Wednesday 19 February 1992

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

Tedesco Recycling Inc

Fredrick W. L. Black, representative

Quaker Oats Co of Canada Ltd

Frank Stewart, environmental projects manager

Citizens Review Committee for Waste Management of Ottawa-Carleton

Dr Werner F. O. Daechsel, representative

Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Association of Canada

Robert White, director, scientific and regulatory affairs

T. G. Barton

Environment Watch Products Inc

Linda Lynch, president

Port Granby Newcastle Environment Committee

Wendy Boothman, representative

City of Kingston

John Clements, acting mayor

Alcan Recycling Canada

Michael Primeau, national recycling manager

Chris Koszewski, works manager, Kingston plant

Cornwall Environmental Resource Centre

John E. Milnes, chair

Glenburnie Residents Association

Bruce MacPherson, representative

Storrington Committee Against Trash

Janet Fletcher, representative

George Luck, chair

Ontario Waste Management Association

Richard Rohmer, general counsel

Carl Lorusso, vice-president

Eastern Ontario Public Participation Committee

Michael Cowley-Owen, independent public participant

Kingston Environmental Action Project; Little Cataraqui Environment Association

Dr Helen A. Henrickson, representative

Lanark County Federation of Agriculture

Alvin Dobbie, representative


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):

Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L) for Mrs Fawcett

Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/- Sud PC) for Mr Stockwell

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

Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND) for Mr Hope

Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND) for Mr Martin

Also taking part / Autres participants:

Blackwell, Drew, Ministry of the Environment

Giffen, Alex V., Ministry of the Environment

Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn

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

The committee met at 1002 in the city hall, Kingston.


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: Good morning, everyone. We are delighted to be here in Kingston today. We look forward to a very productive day. I would like to call our first witness, from Tedesco Recycling Inc. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. Welcome. Please begin by introducing yourself.

Mr Black: My name is Rick Black. I am with Tedesco Recycling. I would like to thank the Chair and the other honourable members of the committee. I am most grateful to be given this opportunity to appear before the standing committee on social development today to present to you an answer to a real and pressing -- some would say tiresome -- environmental problem; that is, the disposal in an environmentally safe and socially acceptable way of hundreds of thousands of automobile, truck, tractor and other tires that presently clog our landfill sites or, alternatively, pile up in so-called managed secure disposal dumps across the province of Ontario.

Before you, lined up on the table, is an automobile tire in the before and after stages of Tedesco's Wallace-Barrington recycling process. Here in these containers are the light hydrocarbon oils -- I have taken the liberty of leaving the liquefied natural gas outside the building --

The Chair: We appreciate that.

Mr Black: -- the carbon black and scrap steel from a tire. Here in this bag is the balance of any residue.

The most significant aspect of this process, as you can see, is that it simply breaks the tire back down into its elemental parts or unbakes the loaf, if you will. It does this without contributing any new or additional toxic materials to the environment. It does this without taking an existing disposal problem of some proportion and breaking it down into a series of smaller disposal problems. In fact, this process allows the disposal of used tires and other rubber-based waste to be carried out without adding any additional waste byproducts that would have to be placed in a landfill. The waste from the single tire recycled through our process is contained in this small brown bag. We will deal with that later.

By way of introduction, Tedesco Recycling Inc supports those aspects of Bill 143 that deal specifically with the diversion of waste material out of the landfills and into recycling facilities. Our specific area of interest is the management and diversion of scrap rubber waste material from municipal solid waste streams into environmentally acceptable recycling processes. It is these processes which will produce and inject high-value byproducts into the mainstream of the Ontario economy.

The dilemma: In June 1989 the government of Ontario established a $5 tax on the sale of tires. This tax has collected approximately $40 million annually from the sale of tires for cars, trucks, motorcycles and other users of pneumatic tires. This equates to approximately eight million used tires generated annually. Unfortunately, due to the ease of disposal, 60% have ended up in landfill sites and another 10% in tire piles. Fewer than 10% are recycled into raw material for other products. For the people of this province, these millions of tires have become more than a major landfill disposal problem; they have become a major environmental hazard and have led to situations like Hagersville.

Up to now there have been three alternatives to the disposal of scrap tires in landfill sites: sale of used tires to Third World countries; shredding scrap tires and producing rubber crumb material for manufacture of additional rubber products, and shredding tires for burning as tire-derived fuel. All these processes generate the requirement for additional scrap management after the process. By far the worst of these processes is the tire-derived fuel, otherwise known as TDF. By burning shredded tires, all the material capable of being recycled is lost for ever. All that is left is a smaller, more toxic disposal problem, one that is both airborne and solid waste in nature.

But more important, all these processes together consume only a fraction of the scrap tires generated annually. A more economical and comprehensive solution has to be identified to redirect the flow of this valuable resource away from landfill sites and incinerators. The point is that you simply cannot dispose of a scrap tire unless you are prepared to break it down into its original components. In so doing, the process must contribute in a positive way to improving the environment, maximizing the benefit to the region and the economy and minimizing the resources required and the waste generated.

It can be done. The technology is a catalytic vaporization process called reverse polymerization. This is a process that Tedesco Recycling Inc utilizes to transform a tire into the assortment of recycled materials you see before you.

The solution: The reverse polymerization process, invented by Floyd Wallace and developed by Harold Barrington, had its beginning in 1982 with the first attempt to break down the elemental bonding processes used to create synthetic polymer-based rubber. The first pilot plant was constructed in 1989 and its results were dramatic. The tire was broken down into light hydrocarbon oils, natural gas, carbon black and scrap steel wire. It is of enormous environmental significance that there were no hazardous emissions or toxic byproducts generated.

The first production plant was designed and built in 1991. It was conservatively estimated that the plant would process 60 tons of shredded tires per day. During the testing, qualification and certification of this unit, it was confirmed that a capacity of 100 tons per day could be achieved. This first plant is located in Oklahoma and is operating successfully.

Tedesco would be very happy to accommodate a visit by members of this committee or experts designated by this committee so that they may witness the reality of this reverse polymerization process. Simply put, seeing is believing. We would of course require the usual confidentiality process to apply to this exchange of information.

