re-elections show that I represent the people. King township will not accept Metro's garbage and will fight to retain its rural nature.

We implore you to return to the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Protection Act process already in force. We implore you to let the private sector come forward.

There are other ways to solve Metro's garbage problems. We implore you to consider the alternatives and look for the best economic, environmental and technological solution for the GTA. One example for Metro is to redevelop industrial lands that are vacant on Metro's perimeter and on the waterfront. I have toured them. There is lots of room there. A second is to create a facility on the north, east and west boundaries of Metro with up-to-date, state-of-the-art recycling, separation, compacting and incineration at the end of the line, not at the beginning. We have the technology there. It was developed in Kingston in 1978 and has been improved ever since.

The whole of Ontario benefits from the GTA, not just York, Durham and Peel. Let's all look after our own garbage, which the township of King has always done, and let Metro look after its own. Let's come out of the petrified forest of the Ministry of the Environment and look towards resolving this garbage crisis, taking into consideration what other countries and cities with a far greater population than Metro or the greater Toronto area have done with minimum land mass. The greater Toronto area is a microcosm within Ontario. Let's show some innovative leadership instead of reacting by using the same out-of-date, environmentally harmful methods.

Thank you. We invite your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. Given the lack of time, I am going to ask all members to put their question on the record and then allow the mayor and deputation to respond with whatever time remains, if there is any. Mr Cousens, just place your question.

Mr Cousens: Just keep fighting, Margaret. I think you can win.

Ms Black: A couple of hundred years of politics in the province should do it.

Mrs Marland: The line about the Ministry of the Environment being in the petrified forest is one of the best lines I have heard.

The Chair: Do you have a question, Mrs Marland?

Mrs Marland: Yes, I do. I am wondering if this deputation would be willing to meet with the Minister of the Environment if they had the opportunity, and whether they have asked for that kind of meeting.

The Chair: Mr McClelland, question?

Mr McClelland: I hope you would implore the government yet again to be big enough to back off the bill and not respond with rhetoric that would put the members in a position where they claim to be experts on everything from civil liberties law and international trade law to constitutional law --

The Chair: Question, please.

Mr McClelland: -- and not only that, but tell businesses how to run their own businesses. Rather, I hope you could implore them successfully to maybe back off and just listen a little bit --

The Chair: Question.

Mr McClelland: -- and not presume they know everything about everything. Maybe you have something worthwhile to offer. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr Martin.

Mr Wiseman: Another speech. Come on, give us a break.

Mr Cousens: He wants a break.

The Chair: Order, please. Mr Martin, you have the floor.

Mr Martin: Certainly one of the major premises of this legislation is that there is a crisis. Throughout your presentation, you at one point said there is, and then at one point you said there is not, and then at the end you said there is again. Could you please help me know whether you think there is or is not a crisis?

The Chair: Ms Haeck, question?

Ms Haeck: I noted that throughout your presentation you made reference to incineration on several occasions as being "approved technology." However, we have had several presentations, one as recently as this morning from the district health officer from the Simcoe-Orillia area, and he has left us with some very edifying, illuminating documents relating to the unsafe characteristic of incineration. We can get copies of that for you. I am wondering if you could really justify for this committee why we should be examining a process which is so unsafe, through a series of scoped hearings.

The Chair: Question, Mr Wiseman?

Mr Wiseman: Yes, I have two questions. One, I would like to know what your definition of "willing host" is, given that when P1 was designated as a willing host site, the entire town and council of Pickering opposed it.

Ms Black: We did not use the words "willing host." We talked about "recipient."

Mr Wiseman: But when you talked about Kirkland Lake, the fact of the matter is that the Adams mine is outside of Kirkland Lake and in another township, and those residents have contacted us and indicated that they are not in fact willing to take Metro's garbage, although Kirkland Lake is willing to take it. So I would like your definition.

The second thing is that I would like your comments, if you could get the Hansard from yesterday afternoon and read the CP and CN Rail proposals, which would indicate that they would have just as many trucks coming into York region to offload the garbage to put into containers that would then go by train.

The last question I have has to do with the draft criteria document itself and the fact that it sets the criteria first before moving towards the long list. I would like your comments about that process in terms of establishing the criteria before the landfill sites are selected.

The Chair: The clerk will make available to you copies of the questions that have been placed on the record. If you are able and wish to answer them, we would appreciate it. Today is February 11. If we receive them prior to February 14, they will become part of the record. If it is after February 14, they will be considered by all members of the committee as part of the deliberations. We very much appreciate your coming before the committee today.

Mrs Britnell: Thank you for hearing us. Can we get those questions now or do we have to wait for them? How do we get them?

The Chair: The clerk will send them out. We should have a copy of instant Hansard. If you wish, I will ask her to contact you as quickly as possible.

Mrs Britnell: Well, please do not send them in the mail.

The Chair: We could fax them as soon as possible.

Mrs Britnell: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mayor Britnell, perhaps just leave your fax number with the clerk.

Mrs Britnell: I will.

The Chair: We will get those to you as quickly as we can.



The Chair: I would like to call next Carolyn Siller. Please come forward. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We would ask that you leave a few minutes at the end of the presentation for questions from committee members. Please begin by introducing your deputation, and would you begin your presentation now.

Ms Siller: My name is Carolyn Siller, and I have notified the clerk that I am willing to share my time with Ms Julie Bart, another resident from the city of Mississauga.

Madam Chairperson, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today regarding Bill 143. For the past 10 years, as cofounder and president of the Mississauga Citizens Environmental Protection Association, MCEPA, I have been extensively involved in matters of waste management, especially as they relate to the region of Peel. On behalf of the MCEPA I have made numerous presentations to regional council, Mississauga city council, business groups, service clubs, schools and others on waste management issues.

Our association has participated in workshops and consultative groups in regard to the siting of a new landfill for the region of Peel, development of the region of Peel's waste management master plan and the development of the St Lawrence Cement Co refuse-derived fuel proposal. As well, we were funded intervenors in the joint board environmental assessment of the Peel Resources Recovery Inc energy-from-waste facility in the city of Brampton. That hearing took place in 1988.

Based on my experience as a citizen in the area of waste management, I am here today to give my full endorsement to Bill 143 and to applaud the minister for the leadership role she is taking in moving Ontario from a consumer to a conserver society. Mrs Grier has been courageous in terms of putting into practice that which we all profess to believe, that is, that we must stop being world-class, state-of-the-art garbage producers and begin to preserve our resources.

The minister and her government, through Bill 143, have enunciated a social policy that is asking us to completely reverse our old ways of thinking. That is a challenge, and it is disturbing to all of us. It is hard for us to get our minds around. We are being asked to focus our efforts on reusing, composting and recycling our waste rather than trying to figure out the most environmentally sound way of disposing of it. The change of attitudes that must come about to accomplish this is much more difficult than any quick, out of sight, out of mind technological fix.

Part IV of Bill 143 is guiding us towards that new way of doing things -- a new way that makes much more sense socially, economically and environmentally. Until we all make that switch in our thinking, someone somewhere will always be faced with living next to a new landfill or the extension of an old landfill or living under the stack of an incinerator.

As a resident of Peel, I deeply regret the extension of the Britannia landfill site. However, I believe it is the best of any number of very unpalatable choices. It is unfortunate that the residents who live near the Britannia site must be the victims of a crisis that we have all had a part in creating.

I am pleased that the search for the long-term landfill site will undergo a full environmental assessment. As a citizen who has been involved for some time in environmental matters, I fully endorse the environmental assessment process. However, as president of a group of citizens who were intervenors in a lengthy hearing regarding an incinerator proposal, I believe the hearing process is flawed.

First, no amount of funding received by citizens can ever match the resources available to the proponent. The citizen side and the proponent side are simply not equal. More important, however, the environmental assessment process tends to focus on technical matters; for example, will the clay liner leak? Will the emissions meet the current regulations? It is very difficult to introduce a conceptual idea, a discussion about attitudes and fundamental societal change, in such a setting.

In a speech to the annual meeting of the Recycling Council of Ontario in the fall of 1989, the previous Minister of the Environment, Mr Bradley, said that incineration is a dinosaur that has no place in a modern waste management system. Mrs Grier has taken Mr Bradley's stated belief that incineration is an outmoded concept and restated it as government policy. Incineration has now been banned in the province of Ontario.

In our community we are presently faced with a proposal from the St Lawrence Cement Co to burn refuse-derived fuel in its cement kiln. The glaring problem with the proposal is that that refuse-derived fuel would be composed of plastic and paper, both of which are recyclable. A society which is in transition from consumer to conserver cannot logically resort to throwing reyclables into a furnace.

The St Lawrence Cement proposal is simply inconsistent with this government's policy of moving towards a conserver society. St Lawrence Cement has been before this committee asking that it be allowed to proceed with an environmental assessment of its incineration proposal. This makes no sense whatsoever. Given the policy of this duly elected government to ban incineration, it would be ludicrous to proceed with an environmental assessment on an outmoded, retrograde technological fix that attempts to solve the back end, not the front end, of the garbage problem.

The incineration industry and the other vested interests in the waste disposal business that are fighting this bill tooth and nail are out of touch with the willingness of ordinary people to protect the environment by reducing waste. Business too has realized that there is economic gain in reusing and reducing. Both citizens and business are realizing that there is much to be gained by changing their attitudes and practices.

In our communities of Mississauga and Oakville, citizens would much rather reduce, reuse and recycle and compost than live under the stack of the St Lawrence Cement incinerator. I would like to list for you the substances, according to St Lawrence Cement's own figures, that will be emitted from its stack. These figures are calculated on the incinerator or the kiln operating 300 days per year.

These are the substances that will be emitted: carbon dioxide, which, as you know, is a major greenhouse gas, 1.75 million tonnes per year, equivalent to 225,000 cars using 60 litres of gasoline per week for a year; particulate, 675 tonnes; sulphur dioxide, a gas which, as you know, contributes to acid rain, 2,935 tonnes; carbon monoxide, 950 tonnes; nitrogen dioxide, another acid gas, 2,997 tonnes; aluminum, 15.3 tonnes; copper, 8.6 tonnes; lead, 4.1 tonnes; mercury, 0.13 tonnes. All these emissions would meet the current regulation, Bill 308, but you look at it differently when you are sitting under it.

In conclusion, I would ask this committee and this government to give the citizens the tools we need to help make Ontario a truly conserver society with a quality of air, water and land which we are proud to leave to our children. Please free us from the costly, draining battles fighting against landfills, fighting against incinerators and other projects. Let us instead use our time, energy, resources and talents to work for positive change. Let us help you to work to change attitudes and to transform Ontario from a consumer to a conserver society.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Would you introduce yourself.


Ms Bart: My name is Julie Desjardins Bart. I am chairperson of a residents' group called Residents Against Cement Company Pollution. Formerly, we were known as the Mississauga-Oakville Residents Committee. In 1990 we submitted a brief to the Minister of the Environment outlining our significant concerns with the St Lawrence Cement proposal to incinerate refuse-derived fuel at its Mississauga plant. The brief was signed by individuals, ratepayers and other groups representing over 17,000 households in the immediate vicinity of St Lawrence Cement.

I am not here to debate the faults of the St Lawrence Cement incineration proposal, but having heard St Lawrence Cement's presentation to you, some comment seems appropriate. To avoid lengthy, costly arguments about whether St Lawrence Cement considers itself covered by the ban on incineration, we would encourage you to specifically include the burning of refuse-derived fuel in the legislation.

Listening to St Lawrence Cement's presentation, we are promised jobs, affluence, safe garbage disposal and clean air. My goodness, are we crazy not to be jumping on this bandwagon? One overriding theme that permeates all of our dealings with our St Lawrence Cement is that St Lawrence Cement has not been a good neighbour. They are not as upfront and as straightforward as they would have you believe.

Let's take a moment to review St Lawrence Cement's track record environmentally. For years and years there has been particulate fallout from their existing operations. In exasperation I think, the Ministry of the Environment has issued a control order against St Lawrence Cement ordering it to fix its problems. SLC's response has been the same as the Hagersville tire company. They have appealed the control order, so we are stuck in court.

In anticipation of the control order, St Lawrence Cement set to work on their neighbours by distributing flyers complaining that the Ministry of the Environment standards would just have to be downgraded. Their environmental attitude is: "Don't fix the problem. Give us special exemptions." I would like to point out that this bad attitude is particularly noticeable in our area. There are a number of heavy industries in the area. Residents and the district office of the Ministry of the Environment have noticed a marked improvement in the social responsibilities of all of these companies except St Lawrence Cement.

Let's look at how we must filter St Lawrence Cement's information. Their presentation to you claimed that "this technology is now in use throughout the industrialized world." Then what are the actual emissions coming from these stacks? This information has never been provided. Instead, they have estimated what they think the emissions might be by doing literature reviews and extrapolations of numbers. St Lawrence Cement is owned by Holderbank, a company based in Switzerland. Holderbank operates 75 cement companies on five different continents. Surely they could get their hands on actual emission data. Why are they asking us to make a decision based on literature reviews and numbers gyrations? Are we or are we not guinea pigs? If we are not, then give us the information on the actual emissions. No empirical data has been provided.

Their presentation to you claimed they were working diligently with the community. Working on the community might be a better way to phrase it. There is no doubt they have embarked on an expensive public relations campaign. As evidence of their close relationship with the community, their presentation noted work with what they call the community liaison committee. What they failed to say was that everyone listed on that committee is against their proposal: Meadowwood-Rattray Residents Association, against; Joshua Creek Ratepayers, against; Mississauga Citizens Environmental Protection Association, against; Mississauga Clean City Campaign, against; local and regional councillors -- the councillor for our ward, Mrs Pat Mullen, is here in the audience. She is against. Our MPP, Mrs Marland, is against their proposal.

To that we can add our group, whose brief was signed by representatives of over 17,000 households. We can add the Council of Southwest Mississauga Ratepayers Association, an umbrella group for 22 ratepayer groups. We can add the Federation of Oakville Ratepayers Group, the umbrella group of Oakville ratepayer associations. All these people are opposed to the proposal. There is widespread community opposition and frustration with St Lawrence Cement's proposal to burn garbage.

This issue of a poor environmental attitude, of the lack of upfront straightforward dealing with one's neighbours is critical. Their track record shows poor environmental performance, poor environmental attitude, inadequate data and a public campaign aimed at doubletalk and half truths. This company's plant is situated in the midst of a heavily populated residential area. It is on the shores of Lake Ontario, the source of drinking water for millions of people. Pollution effects from St Lawrence Cement will be widespread.

Why would we entrust a new technology, the burning of RDF, to a company that cannot operate its existing cement-making operations in an environmentally acceptable manner? As the Ministry of the Environment, not the politicians but the public servants who are technical experts, have stated, air quality could drastically deteriorate before St Lawrence Cement would stop its kilns. The Ministry of the Environment's technical review noted serious flaws in St Lawrence Cement's proposal and advised them that St Lawrence Cement should not proceed to an environmental assessment hearing.

On the issue of an environmental assessment hearing, as a taxpayer, I cannot see the sense of sending St Lawrence Cement's proposal to a hearing. The duly elected government has established a social policy banning incineration. The technical experts in the Ministry of the Environment oppose the proposal. Why would we want to spend taxpayers' money to hire lawyers to register the government's social policy stand, another set of lawyers to argue the MOE's technical stand, another set of lawyers to argue for ratepayer groups, etc, and use our scarce environmental and governmental resources on this? In our legal system we already filter out those cases that are not worthy of going to court. Surely we can exercise similar commonsense in eliminating some proposals from going to a costly, resource- and time-consuming EA hearing.

St Lawrence Cement distributed a flyer to their neighbours when they heard of the ban on incineration. Their flyer claimed in big headlines: "RDF is Not Incineration." As stated earlier, to avoid any lawsuit by St Lawrence Cement contending that this legislative ban does not apply to the burning of refuse-derived fuel, we ask that the legislation specifically include the banning of RDF incineration. I have submitted a suggested amendment to the clerk that would deal with this point. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation today. We appreciate your coming before the committee. If there is any additional information you would like to share with us at any time, please feel free to communicate with us in writing.


The Chair: I would like to call next Michael Izzard. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. Please begin by introducing yourself, and we would ask you to leave a few minutes if you can for questions from committee members. Please begin your presentation now.

Mr Izzard: Thank you Madam Chair. My name is Michael Izzard. I am an environmental lawyer and a chemical engineer. I have a practice in Mississauga.

Basically, Bill 143, in my view, is not new legislation; it is legislation that is in the nature of emergency legislation only. Part I of the bill covers the Interim Waste Authority, which includes the powers of expropriation which are already on the books of Ontario's laws in the Expropriation Act. The power of entry is covered in the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act, so neither of these concepts is new with regard to Ontario legislation.

Part II deals with long-term landfills, and in that the concept of the 3Rs is emphasized. Part II varies subsection 5(3) of the Environmental Protection Act slightly, but all the necessary definitions and clarifications for this variation are in Bill 143.


Part III of Bill 143 is the minister invoking section 29 of the Environmental Protection Act. This section, to the best of my knowledge, was enacted in 1971 when the act came into force. Again, the necessary clarifications are in the bill to avoid any interpretation problems.

Part IV of the bill is basically normal legislative amendments which deal with, in this particular bill, definitions only. These amendments are necessary in order to set the stage for future legislation implementing this government's 3Rs conserver policy. I agree with Mr Tom Lederer, the solicitor for the city of Vaughan who addressed this committee several weeks ago, when he said that a court challenge to Bill 143 would be very difficult.

With regard to the subject of incineration, the word "incineration" is only mentioned once in Bill 143, and that is in subsection 14(2). In the current Ontario legislation there is no definition of incineration. We have definitions for incinerator, which is in regulation 308; we have a definition for waste; we have a definition for ignitable waste, and then we have various definitions for hazardous waste, liquid waste, and so forth. But to arrive at a definition of incineration, we have to develop this from these other definitions. I suggest that a simple chemical definition of incineration would be the oxidation and reduction of molecules by which heat and light are emitted. A simple layperson's definition would be, incineration is burning. These two definitions have been put on a paper which I believe has been circulated. I therefore suggest an amendment to Bill 143 could include a scientific-based definition of incineration. This would fit into Part IV of the bill.

With regard to cement kiln incineration, St Lawrence Cement has made a presentation to this committee, as you have heard several times already. In St Lawrence Cement's presentation, it proposed an addition, or what it calls an amendment, to section 14, and called that subsection 14(4). This was in their binder that they circulated to everybody. Incidentally, that binder is made of non-recycled paper, plastic, and plastic binder, and is only printed on one side. For a company that is concerned about recycling and the environment, that was about the most environmentally unfriendly binder I have ever seen. Their subsection 14(4) reads, "Incineration of waste in this part shall not include the reduction of refuse-derived fuel for use in a cement kiln." Incineration is not the production of fuel; incineration is the burning of fuel, so this subsection 14(4) is talking about two things: burning or incineration, and it is also talking about producing fuel. Refuse-derived fuel, however you want to look at it and however you define it, is simply fuel. Other examples of fuel are coal, fuel oil and natural gas. My point with regard to their subsection 14(4) is that it is basically not very useful to this committee in that it does not address one specific topic but tries to bring two things together.

In engineering and the basic sciences, the concept of an elementary mass balance is one of the first things we learn. A mass balance, simply put, is, what goes in equals what goes out. The matter and atoms which go into an incinerator or into a chemical reactor are exactly the same atoms as those that come out. A high-temperature chemistry is relatively uncertain in that it is very difficult to find materials that can be used for measuring what is going on at elevated temperatures. In addition, with regard to high-temperature chemistry, once the molecules have been heated to these supertemperatures and then cool down, they reform into complexes which can be measured, but we do not know what has happened in the incinerator.

All the metal atoms that go into a incinerator equal all the metal atoms that come out. Ash is either chemically or physically bonded into the cement; St Lawrence Cement has said one at one time and another at the other time. At this present time, I do not know whether it is chemically bonded or physically bonded. Again, we have an unknown.

In any event, the ash materials would contain many of the toxic molecules that we are so concerned about. The ash materials in cement will be in the environment when the cement deteriorates. We have all seen cracks in cement sidewalks, crumbling concrete and cement rubble used to reinforce shorelines of lakes and rivers. This is not to mention the air emissions from cement kilns. These toxic materials that may be chemically or physically bonded in cement will be distributed widely into the environment in an uncontrolled manner by allowing them to be encased in cement.

Also, St Lawrence Cement considered that light plastics and paper are the refuse-derived fuel it is interested in. This is from two of their reports. These materials are of interest to St Lawrence Cement as they have a BTU content that equals that of low-grade coal or fuel, which ties in with the definition of waste-derived fuel in regulation 309. These materials, light plastics and paper, are recyclable. They are not the materials that may have been circulated at this committee at an earlier time.

In conclusion, I would like to state that I support Bill 143. It is an environmentally sensitive and environmentally positive piece of legislation. Also, it incorporates previous legislation to take the first step toward the implementation of the government's conserver society, an environmental policy which I applaud. There are no magic solutions to the problems that the bill addresses, only ones that make good environmental sense. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr McClelland: Your partner and previous presenter said the hearing process with respect to the EAA is flawed. I think we would agree with that. It seems to me that the solution then is to fix the EA process. She also said -- and I will say in my question to you, sir -- that we have to, as a society, completely reverse our way of thinking. I think we share that opinion. My question to you is if you think Bill 143 is such good stuff, that it puts so much power into the hands of one person, how would you feel, recognizing, which I hope you do, that it is a two-edged sword, it cuts both ways, that somebody some day might be sitting in the Minister of the Environment's office who does not share your outlook? Do you understand what you are saying when you say you support and you are in favour of Bill 143? Do you and your partner not recognize by -- all the things that you used to believe in, my colleagues opposite used to believe in, public participation. Do you not see that that power in the hands of somebody who has an opposite position to you -- right now they happen to agree with you, and that is fine, but if it was in the hands of somebody who does not agree with you, do you not see that as potentially dangerous, contrary to everything that you say you believe in?