The process: Due to the proprietary nature of certain aspects of the process, some of the information has been withheld in this description. The process is remarkably simple. A series of metallic catalysts is contained inside a closed catalytic chamber. By utilizing a series of perforated tubes, the shredded rubber is fed through this chamber. Because of the influence of the catalysts, and the low operating temperature of 425 degrees Fahrenheit, the hydrocarbon bonding is caused to break down or reverse. These hydrocarbon molecules are withdrawn from the chamber in a gaseous state, leaving the particular forms of carbon black, steel, zinc chloride, sulphur and trace elements of nylon, rayon and fibreglass in the converter. All this material is collected and separated for recycling. The gases are moved up from the converter into the condensers where lighter natural gases are removed before the complete condensation of the hydrocarbon-based oil occurs. All material is collected and stored pending sale and distribution.

Because of the low temperature of the process in the catalytic converter, the rubber never passes through a liquid stage. This permits the light oil used in the original tire manufacturing process to be extracted with minimal molecular breakdown, allowing further refinement and reuse in a range of petrochemical feedstock and/or special products. The natural gas, of which 20% is used as fuel for the process, is also sold to the gas industry for distribution.

The plan: Tedesco Recycling Inc plans to establish a collection process on a province-wide basis for all waste rubber, including tires. This collection process will be established and set up in cooperation with the municipal authorities and with their approval.

Tedesco's collection will establish, for residential areas, a central collection system of containers to be located at easily accessible points along major transportation arteries; offer a low-cost pickup service, using dedicated containers to large rubber-related manufacturing operations, to encourage the recycling of products scrapped or rejected during their specific manufacturing processes; provide all municipal landfill sites with containers for the storage and removal of tires and other waste rubber. Site operators will be charged by the tonne for the removal of these rubber wastes.

Underlying our activity, Tedesco would provide all necessary services and equipment to remove from the environment all those tires presently stockpiled in Hagersville-type dumps all across the province. All rubber-based material collected will be shredded and transported to the main processing facility, which will be located in eastern Ontario.


From a cost-benefit analysis point of view, presently the province of Ontario collects $5 on every tire sold in the province. In addition, the retailers and commercial vendors of tires charge the buyer a disposal fee of approximately $3 for their old tires. Tedesco Recycling will reduce this total cost to the consumer.

The collection service referenced above will provide a free, no-charge service to all residential areas and commercial establishments involved in the sale of tires. As indicated, there would be a tonnage fee applied to the collection from manufacturers of rubber products and for the cleanup of existing stockpile sites within Ontario.

By removing from the environment the potential hazard associated with stockpiling and the reduction of waste streams into landfills, we view this collection and recycling activity as a saving to the people and the province of Ontario.

It is our plan, with the cooperation of the province of Ontario, to collect and recycle all waste rubber from the environment and reinvest this important economic benefit back into the Ontario economy.

Mr Daigeler: As the provincial member for Nepean, it is a pleasure to welcome you here, even though your actual location is not in my riding. You are actually located in Ottawa-Rideau, but nevertheless it is a pleasure to see you here and hear a very impressive presentation on a very impressive project and initiative.

I read in the newspapers recently that you have received a grant from the Ontario government to help you along. I wonder, can you tell me what precisely the grant is from the Ontario government and what it supports?

Mr Black: I would like to confirm that, to the best of my knowledge, we have not applied for and have not received a grant. That is not to say we will not be applying.

The Chair: Especially now that there has been a report in the newspaper that you did.

Mr Black: Maybe the cheque is in the mail.

Mr Jackson: I doubt it.

The Chair: Do not lose your sense of humour.

Mr Daigeler: I was trying to read good news into what I read in the paper. What was the story about in the newspapers?

Mr Black: Two articles have been in the paper recently. One, in the Toronto Star, announced that we were going to be introducing this technology to Ontario and to Canada as a whole. The more recent article, in the Ottawa Citizen on Sunday, was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek article in that it basically said that this process is magic, but it is not magic. To be honest with you, we do not know what the catalysts are. The present patent is a Coca-Cola patent, in that a very limited number of people know what the technology is. The secrecy is tightly maintained. It is a very simple process. The rubber goes in the top, the oil comes out the middle and the carbon black and the steel comes out the bottom. It runs with a crew of four people per shift, 12 people per 24-hour period. It processes shredded rubber.

The Chair: What quantity can you do per shift?

Mr Black: It runs 33 tonnes per 8-hour shift or a hundred tonnes per day, per 24-hour period.

Mr Wiseman: I am curious about the markets for the byproducts. Could you give us some indication of where they go and what they are used for?

Mr Black: We just had the oils tested by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in Ottawa. Their recommendations today are that we direct the oil product back into the petrochemical industry. A number of very interesting components come out of the oil which we are still investigating, but typically, the oil was used as a petrochemical feedstock in the rubber manufacturing industry, to make the fundamental rubber compound, and it is ideally suited to go back into that area. The carbon black can be used in remanufacturing of rubber components, plastics or printing ink. We have presently negotiations going on right now with a very large supplier of printing ink, who needs to buy 24 million pounds of it per year. The steel is two inches long and is coated with carbon black, because it comes out with the carbon black in the process, and it goes right back into the steel furnaces to be melted down into new steel product.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you Mr Black, very interesting. Now you said that you were going to tell us about what was in the paper bag, and I am very curious. Will you let it out of the bag? Will you tell us how much per tire that is and how you will dispose of it?

Mr Black: The answer is there should not be anything in the bag. There must have been some small rocks in the tire. That is the only pollution that results. If you look at that tire, I will bet you there are a couple of little pebbles in the bottom of it. They must have been in there when it went into the shredding because virtually nothing comes out of the plant. The fuel that is burned is natural gas, like what is burned in your homes, and everything else is closed. When they make a tire they do not put dirt in it; they do not put foreign elements in it. So when you unbake the loaf not only do you not get out contaminants, but we have the ability, as you can see, to separate the white flour from the whole wheat flour.

Mr Daigeler: You mentioned that you have a plant currently operating in the US.

Mr Black: In Oklahoma.