Mr Wiseman: Kind of what you did on P1 and site 6.

The Chair: You do not have the floor, Mr Wiseman. You may answer.

Mr Izzard: Mr McClelland, I do not feel that Bill 143 takes any power away from anyone.

Mr McClelland: Do people in Britannia feel that?

The Chair: Mr McClelland, you no longer have the floor.


Mr Izzard: Basically Bill 143 uses the same environmental assessment process as under the Environmental Assessment Act, with a few variations, as I mentioned, with regard to subsection 5(3). I do not believe it is a dictatorial piece of legislation that is usurping power into the hands of any one person against any other group of people.

You have brought this question forward to this committee several times before. You have asked various people whether they believe in a full, open environmental assessment that is independent and fair. With regard to this idea of environmental assessment and the things we believe in, as you were saying, I myself have participated in two of the largest hearings this province has ever had and been on the borders of a third.

With regard to full hearings, as you say, full hearings are extremely costly. The Environmental Assessment Board proposed in September 1990, which was during the former government's mandate, some proposals to cut down the environmental assessment process itself into a form of scoping. I support what that proposal paper says.

With regard to the concept of these environmental assessment hearings being independent, that depends on which side you are on, again. With regard to independence, we have one consultant saying one thing and another consultant saying another. Usually the proponent is the one with the most money. They can hire the most consultants. It is very difficult for intervenors, given a limited budget, to fight an army of consultants. For example, at the Ontario Waste Management Corp hearing, it spent approximately $100 million in preparing its presentation for the hearing. I was working with the intervenors and we were given $1.3 million in total to fight it; $1.3 million against $100 million is not what I call fair and open or independent.

I have also participated in hearings where consultants are basically requested to submit draft reports to the person paying their bills for these drafts to be approved. If the person hiring these consultants, such as St Lawrence Cement or, generally speaking, a proponent, does not like what the consultant is saying, he will request the consultant to change the report. I do not consider this to be the concept of independence, so we still have a lot of problems with our environmental assessment process.

The Chair: We do not have time for questions and answers, just for questions for the record. Mrs Marland, do you want your question on the record or not?

Mrs Marland: Even though the others have had questions?

The Chair: The procedure I have been using is to allow the deputant the benefit of the majority of the time and deducting it from members of committee, since the purpose of these hearings is to hear from the public. When we have run out of time, I then allow you to put your questions on the record. The other caucuses will have a chance to put their questions on the record as well.

Mrs Marland: All right. I will play by the rules. I would like Mr Izzard to answer a question. He describes Bill 143 as being environmentally sensitive and environmentally positive. How can he give that description to a bill that gives power to the minister to expand the Britannia landfill site without any kind of environmental assessment whatsoever?

The Chair: Ms Haeck, a question for the record?

Ms Haeck: No, thank you. I just want to thank the deputant.

The Chair: If you would like to respond in writing to Ms Marland's question, you can do so. The clerk informed me we are not a priority for being able to send out the Hansards. You have heard the question. If there is an opportunity for you to respond by February 14, you will be able to have it as part of the public record. If it is after that, it will be available for members to consider. Thank you for appearing today. We appreciate it.

Mr Izzard: Thank you.


The Chair: John Epps is our next presenter. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. If you would leave a few minutes at the end for questions, we would appreciate it.

Dr Epps: My name is Dr John Epps. I am a family physician in practice in Kirkland Lake. I come here this afternoon to speak in regard to Bill 143. I am also an active member of the Timiskaming Anti-Garbage Coalition. I have publicly opposed the process whereby the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto has attempted to solve its garbage crisis in northern Ontario. Furthermore, I was a candidate for the mayoralty race in Kirkland Lake in November 1991. In that election I won the support of over 2,100 voters in Kirkland Lake; that represents about 42% of the ballots cast. Thus I am speaking today not only on behalf of the thousands of Kirkland Lakers who supported me, but also for thousands of other people in the Kirkland Lake region, the so-called host region, who have never been given a chance to voice their opposition or to make their concerns known publicly in an open and objective fashion.

Although many Ontarians need an explanation of where Kirkland Lake is located, I am sure this is one group that needs no such geography lesson. In spite of our northern location, the people of my region share the same goals and aspirations of other Ontarians: to see safe and responsible economic development creating jobs and prosperity for all. Furthermore, I can assure you the people of Kirkland Lake share another goal with all citizens of Ontario: They wish to see a shift towards a conserver society in the 1990s. No one denies that our ability to produce garbage has outstripped our ability to dispose of it in a safe and economical fashion. I share the view that the only way to resolve this dilemma is for society to produce less waste.

The waste crisis now upon us has been predicted for at least a decade. Other large cities around the world have given us both good and bad examples of how to deal with urban waste. While it is generally felt reduction is the best solution, there has been little incentive for individuals to reduce their contribution to the waste stream while cheap and seemingly bottomless landfill options are available.

Politicians have long had the means to deal decisively with the problem, but have lacked the foresight or perhaps the fortitude to do so. This lassitude was also the result of having relatively cheap landfill available. Thus it is refreshing to see Bill 143 introduced. It will provide the incentive for all regions in the province to get on with the jobs of reducing their waste stream and then recycling the waste until only a true residual component remains.

The bill also provides the framework for tougher legislation governing packaging and recycling of containers. There is no more time to wait for industry to produce more environmentally sensitive packaging systems on its own. Their solutions have consistently provided for too little too late.

I congratulate the Minister of the Environment on her progressive and courageous stand. While waste generators and waste handlers will no doubt state there is no proof that having to look after one's own waste is an incentive to reduce, I believe ordinary people using common sense can easily see how keeping their garbage in their own backyard will force them to reduce the amount they produce.

I think today there is another point that needs to be addressed. I fully support the formation of the Interim Waste Authority and giving it power to proceed with the landfill site selection process for the greater Toronto area regions of Metro, York, Peel and Durham. While it is often stated that public consultation and involvement in landfill site selection is essential, beginning at the time a potential site is identified, Metro has in the past shown among these regions a complete disregard for this process.

I would like you for a moment to consider the process whereby Metro entered into a contract with the municipalities of Kirkland Lake, Larder Lake and Engelhart regarding the processing and disposal of Metro's solid waste at the Adams mine site. Although not a legal requirement under the Environmental Assessment Act, involving the public in the proponent's pre-submission consultation has long been encouraged by the ministry. The environmental assessment branch Guidelines for Pre-submission Consultation states clearly:

"For pre-submission consultation to be successful, proponents are advised to document environmental issues as they are raised and to provide, for interested parties, the information and analysis on the manner in which issues have been addressed."

Up until the signing of the agreement on December 5, 1990, one might have thought the proponent in the Adams mine proposal was the developer. However when the agreement was made public, it put Metro clearly in charge of both the disposal and recycling aspects of the proposal. So regardless of this lack of a clearly identified proponent for the proposal, it is clear Metro had a responsibility to initiate public consultation based on its own site selection guidelines.

I am sure you are aware of SWEAP, the solid waste environmental assessment plan. Metro has formulated that group to take care of solid waste management issues. It has published a discussion paper called Discussion Paper 2.2: Landfill Selection Process, in which it states:

"Any other groups of individuals who feel that they are or may become affected by Metro's solid waste master planning can have access to all the SWEAP documents and their comments will be recorded and taken into account in all further planning.

"In addition, Metro considers that those who live in communities where waste management facilities may be sited will become affected parties as soon as potential sites are identified and should be actively invited to participate in Metro's planning process."


This was alarming to me because I only read this SWEAP document about two weeks after our agreement was signed. The document led me to present a brief to SWEAP's multistakeholders caucus on February 5, 1991. Imagine my surprise when I was told that the members of SWEAP had never been officially approached with regard to the Adams mine proposal. In the agreement, it states clearly that SWEAP is in charge of the recycling facility and options at the site, and yet it had never been asked.

At that point, it became painfully clear to me that there had been a complete lack of public consultation on the issue, both in Metro and up north. To this day, there has never been an open meeting sponsored in Kirkland Lake either by the municipalities there, the three municipalities signing the agreement, or by Metro or any GTA municipality. Far from being a model of public cooperation and consultation, the whole affair took on the appearance of yet another backroom deal between municipal politicians and developers, who were quite happy to begin the public consultation process after the ink was dry on the contract. That is, indeed, exactly what happened.

I would like to repeat my praise for the Minister of the Environment in introducing Bill 143. She has placed responsibility for waste squarely on the shoulders of those generating it. This is where it will do the most good in encouraging reduction, reuse and recycling. I thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. Mr McClelland?

Mr McClelland: You indicated, sir, that you were interested in the public's participation in solutions for Kirkland Lake. Is that correct?

Dr Epps: Yes.

Mr McClelland: I am sure you will have considerable comment about the referendum. We have heard much about it. You yourself, I understand, stated it was the wrong question, so you refused to vote on it. At the same time, I understand the yes vote on the referendum was greater than both the number of votes cast for the other candidate for the mayoralty and for you as well. Is that correct?

Dr Epps: In other words, greater than the total?

Mr McClelland: No. The number of yes votes was greater than the number of votes for the mayor and -- I do not say this is any disrespectful sense -- obviously greater than yours, inasmuch as the mayor won. You also said at that time during public debate that you were prepared to accept the wishes of the people. Is that not correct?

Dr Epps: That is correct.

Mr McClelland: Are you still of the view that the wishes of the people should be at least taken into account and be given a full hearing?

Dr Epps: Yes. I think the people in Kirkland Lake wished to make sure the process was guaranteed a safe proposal, gone through to its conclusion. I also stated, as I trust you are aware, that I also reserved the right to become an intervenor, because without an intervenor or an opposing voice I think you will find that the environmental assessment process falls apart. You must have both sides of the argument.

Mr McClelland: Yes, and that is fair. I think both sides of the argument have been put forward and, indeed, that is what many people have been saying, that they would like the opportunity to have both sides of the argument put forward. Do you still take the position, sir, that you feel morally bound by the wishes of the people?

Dr Epps: Yes, I do.

Mr McClelland: So if you were satisfied that the people had a fair opportunity to participate and that the issues of the day and this particular issue at hand were given ample and full consideration, you would accept that as a reasonable position?

Dr Epps: By "the issue of the day," do you mean --

Mr McClelland: I mean the issue with respect to the possibility of looking at Kirkland Lake's hosting a recycling facility, any number of aspects of the proposal that has been put forward by Notre Development.

Dr Epps: We must return to perhaps SWEAP or whatever organization is in charge of that facility before we make a decision on that basis. I think people have certainly been told many things by the developer in this regard. They have been promised a number of jobs, tonnages and such but have never been told exactly what type of recycling will occur at the site in terms of high quality, low quality, source-separated, wet, dry, mixed. I think it is important that the people of Kirkland Lake have always been reassured and patted on the head condescendingly, but they have never been told clearly. They have been shown a videotape of a system working elsewhere, but in fact the only agreement that existed, signed, to date stated that was clearly in the hands of Metro's body, SWEAP.

Mr McClelland: Yes, but you ran your mayoralty on the issue --

The Chair: I am sorry, Mr McClelland. Mr Martin, you have the floor.

Mr McClelland: You still want to let the people have their voice heard.

Mr Martin: Maybe to follow up a bit on Mr McClelland's question, because I think it is an important point here and I would like to hear a bit more on it, obviously you have some concern re the whole question of whether Kirkland Lake really is a willing host and the process by which the referendum was done. Is there anything more you would like to share with us that would clarify this in a way, that would perhaps tell us that Kirkland Lake is, in fact, maybe not a willing host?

Dr Epps: I think it is important to put the 69% yes vote to the municipal question in perspective. There is no question that on at least four occasions in the year prior to the election we asked the council to hold a referendum or some kind of municipal question, and each time it refused, dogmatically, to hold it. Only on the eve, with only 72 hours remaining to the deadline, did they come in, and then it became quickly apparent that the developer came in and was able to spend quite a large sum of money. Some estimates are as high as $30,000 in advertising. As you well know, the mayor's campaign spending in my own municipal election was limited to under $10,000 each. It made it very difficult for us to combat that with the opposing view, having no funds at our disposal.

I think it is also important to know a couple of other points. One is that many were told -- it was certainly implied and told in some circles -- that if we did not support the question, we might get the GTA's waste without the environmental assessment. That was a fear on many people's part and may account for some of the discrepancy between those who voted for me and those who yet voted yes to the municipal question.

The other thing that was told was that it was only a study and after the environmental assessment we would have a chance to decide, to make a decision on whether we accepted or rejected the proposal later. To my mind, in speaking with people from the Ministry of the Environment and the environmental assessment branch, we are not clear that this is the case, that we can make a decision after the EA board hearings.

Finally, we were also told that the environmental assessment guaranteed the safety of the project. That was stated clearly many times. My opinion is that I do not think that safety can be guaranteed. It does the best job it can, and for that reason we support the use of the environmental assessment. I also note that it is going to be changed, so we would like to know what the new process will be before we will give wholehearted support to it. But it is important to realize that there was a lot of confusion generated because of these ideas that were set forth -- "answering the municipal question this way gives you these options" -- and I am not sure those options were clearly understood by the voters.

Mrs Marland: You went through a municipal election last November, and I wonder if this question was brought up at all-candidates meetings. Since that time, have you asked for a public forum discussion with your elected officials?

Dr Epps: It was brought up at an all-candidates meeting and it was a very exciting election. There were 17 candidates running, I believe, and they each received two minutes to deal with that question, an inadequate time to deal with the issues.

After the election I have not, because I have been dealing with other municipal issues, serving on other boards. But prior to the election, on at least two occasions, I asked for a public meeting and was told by our elected municipal representatives, our councillors and our mayor, to go away, and that we would get a chance to discuss it during the environmental assessment process. We were refused a public meeting prior to the election, and I have not brought it up after.

Mrs Marland: Is it not enough of a major concern that in the months since -- we are talking about three months since -- I do not know how many of the council are new, but you would not go the current council and say, "Look, it is time we discussed this openly in a public forum"?

Dr Epps: I think that time is approaching. I think you have to appreciate that with 50% of our council replaced, and including the Christmas break, we had to give them a bit of time to get used to the idea of governing. I think that now perhaps the time is coming to discuss that, but remember that the council and the mayor have shown no leadership in this issue in an attempt to bring it back to a public consultation process. So we will have a condition whereby there has been no public consultation sponsored by our municipality.

The Chair: Question for the record, Mr Wiseman?

Mr Wiseman: Yes, two questions, very quickly. Do you think a fair question might have been, "Do you want Metro's garbage?" Second, did the residents of Boston township, where the Adams mine site is located, have the opportunity to vote for you and to vote on this referendum?

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate your coming before the committee today. If you wish, you can respond to the questions that have been placed on the record in writing over the course of the hearings.



The Chair: I would like to call next Ecosystem Approach Group. Please come forward, begin by introducing yourself, and you have 20 minutes for your presentation. We would appreciate it if you would leave a few minutes at the end for questions from members of the committee. Please begin your presentation now.

Mr Boldrini: My name is Piero Boldrini and I will be available to offer any explanation you request, but I would be a little bit hesitant to answer oral questions or comments. I would prefer to do it in writing. I am getting a little bit old and so I am a little bit rusty.

The Chair: Do not be nervous and do not worry about a thing. Make your presentation. I will ask the members to put their questions on the record and you can write to us afterwards.

Mr Boldrini: I will be able to explain. No, I am not nervous. This morning I presented to the office of the clerk a revised version of my brief which has some improvement. You may say it needs more improvement and a little bit of addition. I accept the first part of the comment -- I would certainly accept it -- but I am here to make only two points, which are in the title of my brief.

Let me tell you, first of all, that in appendix C of my brief, on page 15, the initial statement and the objectives of the group are outlined.

I have the double purpose which is in the title: first, to suggest the direction in which Bill 143 should go, and the direction is the ecosystem approach and, second, to ask you to stop pseudo-technological terrorism, which Bill 143 seems to reinforce.

When some of you members sat down in your car this morning, all of you had no doubt about the direction in which to go, though some may have a little variation. So, first you choose the direction and, second, your speed, etc.

I will only explain in the positive side three figures which are in my brief on pages 10, 11 and 12. I will start on page 12. This picture represents the definition of "environment" as listed in the Environmental Assessment Act. It is on the back of the letterhead of the group. I think everybody can see it -- green. The inside polygon represents the items which are outlined there and represent the definition in the Environmental Assessment Act.

In addition to that, the group connects all the items mentioned, and it wants to indicate in this way that there are interrelations between those factors. "Interrelation" means there is a direct way to go from one corner to the other, but there is almost an infinite number of ways to go from one corner to the other if you take a zigzag way. "Interaction" means many other things. There are two additional: There is another polygon representing the energy which makes ecosystems work and, finally, the biosphere, which includes ecosystems.

So you can see our suggestion for the direction of the bill, of which we are strongly critical, and you can read those criticisms there. I will not present things that you have already heard many times. I hope I am able to present something that you have not yet heard.

On page 13, that little picture represents human values. Many groups and many people came to you and took any of those pictures from the two opposite corners and stretched and talked about only one direction; in fact, a one-way direction. One way means one thing only: technology, culture, economics, ethics -- not many talk about ethics -- politics -- I guess many do with you -- social. Ecosystem integrity includes all these values, and this is a big miss in the bill. Indeed, it is a big miss from the majority and I have heard approximately only one third of the presentations made to this committee.

Finally, the third picture on page 11: Sometimes hearing your proceedings I am not sure I find myself in Ontario here. I think I am living on another planet with respect to some of the presenters or some of the questions asked. I would suggest you remind yourselves that you are living in the Ontario ecosystem; you have to pay attention to it.

Again, nothing here is new. I am simply reminding you. Perhaps the geometric presentation is new. This Ontario ecosystem is in the first edition of the Canadian Encyclopedia and is divided into six bioregions. The bill has a strongly different effect on any of these bioregions. Again, I do not like what the bill seems to suggest, taking a corner, stretching, making of all the Ontario ecosystems a one-way street. I do not like that.

In my presentation I define what is an ecosystem, what is the ecosystem approach, and I do this simply because the Minister of the Environment -- I am not very familiar with this place, but I heard twice when she was in opposition stating that the difference between her group and other groups was the ecosystem approach. I took that at face value. I do not think she has used that opportunity, at least up to now. She had three strong occasions, the OWMC hearing, the timber management hearing and especially the Ontario Hydro hearing. If you will not stop, Mr Chair, I have something very strong on the last year in the Ontario Hydro hearings. I repeat in my brief, many of you know what an ecosystem is, an ecosystem approach. Those who do not, have to read.

Pseudo-technological terrorism is nothing new again. There is a Canadian psychologist known all over the world, Dr Miller, the University of New Brunswick, who wrote a book a few months ago. I read to you only the titles of three of his articles which I have with me: Tunnel Vision in Environmental Management, 1982, The Influence of Personal Biases on Environmental Problem-Solving, and finally the third one, which is the strong one which inspired my strong language to follow, Psychopathology among Environmental Professionals. It tells you that many environmental professionals have something in their mind not working correctly, a personality disorder. I was surprised when I heard this for the first time. I wrote many letters; I corresponded with him. I think he is right, and he is recognized to be unique in the world and his book is very tough. I am not able to read from it, but his articles are understandable.

At the environmental assessment hearings, pseudo-technological terrorists provided incomplete and misleading evidence in order to hide the direct connection between the source of contamination and its target. This is the famous link, cause and effect, and this is the difficult link, but it is a crucial one. Pseudo-technological terrorists are very clever in that respect. For instance, in approving an incinerator, the Environmental Assessment Board put on the incinerator the wrong conditions: on the conditions asking for monitoring, the wrong contaminants list. Two lawyers from MOE did that, one from the previous previous minister and another from the previous minister.

I go now to page 9 of my brief, where I have added a few examples of this language, which I hope you accept as professional language because I am a professional. I gave you the references. Where I listed in the new version, the revised version with the date of today, I listed a few extra cases, and I have two more which I wrote this morning while coming here.


A hallmark of the modern age has been the false belief that the world could be saved only by technological quick fixes or tricks. Politicians are recognized for this. I hope I do not offend anybody, but that is the feeling. Technological terrorism was described by Professor Ellul, who wrote many books starting in 1950, and on this shaky pedestal another one has been built now, that of pseudo-technological terrorism. Now we are in a phase of double false belief, which falsifies even the technology, besides and beyond inflating its effect.

Typical pseudo-technological terrorist jargon to an environmental hearing where I went, generally on landfills, is the following: "The data show that the water table is slanted towards the landfill and not away from it. This means that even the small potential contamination, below the provincial standards and guidelines, tends to remain within the landfill and does not migrate away from it." It is completely false and misleading, evidently. These are the correct buzzwords, but the realities are that the data show that the water table is slanted away from the landfill and towards the neighbours, and the chemical contamination is always higher, so the technological terrorists falsify their data.

There are a few corollaries deriving from this. Pseudo-technological terrorists have dubious technological qualifications. They simulate those too, and they are accountable only to their own vicious circle and to themselves, and they can only prosper within this vicious circle. Dr Miller is stating that, and I would recommend at least the last article of his, which is about a strong psychopathology among environmental professionals, to prove at least part of what I am stating for you.

In the last year and a half, the new Minister of the Environment hired at least two of these pseudo-technological terrorists among her staff, and I guess that is perfectly legal, but what is not acceptable is that they are being hired in the civil service at the Ministry of the Environment, including the office of -- is it waste management or waste recycling? I lose the titles of the offices; they change so frequently, so I do not keep track of all of them.

There are psychological terrorists present in the Environment Assessment Board, the Ontario Energy Board, Ontario Hydro, etc, and I am sure you do not want me to give you names. I would not give that. I fight sins, not sinners. I have lost the physical strength to fight sinners, but I have a lot of strength to fight sins.