Mr Daigeler: Can you tell me how that plant got to set up? What was the approval process on that? I think that would be interesting for the committee, given that is the direction in which the work of this committee is going.

Mr Black: Preceding the first production plant in Oklahoma, they built a pilot plant that processed seven tons per day. They operated this pilot plant for 18 months, and during these 18 months of operation they had a continuing dialogue with both the Oklahoma state department for environmental control and the Texas authorities. When it was all over, the plant that was built in Oklahoma was supposed to move to Forth Worth, Texas, because you may recall some years back they had a very serious tire fire in Fort Worth. Following the successful testing of the first production plant in Oklahoma, the state of Oklahoma came to some financial arrangement with the operators of the plant built for Texas, and it is now staying in Oklahoma.

They have tested the air; they have tested the water for the cooling water on the condensers. There is no environmental permitting required because the process produces no pollution, no pollutants; nothing goes into landfills. We are in discussion right now with the Ministry of the Environment in Ontario. We are simply telling them, "Look, if you have any regulations that pertain to the operation of this plant, we will meet or exceed them, and if we need a certificate of approval, we will apply and get one."

Ms Haeck: A most interesting presentation, and as you probably realize, there are a few people out there with ideas about how to deal with tires. I have some little bricks in my office that somebody locally gave to me about what they feel is the appropriate method of dealing with scrap tires.

You raise a couple of other interesting points. Under the process, you indicate that you are creating natural gas. It is sold to the gas industry, I assume, already in Oklahoma. Are you in any kind of negotiations with Consumers' Gas or Union Gas here in Ontario with regard to a cogeneration project, if I can use that word, with regard to natural gas?

Under the plan, my next question relates to where you say that you would charge site operators for the removal of rubber wastes. Somewhere along the line the costs would be borne. Around tipping fees, whoever is dumping it obviously would be paying, and it is passed down. I guess my question is, it would not really be totally free?


Mr Black: I will answer your first question on natural gas. We have had talks with Union Gas and there is interest in terms of utilizing the compressed natural gas that we will have left over after we have used 20% of our own production. We produce approximately 200,000 cubic feet of gas per tonne of product into the plant, and we would be able to sell it either as fuel or as gas back into the gas line or for the cogen application as a heat source for secondary drying and other applications.

On the subject of the plan, presently, as you know if you have bought a tire lately, it ends up costing you about $8 a tire to get rid of your present tire. What we would propose to do, we would go to the Ministry of the Environment and say, "We will collect the tires and bring them to the door of our plant in the shredded form." In the near term of that program, it would cost $2.50 a tire, and after the facilitation portion of the contract, then the cost would dramatically drop down to about $1.50.

The Chair: I know you have probably a lot more information that Ms Haeck or the other members might be interested in. You can communicate with us either in writing or the members can talk to you privately, but we do appreciate your coming. It is interesting to see what Ontarians are doing and how innovative we are becoming in the area of recycling.

Mr Black: I would just simply ask the clerk if she wants me to leave the samples or take them. I already know what her answer is. Thank you.


The Chair: I would like to call next Quaker Oats. I would ask that you come forward. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. Please begin now and leave a few minutes at the end for questions, if you would. Just start by introducing yourself for the record.

Mr Stewart: My name is Frank Stewart of the Quaker Oats Co in Peterborough, Ontario. My comments will be directed to part IV of Bill 143, the amendments to the Environmental Protection Act.

The Quaker Oats Co of Canada believes that effective, environmentally responsible management must influence all of our operations. We believe that a healthy environment and a healthy economy go hand in hand. We also believe that the only way to achieve a good understanding of the waste you are generating is through source separation and recording the amount of waste and what areas are generating that waste. This is accomplished, of course, through good waste records and waste audits. In our plant, these audits are carried out by hourly employees in their own departments. This information is then fed to a central person and a complete plant audit is then put together.

The advantages I would like to point out of using employees are: They are very knowledgeable of the process and the materials used in that process; they will have a better understanding of why we need to further reduce the waste; they are in the position to offer suggestions on how the waste can be reduced as it is identified; the employees fully understand the importance of the audit; it is more cost-effective to use your own employees.

I point out what we are doing in the plant to help me emphasize that we do believe that good waste management is very important. We also recognize the impact reducing waste has on how cost-effective a business is. We believe this is the area that should be emphasized and that perhaps this bill should be addressing, especially in this economic environment we are in.

We feel that Ontario could achieve its waste reduction target by directing initiatives towards convincing businesses that doing waste audits and reducing waste is a good cost savings project. A portion of the resources that are being used in current waste initiatives could perhaps be directed at creating and nurturing recycled material markets. An intensive campaign of the facts and the benefits of good waste management, delivered perhaps by a non-government organization, would have the desired effects without the government intervention that is being seen by some businesses through the introduction of this bill.

It is very important that we do achieve waste reduction and we do support any initiative that will achieve these objectives. We feel, however, because of the speed at which the bill is being dealt with and the deadlines that are being imposed on us that these hearings are perhaps only an exercise. We recognize and understand that waste management is a very important part of good business management; this bill fails to recognize and support this effectively.

The Quaker Oats Co of Canada respectfully suggests that a longer period of volunteer reduction be given, augmented by an intensive campaign on the benefits of reducing waste and becoming more competitive in today's world market. I would like to offer that we have a lot of background information that is not written here because I did not want to take up the full 20 minutes talking; that is available to anyone, and we will gladly give that out freely. Thank you.

Mr Lessard: It is good to see a corporation such as Quaker Oats taking this initiative on its own and being very successful at it. You have talked about where you think the emphasis should be in a non-government organization involved in a campaign to encourage efforts similar to what you have undertaken. Do you have any ideas as to who that might be or how that might be done? Because it would seem, no matter who was going to do it, the government would have to be involved.

Mr Stewart: Yes, certainly they have to be. Actually I have been meeting and working with the waste reduction office and a lady down there with that very problem of getting organizations and perhaps some of the business organizations; some of them have volunteered. The Recycling Council of Ontario has volunteered. A number of associations and organizations have in fact volunteered and said, "My company is quite willing to work with that," which we have been.