I cannot accept that this pseudo-technological terrorism be represented directly in the civil service, by people who have abused the process of intervenor funding, for instance, which is another recent addition to this personality disorder; people being given money, and a lot of it, without even completing their applications. The Lieutenant Governor in Council has one of them, for example, these days. I repeat, people, intervenors getting money, intervenor funding, without filling out the application.

Ruth Grier, when she was in the opposition, as did the past Minister of the Environment, received from me falsified chemical analysis performed at the Ministry of the Environment. It is a technique I use because I do not trust politicians too much, so if I go in one direction, to be sure, I go to one side of the opposition. The Minister of the Environment, Mr Bradley, did not answer, but stopped the analysis at that time. Ruth Grier had an explanation, and I have here the documentation I passed to her, but now she does not answer my letters. She seems to be supporting the psychological terrorists in her ministry. I am referring to falsified chemical analysis presented to environmental assessment hearings. I have a lot of documentation in that respect. In fact, imagine what you have -- and in my brief I explain -- on air analysis in Ontario. Air changes from one fraction of a second to the next, so imagine what a mess the air analysis is.

From the above conclusions, and from two more I have in front of me, it is clear that I do not see that the new authority has any potential of success unless you, the legislators, put an end to pseudo-technological terrorism. We still remember the failure of an office the former minister introduced a few years ago. It failed. I do not know exactly the reason, but I guess it has something to do with this pseudo-technological terrorism I am trying to present to you.

In summary, what do psychological terrorists do? They fudge, invent, cover up contamination at landfills. They package the pseudo-results they decide to pass to the public in a pseudo-safety-packaged envelope. I gave some examples. Another example I heard of is the landfill where Ruth Grier has the falsified analysis. The data show that the quality of water did not change and remained within the "reasonable use limits." This jargon only means, on the contrary, that the data changed; contamination increased, it was explained by the MOE lawyer at that hearing, only within 10% per year, which means, of course, that if it is 11%, the pseudo-technological terrorists turn the level to 9.9%, so that is fine.

The Chair: You have one minute left.

Mr Boldrini: Another example of which I have the proof in my hand, given by MOE, is a chemical analysis that was performed by taking three samples and averaging the results. Reality shows -- the reality in my hand -- that instead one sample was taken and divided by three; and this is not the worst case. I have cases of analysis divided by 10, by 100, by 1,000. The case of the 1,000 is a serious one, because the consultant of the board was a high civil servant, now at the Ministry of the Attorney General.

I ask you to break this vicious circle of pseudo-technological terrorism, which I hope is clear to you, because Ontario, like New York -- New York has a mob tax, which hikes prices of clothes. A few days ago, one week ago, it was stated in the Star that Ontario has a mob tax, paid because pseudo-technological terrorists work at MOE, EAB, etc. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate you coming before the committee today, and as we said earlier, if there is additional information, please feel free to communicate with us in writing.



The Chair: I would like to call next Joan Phillips. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. Please come forward. We would ask you to leave a few minutes at the end, if you would, for questions from committee members. Please have a seat. Speak right into the microphone. Do not be nervous. Welcome.

Mrs Phillips: Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson, members and fellow citizens. You have had all manner of experts and consultants speak to you over the past weeks and by now you must feel buried in reports, information and rhetoric. I think you are very patient, actually, and well-mannered. I thought you might like to hear from someone from Mississauga with absolutely no vested interest and who has been immersed in garbage and the garbage business at a grass-roots level since the pre-history of good waste management which, believe it or not, is only about seven years ago.

In 1985 as a volunteer, I started promoting the blue box system in Mississauga and was then asked to become executive director of Mississauga Clean City Campaign, which is a non-profit group funded in part by the city of Mississauga to promote good waste management. I am only going to give you the rest of this to, I suppose, convince you that I have been there in the trenches.

In 1986 Mississauga became the first city after Kitchener to commit to a 90,000 residential blue box program. Incidentally, as a matter of interest, they pre-dated Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc so they received no funding from that organization. They were ahead of their time and continued to add initiatives to keep them in the forefront of good waste management. Over the next six years I ran one of the first multimaterial recycling depots in Canada, started a blue box program in the schools, did a pilot project in multiunit dwellings -- that is five years ago, by the way -- participated in, instigated or organized presentations to over 100,000 school children, an education package which won a special Recycling Council of Ontario award, etc. And I handled about 50,000 phone calls about the 3Rs from citizens, businesses, and others. Incidentally, many of these calls were from cities, provinces and other countries.

I left the business last year because, frankly, I was tired of working 60 hours a week and trying to go around in half a dozen conflicting or merging circles. I had great respect for my board of directors and the city, but still the frustrations piled up.

After studying this bill and other relevant documents I realized I could relate the reasons for my support of this bill to my frustrations with good waste management. Certain phrases, like "spokes of the wheel," "state of the art," "another meeting," "We'll have to wait for proposed legislation," began to invoke instant frustration. Not that they are not always valid, but they always incur more delays, studies and wasted time.

Let us look at the spokes of the wheel: There are the feds, the province, the region, the city, the interest groups, OMMRI, the Waste Reduction Advisory Committee, all the various ministries and departments within these organizations, and even US regulations which, as you know, in many cases affect our markets and business initiatives. Someone has to take a stand to say, "Enough, let's get on with it." We will take the tough road, which hopefully will also be the right road.

Quickly, I would like to comment on just some of the bumps on that road. One, the extra lift at Britannia and Keele Valley. I have heard we have a crisis. I have heard we do not have a crisis. I can only speak for the region of Peel. Where will we put the garbage after May/June of this year? We might shirk our responsibility and ship it to someone else's backyard at an estimated cost of $209 million over five years -- that is, if the States will take it, which is questionable, or if someone in Canada had the approvals, which is rather important. You hear about Kirkland Lake; as far as I know, they have no approvals for that site even if they wanted it.

If I lived close to Britannia I would be very annoyed, I have to be honest. But I hope I would be wise enough to be fighting for more diversions, traffic mitigation initiatives, cleaning up of the garbage and some guarantees that the permanent landfill site process would be on as fast a track as possible.

Here I would like to make a comment about a pet peeve of mine, and that is household hazardous waste. A deputant stated, "We are only dealing here with harmless, household hazardous waste," and you all know how ridiculous that is. I realize it is not part of this bill, but maybe somebody here could keep it in mind: The current laws on household hazardous waste are ridiculous. If you bury your medicines, solvents, poisons, batteries -- you know the list -- in a green bag and put it at the curb, it can sit there overnight, be collected, crushed and transported by a packer truck. If you wanted to collect it separately, safely, or take it to a hazardous waste dropoff for proper disposal, it has to be manifested and transported in a very costly manner.

I just wonder if anybody is lobbying for more sensible regulations that would enable household hazardous wastes to be collected in a separate, childproof container at the curb without a manifest system. It would be much safer for the garbage workers and go a long way to cleaning up the garbage before it gets to the landfill.

This bill does not directly address the recycling markets, but I guarantee if you mention maximum diversion or recycling, you will hear about the recycling market problems. What nonsense we hear. Do not misunderstand. We all know there are difficulties and much work needs to be done, but let's take an example. Newspaper markets have fluctuated for 15 years, to my knowledge. Every time they take a dip, the doomsayers, the waste management industry and many politicians say recycling will never work and some threatened to cancel recycling programs, but when the gold market or the stock market takes a dip, nobody says, "Gold will never work" or "Let's get rid of the stock market." There seems to be a different criteria when it comes to recycling.

The newspaper market is recovering, with the new Atlantic Packaging mill and a few more de-inking mills in the works. We must also stop talking about markets, which infers selling at a profit, and talk about end users. It is wonderful and very desirable to make money on recycling markets, and this should be encouraged, but an end user who takes the product for a useful purpose and pays little or nothing is better than the material being dumped and wasted.

An example close to home: Several years ago it was an "established" fact that telephone books could not be recycled. We did not even mention recycling telephone books; we said, "Oh, that's ridiculous." Upon lobbying the city of Mississauga, and it was always very receptive to ideas, I was told that if I could find a market, it would collect them in the blue box. I found an end user who collected from the recycling facility and found good use for them, but no money changed hands. They did not go to the dump and somebody made good use of them. Many cities now collect telephone books. In a perfect world, and I hope we get to this point, Bell Telephone would pay for the collection and the books, but in our imperfect world at least they were not dumped.

Incidentally, and I do not have the calculations with me, but I did a lot of work on this at one time. You talk about reductions: If Bell Telephone issued its telephone books every 15 months instead of every year -- and really who would care -- that would cut down its garbage by 25%. There are a lot of those types of initiatives around.

We should work towards the generator or producer paying for costs incurred in processing and handling of secondary-use materials. There should be inducements to encourage manufacturers to use recycled material instead of virgin material. You all know that we have to give them a level playing field by not subsidizing the virgin material users.

Certainly there are problems, but evolutionary changes and a clearly defined commitment to recycling will help. Some years ago in Germany several mills promised to put in de-inking facilities if they could have commitments from government that recycling would increase and guarantee the supply of recycled news and that incineration would not increase, which they felt would impede the supply of material.

A comment on business in general: I was in business for a good part of my life; my husband owned a business. God bless business and the jobs it creates, particularly right now. However, watching these hearings, I have developed a sense almost of guilt, because this bill was not approved by business before being presented to the people as represented by the Legislature. The people of this province voted for elected representatives who hopefully, and I believe they do, have the good of the people as a first priority. They did not vote for business, who usually have the good of the bottom line as their priority.

Certainly, and especially in these difficult economic times, business should in all ways possible be assisted or considered when laws affecting their viability are made. Certainly some of our waste management businesses have been crucial in the advancement of recycling techniques and programs. A simple example: without Laidlaw Waste Systems envisioning the growth and potential profit in recycling, would we in Ontario be as far ahead as we are?

As society changes and evolves, business evolves with it. The electric lightbulb was a terrible blow to the candle makers and gas filament manufacturers. The automobile was certainly a blow to the horse breeders. But business survived, diversified and evolved. Just one quick example, and you probably read about it lately: the problems that Canadian Pacific Forest Products are having closing mills. Interestingly, the ones staying open are the mills where they have spent the money to install de-inking technology. This technical development was instigated by a demand for recycled content and an overabundance of newspaper collected by recycling.


With recycled produce, the laws of supply and demand are often reversed. As you know, the supply comes before the demand, and it seems that we have to go through that process. I believe any pressure by this bill to push our businesses into the future of good waste management, will in the long term help them to be ahead of the game and competitive, especially in the US, where recycled content regulations are slowly piling up in the different states.

Waste and packaging audits and work plans are probably the single best tool to reduce garbage, and in most cases cut business expenses. They are of course addressed in Initiatives Paper No 1, which relies for implementation on the passage of this bill with its intent and philosophy intact. Another little aside: the packaging initiatives opened up by this bill will be welcomed by many retailers. It is nice to get a lot of phone calls about this. Retailers have a great problem with shelf space and would love to see packaging reduced.

Commitment from all sectors to maximum diversion: The previous Liberal government, as you know, set the targets of 50% diversion by 2000. This government has honoured that target and indeed said a minimum of 50% and is trying to put the infrastructure in place to make it happen. What of the doomsayers again, who say people will just not reduce, reuse and recycle to the maximum of about 80%, which I believe is possible?