Mr Lessard: Are you working with any groups or associations now? Are you part of an industry group that is investigating these types of initiatives?

Mr Stewart: Yes, we are. I do not personally sit on any of them other than the Recycling Council of Ontario, but a number of us are working in this area, and yes, we do belong to a number of associations that are working towards promoting waste reduction because we really believe that it is good cost savings. We have those numbers.

Mr McClelland: Good morning, Mr Stewart. Thank you for being here. There are a couple of comments that you may want to expand upon. One is the perceived intervention of the government with respect to the business initiatives that are under way. We have heard from many people that business negotiated in good faith with ministers of the environment across this country and came together with a national packaging protocol, which I think philosophically ties into what you are saying. We had on one hand an agreement that was entered into voluntarily, and now the government says, "We are sorry. We have set our sights on being the leaders and standing out," and in so doing have put in jeopardy that particular process. I think what we have here is a bit of a problem in terms of trying to find out where we are going and the certainty of where we are going with business. You may want to comment on that.

I am going to make a comment more rhetorically on the other fact that you mentioned. You may want to comment. You said that these hearings are just an exercise with very little meaning. Let me tell you that is one of the great concerns I have had. We have heard people from across this province, we have travelled and the minister has said: "I am sorry. I'm not changing my mind about anything."

The fact of the matter is that the government did not even want to have public hearings; the fact of the matter is that it wanted this bill introduced and passed before the middle of December; the fact of the matter is this government only agreed kicking and screaming to public hearings and did it with great, great reservation and really because it was embarrassed into doing it. Having given the hearings, the government has now said and the minister is quoted in the paper this week as saying: "I am sorry. I'm not making any changes. Our minds are made up. We will let you go through the exercise of presenting what you have to say, but we're not going to listen to you."

I can understand your frustration, because that has been the theme of this government throughout the course of Bill 143. It says: "We know best. We don't want to talk to people. We have all the answers." Quite frankly, I find that frustrating in terms of the process this government said it believed in prior to being elected, and recognizing the very valuable role business has to play in dealing with the problems.

So I share that frustration with you, sir. I hope I am proven to be wrong. The minister, though, I remind you again, has said: "I'm sorry. I'm not making any changes. Our minds are made up. We're going into this. We have all the answers. We'll go through the sham of public hearings and we'll go through the expense of them, but don't expect us to listen to you." I am greatly disturbed by that.


The Chair: Did you have a comment?

Mr Stewart: A very short one. The reason I made the first part of the statement is that I in fact was at meetings like this. As a matter of fact, I spoke to the chairman of one of the organizations who also worked for a very large company and he was absolutely against all this. But I asked him, "Do you not have any good business cost-reduction programs?" "Oh, certainly." And I said: "That's what this is. Reduce your waste. It makes good business sense." So that is why that statement. I will pass on the second.

Mr Wiseman: I cannot let my honourable friend's comments go by and leave the impression the minister is not going to change anything in this bill, because in fact there are amendments already. There is a news release about amendments and the consideration of amendments. In fact, there are numbers of presentations such as yours that have come forward with excellent ideas and have put forward some suggestions that are really worthy of consideration and which I believe will probably show up in the final analysis.

I applaud all the good companies that do the waste management audits that you do. I have companies in my own riding that are now so efficient in the use of materials that they are talking about how to use one sixteenth of an inch layer of scrap that comes off and rebuild it back in, because they know that every unit that comes out of that material is a unit of profit and a unit of product that they could put into the marketplace. There are a lot of very good ideas working through the system, in cooperation with the workers, as you are saying, and I applaud that. I think that is wonderful. I like the notion of volunteers, because that means a total commitment.

As you know, no law would ever be necessary, no regulation would ever be needed if there was always 100% compliance. We would not need laws saying that you do not drink and drive if people did not drink and drive. You would not need laws about speeding if people did not speed. We are in a situation here where the waste reduction office is very willing to discuss all of these possibilities with all the various stakeholders. But there is that group, the 2%, the 5%, that makes it difficult to really manage the waste stream. I am just wondering if you have any ideas on how to get the person who will not volunteer to do what is good for him.

Mr Stewart: Probably someone at the back is going to throw something at me. We really believe if they do not, they will not be in business, because that is one of the ways we can be competitive in this world market that we have gone into very rapidly. As a matter of fact, we are going into it so rapidly that we are having problems adapting to some of that. I truly believe it is one of the things we need to do in order to stay in business.

Mr Wiseman: Do you think the waste reduction office, in the whole negotiations around the initiatives papers and the cost and everything, is a good educational tool to get people to come to the table and understand this?

Mr Stewart: Yes, I applaud that. I really appreciate this hearing and the meeting and the opportunity to get to speak and the work the people in the waste reduction office are doing. They are working very hard and they truly want to help. The problem, I guess, is the time. With some of the ideas and some of the things we talked about in order to get that really working by July 1, I have my doubts we can do that.

Mr Jackson: Mr Stewart, what is the nature of the environmental waste that Quaker Oats incurs?

Mr Stewart: It is off-spec material that we do not take to the landfill any more. All our waste is non-toxic. It is very useful and valuable if we can find the markets for the recycling of it. It would be some food waste that got on the floor through spills. That is the type of waste we are still trying to deal with.

Mr Jackson: How are you dealing with it?

Mr Stewart: By working with our employees and by doing waste audits. We have in fact reduced our waste to the landfill by 80%, and this year it looks like we are getting another 33% of that remaining. But we find, as we do these waste audits more and more, that we still have a tremendous amount of waste that we did not even recognize. That is why we really promote any kind of waste audit or waste studies recording waste. We are dealing with it through our employees. The employees have in fact accomplished what we have done. It is employees working for us.

Mr Jackson: Are there any initiatives from your company with your undersized packaging?

Mr Stewart: Yes.

Mr Jackson: I realize any given product may be packaged as many as five or six different ways size-wise.

Mr Stewart: Yes.

Mr Jackson: What are you doing in order to reduce that?

Mr Stewart: There is one project that has not quite happened yet. It will be to put it all in one size, for instance, going up and down. This used to be market-driven, but the consumer is changing. It is a very tight rope to walk because on the one hand, unfortunately, two of the products that are our best sellers are what I consider bad packaging.