Well, back to prehistory. Seven years ago they said the blue box would never work. We made it work, maybe not to perfection but to a standard that is the envy of the world. Even with opposition from many municipalities and some of the waste management companies and the markets, we did it. "Okay," people say, "but that was easy; the blue box is easy." Well, it was not easy at the time. One aspect is much easier now and that is the public awareness, and even anticipation of drastic change to come.

Regarding banning of incineration and refuse-derived fuel, I have really heard quite a lot about this today. But it is only about six years ago when most people believed in the garbage fairy. Subsequent experiences have to some extent enlightened all sectors that there is no garbage fairy; we must take responsibility ourselves if we are to save energy, natural resources and land. But incineration is right back to the garbage fairy, only it is not a benign, kindly spirit. It is a sleight of hand. You hear it called the landfill in the sky, a diversion from responsibility. The only problem it really solves is the profit factor for the company involved.

With specific reference to St Lawrence Cement's refuse-derived fuel incineration proposal, just a few comments; I think I am are probably repeating here. It needs high-BTU fluff garbage, which, as you know, is mainly paper and plastic, and needs 100,000 tonnes per year to replace 20% of SLC's fuel. This paper and plastic is the very material we must retrieve. SLC will comment that this is contaminated paper. I do not have time to address that subject; it is a foolish notion which they cannot prove. Industry is working on many of the contaminants now to clean the materials up. Retrieving the paper fibres will save trees, retrieving the plastic will save oil. I do not know if anybody has mentioned the fact that the higher the plastic content, the higher the chlorine content, the higher the emissions of dioxin and furans.

It was suggested to me that I do a report on the effect the SLC incinerator would have on the 3Rs. At the end of about four days of browsing through their documentation, I realized it was impossible because it was unclear where their garbage would come from, what the composition would be, what technology they would use and what would be front-end sorted. Even their basic stats vary. In their presentation to you they stated that 50,000 tonnes a year would be recovered at the front end; all their other reports stated only 10,000 tonnes of recovery. I do not believe either figure.

There is an executive summary of the draft. It has a long name: Report Assessment of Waste Management Practices in the Greater Toronto Area and Their Effect on the Availability of Waste for Use as Refuse-Derived Fuel at St Lawrence Cement. It was prepared for the SLC fuel cost reduction study, environmental assessment, and is included in the presentation made to this committee. It is the executive draft; the full document is not available for the public, not available to be studied. Along with no empirical data, no final document 8, it is like grabbing at air, and polluted air at that.

SLC states that it is a pity it cannot go to an EA, because for one thing its community liaison committee has worked so hard on the project. I was a member of that community liaison team from the beginning. I did work hard -- opposing the proposal, as did the organization I worked for. It is contrary to all the philosophies of reduction, reuse and recycling. It creates a need for garbage. Indeed, it was twice mentioned to me by St Lawrence Cement that I might be hired to oversee its front-end recycling system. I suppose there are more ways to kill a cat than burying it in cement.

Should they be entitled to go to an EA? No, I do not think so. It is ridiculous to believe that every proponent who can gather together enough money, consultants and reports has the God-given right to an EA. They are very expensive, time-consuming and, even with intervenor funding and participant funding, unfair on the opponents, usually local interest and ratepayers groups. It is never a level playing field and especially unfair in these tight economic times when government is trying to reduce expenses. We elect a government to set regulations and standards for us. If every decision made by government went to a hearing, why would we need a government? We could govern by hearings.

St Lawrence Cement -- I hope you do not think this is cute, but I really could not resist -- brought you some German garbage laced with aluminum and metal and processed into pellets. I thought you might like to see some garbage which was rescued by Waste Wise. I went up to their facility, to their opening, which was very exciting. The facility is not finished yet, but they really are taking items that would be wasted and saving them. This one is a little bird. Actually, I gave it to my mother because she likes birds.

The Chair: You have one minute remaining in your time.

Mrs Phillips: Okay, sorry. This is a very nice little cut-glass jug. The system works.

I have spent hundreds of hours researching and preparing a waste minimization strategy and I have sorted garbage several days. I even did it on TV once for all the world to see. That was several years ago, but it was really amazing how little was actually garbage. When we look to the future and remove the compostables and items it is feasible to recycle, we end up with about 15% by volume, mainly composed of disposable diapers and styrofoam. With the proper legislation and clear directives from government, we can end up eventually with a very small amount of basically inert garbage.

Can we do it on a large scale? Yes. I will not repeat the many initiatives -- I do not have time anyway -- that you have heard from many sources. It would take too long. What I really came today to say to you patient people is that I think we really now have to get on with it. We have talked about good waste management for a long time, and we have done some things, but now I think we have to take a giant step. As a taxpayer and voter, I appeal to all parties to forget their partisanship in this important issue. Fight for more tough regulations, believe in the vision and push the government for more. Do not deplete the powers for change, but make sure they are used wisely.

If anybody is worried that the authorities reaffirmed by this bill will be misused in the future, surely you people around this table, good people, have enough faith in the people in your parties to faithfully and honestly pursue the philosophy and goals of this bill when they are next in power. I believe good waste management will not only save our precious resources for our children, but will also be the consciousness raiser for other environmental issues. Indeed, it is impossible to discuss any environmental subject that does not in some way involve garbage. The hole in the ozone layer is not created by the CFCs in your fridge but by the ones that escape during repair or demolition.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. If you have anything further you would like to share with the committee, you may do so in writing. The time for your presentation has expired. Thank you for appearing before us today. If any members have questions they would like to ask, just quickly put them on the record and then Mrs Phillips can respond in writing. Mrs Mathyssen.

Mrs Mathyssen: I know the toll that the hours take, but I hope that if you have a bit of a respite you will be there for the people who need you as an environmentalist.

Mrs Phillips: Thank you.

Mrs Mathyssen: My question is, does banning incineration and transport flaw the EA process?

The Chair: Thank you very much. Any further questions for the record? Thank you very much for appearing today. We do appreciate your coming before the committee.

The standing committee on social development stands in recess now until our next presentation, which is at 4:40. I believe we have scheduled a subcommittee meeting of the steering committee. The subcommittee members have been notified and have agreed. I ask everyone else to use this recess to stretch your legs and that the subcommittee members remain. Please clear the room. The subcommittee meeting is in camera.

The committee recessed at 1622.



The Chair: The standing committee on social development is now in session. Lisa Jensen, you had a presentation to begin at 4:40. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We welcome you before the committee. Please try and leave a few minutes at the end for questions from committee members

Ms Jensen: I come to this committee as a concerned Kirkland Lake resident and a member of the public. I am here because there were so many people in Kirkland Lake who wished to speak to this committee that I was on the wait list and fairly far down, so I chose to come here.

My presentation deals with two areas of Bill 143: part II of the act, regarding the prohibition of exporting waste to other regions, and part IV of the act, regarding the various strategies to implement the 3Rs to reduce waste.

I support the principle in Bill 143 to prohibit waste export. This prohibition has a very important impact on protecting the resources of Kirkland Lake to prevent the use of the former Adams mine as a landfill. There are three points I want to bring up about the Adams mine proposal. First of all, the host communities are not willing. The area around the Adams mine has a great many resources. The last point I want to make is that old mines are not just empty holes. They may be a valuable resource that we will want to tap at some point in the future.

The Adams mine proposal has been a topic of hot debate around Kirkland Lake, but there has been a lot of misinformation on the topic. I might just point out to you -- I do not have a copy of this -- that this is an example of what every Kirkland Lake resident received in his or her mailbox during the municipal election. It promises that an environmental assessment for the Adams mine proposal will ensure safety and that it is only a study; we will gets lots of jobs, we can have a study and then we can decide. I have great concerns about this, because who is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars or possibly millions of dollars for an environmental assessment and then cancel the project?

I bring that up because of the referendum in the Kirkland Lake municipal election. The Timiskaming Anti-Garbage Coalition conducted a telephone survey in November 1990 in which it asked the question, are you in favour of accepting Toronto's garbage? This is a much clearer question than that in the municipal referendum. Every third non-commercial number in the directory from all the surrounding communities, including unorganized townships, was called. A total of 1,100 calls were completed and of those calls the results were clear, that 60% of the respondents were opposed to accepting Toronto's garbage.

The support this project has gotten from some local politicians must be understood in the light of the economic climate of the area. Kirkland Lake is suffering terribly from the recession and from numerous mine closures. In the last year I have subsisted on eight different contracts. One of those is teaching at the local college. I teach a lot of former miners who are back at school for retraining. These people are in their 30s, 40s or 50s and their skills are very low in such things as mathematics and communications. They are trying to retrain for another trade when all their lives they have worked in mines. Many of them do not hold much hope for being employed in what they are training in when they graduate. This sets the stage for communities that feel very desperate, and it makes our community very vulnerable prey to any kind of slick campaign, as we have seen for the Adams mine proposal.

I would draw your attention in my brief to figure 1, a map that shows Kirkland Lake and surrounding communities with the Adams mine. The mine is located on the eastern side of Boston township. There are a great many communities; it is not a hole in the middle of nowhere. There is Dane very close by and Boston Creek is just to the south. Larder Lake, Dobie, King Kirkland: All those communities are unorganized -- not Larder Lake, but the others would not have been surveyed in the referendum of Kirkland Lake and are actually closer to the site. Then there are the communities of Kirkland Lake.

You will also notice from my map that there is a lot of water. Exploration drill holes often tap springs. There is an excellent spring just outside Dane on the highway where many people get their drinking water, and this is very close to the mine. An illustration showing one of the potential hazards of putting a landfill on this site is that when there were big blasts at the Adams mine, residents of Round Lake would have orange well water afterwards. The resources we have are mining and forests and all this water, and tourism is ever-increasing. We have lots of fish.

Then if you look at figure 2, a bit north of Englehart, going south to New Liskeard, there is a large agricultural area. The Adams mine is uphill from the community surrounding it, including this agricultural area. That is another area of concern.

The last point I want to make on the Adams mine proposal is that old mines are not empty holes. The Adams mine is not closed because it has no ore; it is closed because at the moment it is deemed by private industry not to be profitable to ship ore from the north but to ship it by boat from other countries.

A few years ago we had the proposal of storing hazardous waste in abandoned gold mine shafts. This certainly raised the ire of the prospecting community in Kirkland Lake. One way to illustrate that, in thinking of currently inactive mines as a resource, is that one junior Kirkland Lake mining company in joint ventures mined two small, open-pit gold mines on the sites of former gold mines that had been inactive for over 50 years. These are not empty holes. We might want the iron ore in the future; we might want our gold ore in the future.

The last points I want to make in my presentation are about the amendments to the Environmental Protection Act. I see an opportunity in section 33. I hope that at some point these marks could go beyond deposits, that deposit systems and standardized packaging could be expanded, but also maybe there could be a clearly visible disposal tax on non-reusable containers. The GST has shown everybody how invisible tax affects people. I think this would be a good idea to reduce our waste.