Mr Jackson: We will not quote you on that.

Mr Stewart: No, please don't, or I may not have a job when I get back to Peterborough.

The Chair: Mr Daigeler, you have the floor. Try to keep it to a minute, will you please?

Mr Daigeler: The waste audit you have instituted yourself, did anybody encourage you to do that or did the company do this on its own? Also, when did you do it?

Mr Stewart: We have actually gone through it twice. In 1986 when we started this program, we started our own waste audit, which was really recording our waste. When we went through the plant and got the reduction that we were really amazed at, we could still see more there, so we started again. It is definitely a cost savings. That is why we do it.

Mrs Mathyssen: As Mr Wiseman pointed out, there will be some minor amendments to improve Bill 143, but let me assure you that the philosophy of responsible waste management and protection of the environment as set out in Bill 143 will not change.

Mr Stewart, we have had a number of presentations from businesses that say if they go through waste audits they are not going to be competitive. I wonder if you could give me a sense of what kind of fiscal savings Quaker Oats has experienced by being responsible with its waste.

Mr Stewart: The waste reduction we have publicized and talked about in a lot of areas, using last year's fiscal, with cost savings and cost reduction and use, is worth about $1.2 million.

The Chair: Mr Stewart, thank you very much for your presentation today. I know I speak for all members of the committee when I say how interesting and informative it was. We appreciate your coming before us this morning. If you have any additional information over the course of these hearings, or if anyone who has the opportunity to see the hearings on television has any information to share with us, you can do so in writing through our clerk.


The Chair: I would like to call next the Citizen Review Committee for Waste Management of Ottawa-Carleton. Please come forward and introduce yourself. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We ask if you would leave a few minutes for questions at the end. Welcome.

Dr Daechsel: My name is Werner Daechsel and I am part of the Citizen Review Committee for Waste Management of Ottawa-Carleton. Our submission has already been accepted as a written submission. I do not know if you have actually received it or not. I plan to spend just a few minutes introducing the subject and leave as much time as possible for questions.

The Chair: All members of the committee have received your written submission. It becomes part of the public record.

Dr Daechsel: There is also a video on the subject of landfill mining that is available to the committee.

The Chair: If you make the video available to our clerk, she can make it available to members of the committee.

Dr Daechsel: Our submission is actually specific suggested amendments to Bill 143. We very carefully studied it and we also, believe it or not, very carefully read all of Hansard about it, so we feel we have a little bit of background.

The changes we are suggesting are in three areas. The first is landfill mining. The second is to provide for responsible processing for waste transferred across municipal boundaries. I realize this is a contentious topic, but our concern is that provision be made in the bill to make the director or the minister provide for adequate financing to adequately process the waste. The third is that we take exception to that 30 days and no answer from the director with respect to public participation. We find that very hard to believe. We realize it is just applied to Toronto, but we realize also that if you do not change that, some day it will apply to Ottawa.

First, we are in agreement with Mrs Grier that the environment is better served by using existing sites, particularly when there is no evidence of a problem, as long as you continue to monitor it. We also agree with Mrs Mathyssen, who is here, that there is no place that is "somewhere else". I do not know -- you may have more experience in that from yesterday's experience.


We are proposing that you add into the things the proponent has to consider, landfill mining and rehabilitation. We have carefully followed the experience in Collier county and Naples, Florida, and we have visited it about four times over the last three years. We are convinced this is a very worthwhile alternative for Ontario. You can recover, at least it has been reported that you can recover, about 80% of the original landfill capacity, and I will be glad to answer some more questions on that. I made a special trip a couple of weeks ago so that I would be able to speak at first hand.

In terms of the conditions we think should be financed when waste is transferred across municipal boundaries for the receiving municipality -- as you may know, in Ottawa-Carleton we are now a receiving municipality for Kingston's waste -- I have outlined a number of things we think should be covered, including a contingency fee. We think that has to go into the act, because there is no way it is going to be looked after if it is not in the act, and the amounts that will be paid to the receiving municipality would be very arbitrary. This is the second focus.

The third focus is on the fact that the director can put one ad in the paper and does not have to answer anything. We have suggested that first of all there be three ads of at least a quarter page, that it be over 14 days and that he has to respond in writing to the people who make the submission. He also has to advertise, where he does not do what he has been asked in submissions, why he does not do it. To allow a bureaucrat just to completely ignore the public input is too much like the experience we have had to date.

Just as a little bit of background on ourselves, we have done 60 site visits and about 20 off-site studies in Europe, the United States and some in Canada. Our focus has been on practical details. We feel it is important that Ontario exploit the newer techniques. We also feel that you have to take the whole picture into account. What we forget is that we probably paid something like $5,000 to $15,000 when we bought the tonne of waste we produce, and certainly it should not be unreasonable to at least spend 2% to 6% of that to look after it properly so that we make the maximum contribution to a self-renewing environment.

We think some social coherence has been challenged in many communities, including our own, when inadequate care is taken, particularly with respect to landfill. Part of the problem is the entombment myth, which is still the ruling myth that our present MOE operates under. We need some changes there, and we think Ontario could be part of the leading edge and have some return if it would become more progressive. If you leave the act as it is, with powers or similar suggestions for amendment, you are just going to carry on for ever in the mess we are in. I do think there is enough in the act that you can work on to make it really worthwhile.

I said we read the original act and Hansard, and we look forward to reading the final act and also the Hansard to see what the various members say about it. With that, I would like to have as many questions or comments or arguments as possible.

Mr McClelland: As a significant leader in your community, sir, with respect to citizens' involvement in waste and more importantly the broader scope of environmental issues and concerns, I take it from what you are saying that you see a lot of merit in this particular legislation. I read between the lines that you believe it is fundamentally sound in terms of its foundation and want to have some addendums and some amendments to it to give it more efficacy from your point of view.