In summary I will just say I support the Waste Management Act, particularly for the courage to ban waste export. I also support the initiatives in part IV of the act to reduce our waste. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate your coming to the committee today.

Mrs Marland: Ms Jensen, I wonder what your community did during the election. We heard from an earlier presenter this afternoon that 50% of your council was a new council. If people outside Kirkland Lake are to support the willing host idea, and there is some misunderstanding about whether Kirkland Lake is a willing host, I would have thought that would be a very big issue during the campaign and the election of council last November. I must admit that I have not visited there, but the willing host concept makes some sense to me if it is environmentally safe. I thought that until yesterday when I saw a photograph of the Adams mine in the CN brochure. I did not realize it had so much water in the bottom of it.

I really would have a lot of questions about that aspect myself. How involved did the community become, and did you use that as an opportunity? If you do not want Toronto's garbage or anybody else's garbage, the people who are in a position to make that decision on your behalf were elected only three months ago.

Ms Jensen: I was involved in the municipal campaign. I worked in the John Epps campaign. It was very difficult. In this election everything was overshadowed by the Adams mine resource information centre in town. A huge storefront was opened up with free coffee and doughnuts and presentations and was open long hours. A few days before the election little green "yes" signs appeared all over town. The amount of money spent on the "yes" vote during the election overshadowed just about everything else that other people did. There were so many conflicting facts flying around that it was very confusing, I think, for many people.

Mr Wiseman: I am very interested in the section where it talks about results of this telephone poll in Kirkland Lake, Dobie, Larder Lake, Dane, Round Lake, Boston Creek and Englehart. My question has to do with the willing host. The region of Durham has designated Pickering as willing host, against the wishes of the residents. The entire council in Pickering has voted: "We don't want any more of Metro's garbage. We think that 30 years of smelling Metro's misrun garbage dumps is long enough." But that did not matter. They were still designated as "willing host" because they are part of the region of Durham.

I would like you to take some time to explain. When I look at your map, the Adams mine is not in Kirkland Lake.

Ms Jensen: That is correct.

Mr Wiseman: It is not even close to Kirkland Lake.

Ms Jensen: Well, it is. If you look, it is actually a little over 10 miles, so it is actually quite close, but Kirkland Lake is not the closest community to the site.

Mr Wiseman: My question is, how many of the people who live around the Adams mine were allowed to vote in the election for the mayor and council of Kirkland Lake?

Ms Jensen: The residents of Dane, the residents of Boston Creek, the residents of Dobie, the people who have cottages or live around Round Lake, all of the people who live along those highways are in unorganized townships and had no vote whatsoever in the referendum or in the election.

Mr Wiseman: You can correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying is that the people who are going to be most immediately affected by the decision to go to Kirkland Lake have not had a say in whether or not they want Metro's garbage to come to the north.

Ms Jensen: That is correct.

Mr McClelland: Thanks for being here this afternoon. Just after your introduction you mentioned that you "support the principle of local responsibility for waste produced and the prohibition of waste export" as set out in part II of Bill 143. Many of the municipalities and representatives of municipalities that have come before the committee have said: "We're very happy to accept that responsibility, but we would also like to have some say in the management of it inasmuch as we are going to (1) be responsible for the cost and (2) accept the responsibility locally. We also would like to have the responsibility and, if you will, the accountability in terms of management of waste systems." Do you think this is a reasonable position for municipalities and municipal governments to take: "We'll deal with our own waste; we want to be a part of the solution; please let us have the handles on the operation and management of the waste systems in our own municipality"?

Ms Jensen: If I understand you, that sounds reasonable.

Mr McClelland: I simply say that because of one of the great complaints of municipal governments coming forward to this committee. Those municipalities say: "We want to handle our own. Bill 143 removes from us the ability to manage and deal with it on our own. The only thing we get to do is collect the taxes. We don't get to manage." I think there is a sense in terms of the argument of equity, if you will, that has to flow through all the way. If the municipality accepts it locally, then surely it should have some say in the management of it.

Ms Jensen: Not having legal training, I cannot read the act and understand it as a lawyer would, but my understanding of the section in part II that deals with prohibiting export of waste I think is a very important principle and a really courageous step.

Mr McClelland: Yes, and I say that if you accept that principle, then surely the corollary to that principle is that you accept the principle that if it stays locally, then management and operation and accountability stay locally as well, which has been the position of many municipal governments that have come before this committee.

Mr Martin: I would just like to explore with you a little further the issue of Kirkland Lake as host to the garbage of Metro and the proposed industrial benefits to the area. I think we need to explore that a little bit too. Is there in your mind and in the minds of the people you represent any way that this project would have any viability?

Ms Jensen: In my opinion, the Adams mine proposal looks like a Trojan horse. The recycling is this attractive horse, and inside that horse is lurking tons and tons and tons of garbage to go into a pit that has been blasted for years, that is linked up to a network of rivers and streams and springs. Personally, I have very serious reservations about this proposal and would be opposed to it. However, there is no doubt that Kirkland Lake desperately needs some economic initiatives, and this is something I am personally interested in seeing happen.

The Chair: Thank you for appearing today before the committee. We appreciate you coming. If there is additional information you would like to share with the committee, please feel free to communicate with us in writing.



The Chair: I would like to call next our last presentation for the day, Mississauga Landfill Site Liaison Committee. Please come forward. Begin your presentation by introducing yourselves to the committee. You have 20 minutes, and if you would leave a few minutes for questions, we would appreciate it. Please begin now.

Ms Howard: Good afternoon. My name is Donna Howard and I am chairwoman for the Mississauga Landfill Site Liaison Committee. I would like to start with some general comments to let you know who we are and why we are here today.

Our group was established in 1988 to represent resident views on waste management and landfill sites selection. We have been actively and positively participating in waste-related municipal and regional meetings as well as all public and special meetings over the past three and a half years. We provided input and suggested alternatives and changes which have been incorporated into the draft Peel regional plan, the 40-year waste management master plan and the Peel long-term site search plan.

Over the years, we have tried to establish lines of communication with the Ministry of the Environment. Most of those attempts, however, were not even acknowledged and correspondence and information that was forwarded were said to have not been received or lost, let alone being responded to in any manner. Questions asked at public meetings of the MOE representatives from this provincial government and of the previous government have never been answered.

We have actively participated in SWISC sessions and the IWA workshops. We have contributed data and suggestions and discussed at length site selection criteria and the absence of alternatives. Along with most participants in the IWA workshops, we are still waiting for the long list of candidate sites, which we were advised was available in December 1991 but would not be presented until Bill 143 was approved.

The same bill is why we are here today. As countries all over the world are moving away from dictatorial situations, we in Ontario more and more often are having dictatorial policies constantly imposed upon us. Bill 143 is such a policy. We will discuss an overview of the problems as we see them in Bill 143.

Each of the four parts should have been a separate bill.

It closes doors to long-term options. In particular, incineration and handling waste outside of the GTA are not allowed to be discussed or considered.

It diminishes the rights of the public and provides no recourse. It began by not allowing widespread opportunity for public input into the bill, followed by no public forum to discuss issues set forth in Bill 143 without extreme pressures brought to bear by many of you who are sitting at this committee today.

Most measures of protection for the public and the affected municipalities in the bill are negated by clauses beginning with or containing "unless," "despite," "may extend" and "consent shall be deemed to have been given."

The EA proposed for the long-term waste disposal sites does not allow all alternatives and options to be discussed. Why should any minister have the authority to dictate what shall or shall not be part of an EA procedure? We are not aware that the EAA had been amended to include this type of interference by the Minister of the Environment.

Last but not least, Bill 143 provides too much power to one minister or to a director which he or she has the authority to appoint. Where are the checks and balances a democratic system must offer?

The detailed review of Bill 143: Sherry Lee and I will just briefly discuss some of the sections specifically in the bill that we feel should be either revised or eliminated.

Part I, Interim Waste Authority Ltd: "Interim" implies temporary. If so, then who has the authority for waste management in the long term?

Subsection 3(5): "Taking more land than required" is the title here, and section 4 is "Hardship." We feel that we need further explanation of both of those sections so that we can understand the full impact of what is actually being stated there.

Section 8, paragraphs 1 and 5, inspection without a warrant: Paragraph 1 states, "At least seven days before entering to carry out an inspection, the corporation shall, by personal service or by prepaid mail, serve a written notice of the inspection upon the owners and occupants of the land." Paragraph 5 states, "An inspector shall only enter on land to carry out an inspection between the hours of 6 am and 9 pm" -- we really wondered about the 6 o'clock hour as well. We have not stated it here, but we did wonder about that. Then we have this "unless." You have said they can carry out the inspection between the hours of 6 am and 9 pm "unless, after or concurrent with serving the notice under paragraph 1, the corporation has given at least 24 hours' written notice of the intent to inspect the land at other hours to the occupants." My comment is that therefore paragraph 5 negates what was set forth in paragraph 1, and the last part of paragraph 5 even negates what was set forth in the first part of that paragraph 5.

Section 9, inspection warrant, subsections (2), (3) and (4): Subsection (2) states, "A warrant shall specify the hours and days during which it may be executed and name a date on which it expires, which shall be not later than 90 days after its issue." That seemed fairly straightforward.

Subsection (3) states, "A judge or justice of the peace may...

"(a) before or after the warrant expires, extend the date on which it expires for one or more periods each of which is not to be than 90 days; or

"(b) before the warrant expires, amend the warrant."

So much for the one period of 90 days set forth in subsection (2). Subsection (3) allows for multiple 90-day extensions.

Subsection (4) states, "Despite subsections (2) and (3)" -- what was just read -- "a judge or justice of the peace may issue or extend a warrant for a period exceeding 90 days." Subsection (4) totally negates everything in subsections (2) and (3) and allows a judge or a justice of the peace to issue or extend a warrant beyond the 90-day period, as long as seven days' written notice is given in the manner described in paragraphs 1 and 3 of section 8.

Section 10, inspection with warrant: Paragraph 1 states, "The warrant shall be executed between the hours of 6 am and 9 pm unless it provides otherwise." Well, that made a lot of sense; that was totally incredible. In part II it did not get much better, and that was only the first part.

Part II, waste disposal sites, subsection 12(1), paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, one landfill waste disposal site to be located in the regional municipality of Peel, Durham and York or the municipality of Toronto having as its primary function the disposal of waste: We feel that primary function must be fully explained and the other functions that are implied here have to be described.

Section 14, environmental assessment, subsections (1) and (2): Subsection (1), in summary, states that an environmental assessment for a landfill waste disposal site referred to in section 12 is not required to contain any description of or statement of the rationale for or evaluation of any matter relating to any alternative other than reduction in the amount of waste generated, reuse or recycling of materials that are or could become waste or use of other single landfill waste disposal sites in the primary service area. Subsection (2), in summary, states that the environmental assessment is not required to contain any description of or statement of the rationale for or any description or evaluation of any matter relating to an alternative that would involve incineration of waste or the transportation of waste from the primary service area.

So much for the protection of rights of the public to a full environmental assessment.

Section 15, policies: Section 15 simply and directly states that, "The Minister of the Environment may establish policies for the purposes of this part" -- for ever, I guess. This section provides the minister unlimited power and authority to continue to establish policies outside the limits of this bill, with no suggestion of consultation with the public, municipalities or regions mentioned or implied.

Subsection 16(3), apparent bias: Subsection (3) needs clarification.

Now I would just ask if Sherry would continue on with parts III and IV for you, please.


Ms Lee: My name is Sherry Lee.

Part III deals with the implementation of the minister's report. Part III on the whole directs too many sweeping, all-encompassing powers to the minister or to the director, with the general public and the municipalities losing control of, as well as the ability to appeal, any waste management policy decisions.

Section 17, waste management systems: This section is most disturbing, as it empowers the Minister of the Environment to order a municipality to "use, maintain, operate, establish, alter, improve, enlarge or extend a waste management system...located in another municipality."

We object to the use of the word "establish," as it implies that new sites may be developed for temporary use. Interim solutions should be limited to short-term extensions of existing systems prior to the completion of long-term operations. These interim solutions are exempt from the environmental assessment process; therefore, to establish any new site by the order of an individual is as far removed from the democratic process as one can imagine.

All legal impediments to the implementation of these interim measures are deleted with such terms as "deemed consent" and "non-application," and also with the complete overriding of all previously granted, binding municipal agreements. Further, the protection previously offered by the EAA requirements and the Ontario Municipal Board approval are now removed. The present minister, and everyone who ever holds this post in the future, will have absolute power to rule on all waste management issues, and the public will have no avenue to appeal any of their decisions.

Section 18, notification: Requiring only one newspaper notification to announce any of the proposed measures to be undertaken is inadequate. At minimum, these requirements should be the same as the municipality has established for a zoning change or an amendment to its official plan. Further, a complete, credible submission cannot be researched and prepared in only 21 days. A longer time frame should be allowed for the public to respond to a proposal.

Section 19, injurious affection: We were pleased to hear that this section will be deleted. It proposed unfair compensation guidelines.

Part IV, amendments to the Environmental Protection Act: Section 26 of the act empowers the minister or the director with complete authority to order a municipality in all aspects of waste management. Not only does it lack any checks and balances for the elected official, but it also further violates the democratic process by delegating this same authority to the director, an individual appointed by the minister.

The guidelines to establish or eliminate a waste management system lack specifics; the minister need only believe that a measure is "advisable in the public interest."

The issue of managing waste is a contentious, controversial dilemma for governments to deal with at the present time. Viewpoints vary among the professional community as to which methods are indeed the most environmentally sound and cost-effective. In spite of this fact, this bill proposes to allow the beliefs and opinions of a single individual, who may or may not have been elected, to become government policy.

Section 28, packaging: We applaud the intent to reduce the use of excess materials in packaging, but a genuine attempt to establish realistic targets must involve a joint effort among representatives of the manufacturing and business sectors, the government and the public. Together they can work to develop reasonable objectives within reasonable time frames.

We fear that if you establish regulations unique to Ontario, even more businesses will choose to leave our province. While the intention is admirable, unilateral action is inappropriate in the current economic climate.

On the other hand, a team effort in this regard will eventually achieve the most important aspect of the 3R program: reduction. This victory would be accomplished at a national and perhaps even international level, with Ontario leading the way.

In conclusion, we have many concerns regarding Bill 143. The gravest is the scope of the decision-making powers of the minister or an appointed official.

For example, the philosophy of limiting the scope of waste management alternatives to the 3Rs program and landfills is shortsighted, to say the least. We cannot continue to bury our waste indefinitely; better alternatives must be found, and this is highly unlikely to occur under this scenario. For the 3Rs process to be truly effective, the provincial government must lead by example in developing the effectiveness of the recycling industry. Already, Mississauga has seen one plastic recycling business fall into receivership because the cost of the end product is prohibitively expensive. If you truly intend to see recycling businesses succeed in Ontario, you must initiate positive measures in that direction in both the processing of the materials and the marketing of the finished goods.

The general public, especially home owners and potential home buyers, must wonder who indeed can be trusted. They can no longer depend on assurances from any municipal authority regarding the future use of vacant lands near or adjacent to their property; nor can they rely on the validity of agreements regarding the size and lifespan of existing landfill sites. The appeal process, if it exists, is unclear. It appears that the minister's authority is complete and final, even over the Environmental Assessment Board.

This act will in effect make one individual judge, jury and executioner in all future waste management decisions. We view with great concern any measure that empowers any one person to such a degree, especially when that person is a politician.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. Mrs Marland?

Mrs Marland: I would like to congratulate Ms Howard and Ms Lee. This is a very thorough, comprehensive analysis of this bill. I am sure you must find it difficult, if not impossible, to understand how some deputations can come before this committee and congratulate this socialist government on this particular piece of legislation.

When you have gone through it section by section the way you have, your testimony this afternoon cannot be treated lightly. It is not that you have done anything on hearsay; you have been so thorough in your evaluation that, in my opinion, the government has to be fair enough to consider the points you have raised.

The question I have, which really is very significant in your brief, is where you refer to the fact that you have been asking this provincial government and the previous government -- you have corresponded, and I assume made phone calls -- and you have never had any answers. Could you elaborate on that?

Ms Howard: It started, I guess, when we first had an interference by the previous Minister of the Environment, who was with the Liberal government at the time. He halted our process in Peel region. I must tell you that we were trying, we had not really succeeded, but the process was halted none the less. We were asking what could happen from that point and why they had not come to the region in advance of that halt of that particular project. None of those questions was addressed. We carried on by sending correspondence asking various other questions over the last three and a half years, and none of those pieces of correspondence has ever been replied to.

Ms Lee: Or acknowledged.

Ms Howard: Or acknowledged, right. In December of last year, when we had representatives from this new government out from the Ministry of the Environment at our Peel regional meeting, we did have some very serious questions that we asked about, in particular why incineration would not be considered; why doors would be closed to long-term options such as that and taking out of garbage from this area. None of the questions has ever been addressed.

I also want to tell you something else. As far as we are concerned, this government is our government. Whatever government is in power is our and my government. I expect you all to work on behalf of the citizens in Ontario. I am non-partisan. I do not have any affiliation with one particular party. I affiliate with a person. But I expect when you are here that you all work to serve one purpose. So the NDP government is my government at the moment and I need you to give serious consideration to what is being stated in this bill.


Mr McClelland: Thank you for being here. You mentioned a couple of things I would like to comment on. On page 10, in the last paragraph you mention "all legal impediments." You would see them as legal protections and, rather, the current minister sees them as impediments.

Ms Lee: We were referring to the bill. The bill referred to them as impediments.

Mr McClelland: Impediments. In fairness, you think they are not impediments?

Ms Lee: No, they are definitely protections for us, but in terms of the bill, they are an impediment.

Mr McClelland: I find it curious that prior to the election the minister in fact saw them as protections and in fact spoke most eloquently about her commitment to that.

In terms of your opening statement, moving towards dictatorial policies and noting the fact that generally elsewhere in the world they are moving in the opposite direction, how do you rationalize that with a minister and in fact a government who said their number one priority was environmental, upon election? There is their famous Agenda for People that says they would bring forward an environmental bill of rights. Mrs Grier said that was the cornerstone, the very foundation, of the New Democratic Party's environmental agenda, a bill of rights. How do you square that with what you are saying on page 2 of your brief?

Ms Lee: You cannot. But one of the points we made to Mrs Grier when she came to Mississauga a couple of weeks ago, and Donna made it on behalf of our group, was that we had great respect for Mrs Grier when she was in opposition but we have been very disappointed by the performance she has had now that she is actually in power, very disappointed.

Mr McClelland: Did she respond to that?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr McClelland. Ms Mathyssen, two minutes.

Mrs Mathyssen: I notice on page 3 that you are concerned that incineration is not an option. I wonder if you have been listening to the testimony. We have heard a great deal of testimony that incineration is very dangerous. My question is that if it does pose a serious health risk, and we have had evidence from doctors that suggests it does, particularly to children, how can you justify incineration as being part of what you propose as an option?

Ms Howard: How can we not justify it being considered as a long-term option? How can we not justify it? Because as we go along, we will have improvement. There are some incinerators, we know, that do not function the way they should, and you will have emissions going into the air that are dangerous and deadly, and I do not appreciate that. But we have been advised by others that there are incinerators now that have been brought up to today's standards and emissions are being eliminated from those stacks. Now they can be controlled.

The other thing is, what are we doing to the water when we dump it into the ground? We are collecting the leachate. We put the leachate through our filtering plants to be filtered in, and do you know that you cannot get everything out of the water? All of the heavy metals do not come out of the water. So you are drinking it, and that is not good for our children, either.

What I am saying is that I do not like the whole thing. I do not like the scenario that we are in right now, but I think you cannot close doors to any long-term options.

The Chair: Thank you very much for making your presentation before the committee today. We appreciate your taking the time. As I have said to others, if there is additional information that you think would be helpful, please feel free to communicate with us in writing.

Ms Howard: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you. I have asked our research staff to explain to you the document that was tabled with everyone today. Do you want to just take two minutes before we adjourn?

Mr Richmond: I have the honour of distributing one of the longest documents. It summarizes I do not know how many hundreds of pages of deputations. The summary that you have reflects the first two weeks of hearings. An additional summary incorporating this week and next week will be prepared for you. What it does is collect the recommendations and concerns of the deputants expressed here in written submissions and also those deputations of people who only submitted written briefs. I have related them as best I can to the particular section of the act.

There are some other sections, though, where people have mentioned things. There is a section at the beginning, if you look at page 1, arabic 1, I have collected the recommendations that speak generally to Bill 143, so you can see those. Throughout the text there are other sections. For example, at the back starting on page 86 you see a number of other concerns under verbal headings that do not relate specifically to Bill 143 or the sections thereof, but deputants have raised those concerns.

In the rest of the summary, in terms of organization, at the beginning you have the list of witnesses and that will be expanded to reflect this week and next. Then you have the various sections of the act, and then you have the summary itself.

Hopefully, this will be of use to you in reviewing the bill. It should give you, if you glance at some of the pages -- for example, it seems that section 14, the incineration debate and shipping and the like, has probably generated most of the response. By looking through those few pages you can get a quick sense of the range of opinions and deputations pro-incineration, pro-shipping or anti. Hopefully, it will be of assistance to all parties in the review of the bill and in the clause-by-clause in a few weeks. If you have any questions, I am certainly willing.

The Chair: Mr McClelland.

Mr McClelland: It is not a question. I just want to say what an outstanding job it is and I hope the Chair would recognize that with an appropriately expensive gift.

The Chair: The Chair will recognize it, but the gift will not be expensive, although it will be appropriate.

Mr Richmond: Thank you.

The Chair: I think everyone is very pleased with the work you have done. It will be very helpful to us during our deliberations and we will look forward to the rest of the summary as the hearings proceed. Are there any questions that anyone has?

Mr Wiseman: Does he have a bigger clip for them as they come along?

The Chair: Now that is a serious question. The time being almost 5:30, the standing committee on social development stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The committee adjourned at 1727.