I am curious, sir, that you mention one of the concerns you have is the lack of public participation, an opportunity for the public to response pursuant to the director's powers. I wonder if you can help me, given the fact that Bill 143 very specifically says, among other things that, as one of its fundamental principles, that to the extent necessary, to implement the minister's waste management policies, she is prepared to override the Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Planning Act, the Ontario Municipal Board Act and a variety of other acts, any agreement or contract that has been signed between people and institutions, any agreement or contract that has been signed between municipalities such as Kingston and Ottawa-Carleton, the Laidlaw contract. Furthermore, any other impediment that may be legislatively enshrined the minister is prepared to remove by way of regulation. That is one of the foundational cornerstone elements of Bill 143.

Yet you say you like Bill 143 and that one of the complaints you have about it is that it limits public participation vis-à-vis the director. I find it a curious, almost irreconcilable dichotomy, in my mind, that we have this legislative framework that says in the final analysis the minister is virtually omnipotent, and apparently omniscient as well, because she seems to know everything and have all the solutions and is prepared to impose them without the benefit of citizen involvement. Notwithstanding the fact that this was promised prior to the election, notwithstanding that it was promised there would be no expansion of sites, the minister is prepared to do it. Now we have legislation that takes away all those rights. As a member of a citizens' group and an organization that I believe has a valuable contribution to make, does that not concern you, sir?

Dr Daechsel: No, not exactly, at least not exactly in that way. What I am concerned about is that whenever shortcuts are taken, there still be a residual opportunity for citizen input. As we have experienced over the last five or six years, I think the existing maze of legislation requires that at some point there is a shortcut.

As you all know, the best way any union can stop an operation is to work to rule. if you really worked to rule under the old maze of legislation it was almost impossible. It helped, and we used it. We basically stopped the incinerator or at least we were one of the key groups to stopping the incinerator in Ottawa-Carleton, but it was at a terrific cost. I think that basically as we interpret Bill 143, we see the need and do not quite have the same experience as Toronto, but close to it. We think maybe it is an alternative that is worth considering with some of the safeguards we would like to see added.

Ms Haeck: I would like first of all to thank you for coming and bringing a rather different perspective. This is the first time we have had a presentation like this. I know there is mining going on out there but not very frequently. I would like to ask you about your trip to Florida and Collier county. What are they really doing with the items that they are recovering?

Dr Daechsel: Recyclable items such as metal they are selling on the regular recycling market. At the moment they do not have a market for plastics, but they are hoping. They are working on that.


Ms Haeck: We have heard of some area where they are mining and where they are actually incinerating what they are taking out of the mine.

Dr Daechsel: Actually, that is how Collier got started. They thought that was what they would do, but once they got going they decided that was not the thing to do. As a matter of fact, when I was down in Florida the governor there had just taken a stand similar to Mrs Grier's. He said there were going to be no more new projects for two years. The county next to them, which very foolishly overlooked the experience next door, has already spent millions and millions of dollars on a proposal. I am not sure how it has come out, but the governor and his council has to approve it. The governor just announced the day we left that he was going to put a ban on incineration for two years. They did a quick public survey and about 60% to 65% were in favour of the ban.

Ms Haeck: What are they doing with the plastics in the meantime?

Dr Daechsel: In the meantime they are putting them back in.

Ms Haeck: Encapsulation so they can easily find them again. Is that it?

Dr Daechsel: No. Unfortunately they are not, but certainly you could do that. They are like everybody else. They did not have a lot of money. They did it mainly on the enthusiasm of the director, who I think deserves a lot of credit. In fact, he got a national award for his work. But he does think now that he has somebody who is going to recycle that plastic.

Mr Daigeler: Welcome to Kingston, Werner. What do you mean by "the entombment myth must give way to a self-renewing environment objective"?

Dr Daechsel: The big problem with landfill now is that we have the fiction that we can somehow isolate it from the environment. We cover it and keep the water out, which does not facilitate its degradation by natural means. One of the reasons the system worked in Florida is because they have so much rain and therefore the water was supplied by nature. Certainly what we need to consider is recirculating the leachate and having it degrade as quickly as possible so that we can mine it as quickly as possible, which is a philosophy entirely different from how most of our present sites are operated.

Mr Lessard: You have certainly done some homework to prepare for your presentation here today. I think that is admirable. You have made some suggestions and I have made note of some of those. I wonder whether you have read Initiatives Paper No 1, because I do not think that was something you mentioned on the list of things you read.

Dr Daechsel: No. I read the act in the Hansard. That is all I have read.

Mr McClelland: I am just going to come back to the point I was trying to make earlier and ask if you understand, and I am sure you do -- you referred to the existing laws as a maze -- notwithstanding that, that the maze provides citizens' protection, that it has been a body of law that has evolved with a lot of people fighting very hard to have it, that in the absence of this there could be a project brought forward with which you fundamentally disagreed and saw as anti-environment in every respect and that the very thing you see as a maze would be a protection that would no longer exist pursuant to Bill 143.

The Chair: Question, please.

Mr McClelland: Consider the other side of the sword if you will, but it could come back to haunt you very significantly in the future.

Dr Daechsel: Our experience in the past was that it was a soft pillow. I have not done all the legal research to say that this act does not really set it all aside, that it amends it and provides an emergency situation. I am saying that if you have an emergency situation, let's provide a little more protection directly for that emergency situation with respect to public participation. I think that what we have asked for here is a reasonable amount of protection to have some decision-making in a reasonable amount of time.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you for coming. We will provide you, I hope, with Initiatives Paper No 1. It does talk about source separation. I have done some background reading. One of the things you suggest is reusing the landfill site, mining it and then using it over again. That presents something of a dilemma for people who live near a landfill site and are looking forward to the day it closes. Can you help us with that?

Dr Daechsel: Yes. We need to bring landfill into a state of grace. It is in a state of disgrace because of the terrible way we have been doing it. We need to educate the public once we improve it, but we have to improve it first so that we are operating it in a responsible manner so that this is its contribution to the community.

I do not blame anyone now for objecting to landfill near them the way it is operated now, but I also know that if it is done in a really responsible manner there should be no reason why you cannot do it. As a matter of fact, an interesting personal thing is that we have a daughter who works in the health department. A few years ago when I got active somebody at work said to her, "Would you have it in your backyard?" She said, "Yes, if it was done right I would have it in my backyard."

The Chair: Thank you very much for a very interesting presentation. We appreciate your coming forward today.


The Chair: I call next the Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Association of Canada. Would you please come forward and introduce yourself to the committee. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. Please begin your presentation now.

Mr White: My name is Robert White. I am here today on behalf of the Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Association of Canada. I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to come here and speak to you today as you consider Bill 143.

The Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Association of Canada, to give you some background, is a 96-year-old trade association. We represent 48 manufacturers and distributors of non-prescription drugs and 67 associate companies which supply goods and services to the industry. The vast majority of our members are based in Ontario, and for this reason they are very concerned about some of the implications of Bill 143. Our concerns in fact are in two major areas. The first is packaging audits and work plans and the second relates to two clauses in Bill 143. What I would like to do is to start off with packaging audits and work plans.

Our association is committed to reducing solid waste. We have participated in the development of the national packaging protocol and supported its objectives. We have also endorsed Guidelines for Preferred Packaging Practices and we are currently developing industry-specific packaging practices for the manufacturers of non-prescription drugs. In addition, next month we will be holding a major workshop for all members of the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries so they may develop a procedure by which to audit packaging use and use these plans and this information in decision-making in their respective companies.

Part of the challenge that does face our industry is how to reduce packaging in the complex and detailed regulatory environment under which we must operate. Non-prescription drugs are regulated under the Food and Drugs Act, and federal regulations affecting packaging correspond to its power to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

The packaging of non-prescription drugs must maintain the integrity of the product and meet legal and regulatory requirements relating to the safe use of the product as well as communicating information to the consumer. Non-prescription drug manufacturers also have special packaging requirements such as child-resistant packaging and tamper-evident packaging. Also, the amount of information which must be on labels and/or cartons affects the amount of packaging associated with non-prescription drugs. The drugs directorate of Health and Welfare Canada in fact has a 47-page guideline which explains what information must be contained on the labels of drugs for human use.

Even though the regulatory environment does affect the choice of packaging for many of the products, the industry is actively responding to the desire of consumers to purchase products with reduced packaging. The national packaging protocol has set a target of packaging sent for disposal to be no more than 80% of 1988 levels by December 31, 1992. We are confident that industry, including non-prescription drug manufacturers, will achieve this target.

Therefore, we believe that Ontario's proposals requiring manufacturers to file packaging audits and work plans on a yearly basis are not only unnecessary but ill-advised. A cost-benefit analysis of the waste management office's program to monitor packaging use in Ontario should be undertaken. The cost for any program must not exceed the benefits to be expected by society. We believe an analysis would reveal that the implementation of new programs to monitor packaging reduction is too costly, especially in light of other planned program reductions in response to Ontario's budgetary deficit.


Because Ontario regulations can only apply to manufacturers based in Ontario, it puts Ontario manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage. Manufacturers in other provinces or other countries will not have to provide audits or work plans to provincial authorities and will therefore obtain economic cost savings and yet still be permitted to market products in Ontario.

Ontario's packaging audits and work plans should be presented to the National Packaging Task Force for incorporation into the national packaging protocol. This will allow Ontario to have a leading voice in the fight against excess packaging and yet not harm the competitiveness of Ontario's manufacturing base.

The next thing I would like to discuss are two specific clauses of Bill 143 that are causing concerns. They are both under the heading, "Litter, Packaging, Containers, Disposable Products and Products that Pose Waste Management Problems."

Clause 136(6)(l) would allow the minister to unilaterally ban the sale and use of products which someone considers to pose a waste management problem. This type of broad statement, enacted in legislation, is effectivly a licence. If it is determined by unknown criteria that the product poses a waste problem, poof, it is gone. This clause is too vague to be included in rational legislation.

Another concern that we have on Bill 143 relates to clause 136(6)(f), requiring the placement of a notice or mark on products to indicate waste management or environmental concerns. This proposal is also without specifics or criteria for implementation. Non-prescription drugs, as I previously stated, are heavily regulated and manufacturers are having an increasingly difficult time providing all the information which is required on labels. The addition of more notices or marks, which require more space, is not in alignment with efforts to reduce packaging. We also believe that the addition of more symbols would serve no useful purpose and would just add more clutter to the label, confusing consumers.

The Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Association of Canada believes that Bill 143 can be improved and result in legislation responsive to the changing global business climate. Non-prescription drug manufacturers in Ontario must be given the opportunity to access larger markets and to compete on a global basis. We have some recommendations that we think will help achieve this goal.

Recommendation 1: The proposed packaging audits and work plans should be incorporated into the national packaging protocol.

The harmonization of regulations and establishment of a level playing field is critical. Ontario manufacturers can no longer afford to continually adapt to restrictive provincial regulations leaving them disadvantaged compared to competitors in other Canadian provinces and the United States.

If regulations are not harmonized, non-prescription drug manufacturers run the risk of having to deal with a number of separate provincial regulatory agendas. Our members are currently doing business in an environment of provincial disharmony in regard to product distribution, the costs of which are passed on to consumers. Let's not pass on more costs to consumers as a result of differing provincial packaging regulations.

Recommendation 2: Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the office of waste management.

It must be clear to the public that the existence of such an office and program provides benefits which clearly outweigh the costs and which could not be obtained by any voluntary measures and that regulation is the only alternative.

Recommendation 3: Delete clause 136(6)(l), which states, "regulating or prohibiting the sale and use of disposable products and of products that pose waste management problems."

This proposal is not achievable without defined criteria and appeal mechanisms.

Recommendation 4: Delete clause 136(6)(f), which states, "requiring or authorizing the placement of a notice or mark on products, containers, packaging or labels on products, containers or packaging to indicate such matters of waste management or environmental concern as are specified in the regulation."

Labels of non-prescription drugs provide large amounts of information necessary for the safe use of a product. Unnecessary marks and notices will only serve to make the labels more difficult to comprehend, cause confusion and act to restrict packaging reduction initiatives.

Thank you for your attentiveness.

The Chair: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation. First, Ms Haeck.

Ms Haeck: I have the opportunity here to raise an issue that was brought to my attention by a neighbour of mine, an elderly gentleman, who while he is maybe not making use of all of your type of products is an emphysema sufferer and has been collecting pill containers for some time. His situation, the fact that he would like to get rid of them and no one will take them, is one that comes to my mind when I am using a headache pill. Obviously, I have to dispose of the container.

Europe, particularly Germany, has come up with the green dot system where in fact a manufacturer is required to take back the containers, be they paper or otherwise. Would you as an industry consider this a viable option?

Mr White: It is an option to take back the containers. However, they will still have to be disposed of. It is impossible at the present time to reuse materials for non-prescription drugs. The material that is in contact with a drug has to be virgin plastic or virgin carton.

Ms Haeck: Even if there is no other contamination?

Mr White: Even if there is no other contamination. The food and drug regulations say now that any product that is in contact with a drug has to be completely new material. It cannot be any reused material at all. The reasoning is that there could be leaching of some of the chemicals into the drug product, and that would obviously be unacceptable and there is no way to determine that this does not happen over a period of time. So while, yes, a consumer could return this and in fact the industry probably could take these containers back, they would still have to be disposed of in some way.

Ms Haeck: I see. Thank you very much.

Mr McClelland: I just throw out my thought that surely those products could be used elsewhere and for some other products subsequently. It is just a thought that occurred to me that we should probably pursue.

I take it from what you are saying in terms of the national packaging protocol, and your industry is involved in that process, basically, if it's not broke, don't try to fix it. You are doing the job. You are on target. You may in fact in some cases be ahead of target, and what those regulations may do is throw some uncertainty into that and it puts you at a significant disadvantage.

Also, I might ask you if you might expand your concerns about clause 136(6)(l) inasmuch as it leaves an awful lot of power out there somewhere without any handles on it and the competitive disadvantage or uncertainty that may put your industry at.

Mr White: I agree with you on 136(6)(l). There are no criteria as to how a package will be determined to pose a waste management problem, and then there is no appeal mechanism either. If a decision is made by the minister that this product does pose some problem, no matter what it might be, then it can be removed, and there is no recourse for a manufacturer to say, "What is the problem and how can we work to remove that problem so it won't pose a waste management concern?" Without those criteria, it is just very vague and, as I stated, I do not think it can be included in rational legislation without specifics.


Mrs Mathyssen: Two quick questions. First, on pages 2 and 3 of your brief you said that you would be at a disadvantage because Ontario-based industry would be competing with offshore industries that did not have to comply. Did you know that the regulations will apply to goods sold in Ontario to ensure that Ontario manufacturers are not disadvantaged?

Second, you said that you had gone through that process of looking at your packaging. I was just wondering, what kinds of things did you discover you could eliminate safely once you were compelled to take that second look?

Mr White: On the first question, in terms of products sold in Ontario, the packaging audits and work plans will only apply to manufacturers based in Ontario, not products sold. Manufacturers based in Ontario will have to provide packaging audits and work plans on a yearly basis. This does not have anything to do with products sold.

Mrs Mathyssen: But if something is overpackaged, it cannot be sold here.

Mr White: I think that is still questionable. The packaging audits and work plans do not talk about that.

Your second question was?

Mrs Mathyssen: Once you did take a second look at your packaging, what kinds of things were you able to safely eliminate?

Mr White: Just to give an example, there can be some reductions obviously in package lightweighting, in removing of cartons, and that is occurring. The time to remove a carton from a medicated shampoo, for example, took over a year. The reason is that any time you change any packaging whatsoever, it has to be approved by the Health and Welfare Canada drugs director. Even if you remove a carton it has to be approved, because you are removing labelling material.

We are also in a situation now where they are bringing out something called non-medicinal-ingredient labelling where all the inactive ingredients will have to be listed on a package. Some of these cartons in fact do not have the room for the inactive ingredients and will have to go to package inserts. If there is a bottle that is presently on the shelf without a carton and the information cannot be put on it, a package insert will have to be put with the product. A package insert is considered to be an extension of the label. That will require a carton, because the package insert cannot be attached to the product.

One other one I can give you an example of that is going to hurt very much is medicated lip balms, which now you can buy, for example, at a pharmacy. They come in a little bowl. The non-medicinal ingredients have to be put on that product. It cannot be put on the product; it does not fit, so this medicated lip balm will have to be attached to cards. You will see that within two years.

So in fact we are getting an increase in packaging. The increase in packaging we are seeing is directly related to the Food and Drugs Act and the health and safety of Canadians. We do have limits on how much packaging can be reduced because consumers are wanting more and more information on what they are taking, and that is reasonable, but to provide that information, you have to put it somewhere.

The Chair: Mr Daigeler, you have the floor.

Mr Daigeler: I will make it very quick. Can you tell me what is the status of the national packaging protocol?

Mr White: The status of the national packaging protocol now is that recently it conducted a survey of industries, approximately 10,000 across Canada. Those data are currently being collated, and they will be compared to the 1988 baseline data. They have a document out called Benchmark Numbers or Benchmark Estimates of Packaging Used in Canada for 1988. The 1991 data will be compared to this, and then right after December 31, 1992, which is the first milestone target where they want to see a 20% reduction, they will also send out another survey, so that will be done in the spring of 1993. In the spring they will be able to see whether industry has achieved its target of reducing packaging by at least 20%.

Mr Lessard: I understand your concern with respect to different standards in different jurisdictions, but there is also the concern that whatever standard is adopted is not the lowest possible one that is currently available.

I wonder if we could have some clarification from ministry personnel with respect to the relationship between the national packaging protocol and the initiatives that are set out in Bill 143, because this is a point that has been raised on other occasions.

Mr O'Connor: I will probably have Alex Giffen from the ministry answer that. Alex can probably answer that for you.

Mr Giffen: There will be no intention to compromise public health and safety with the packaging requirements the province would develop. We would have every intention of being consistent with whatever federal food and drug requirements are imposed on the manufacturers and suppliers. That is something we will have to continue to work on with the federal government and producers to ensure that we are not compromising public safety.

The Chair: Thank you very much for an excellent, thought-provoking presentation. We appreciate your taking the time this morning to come and make a presentation before the committee. If there is additional information you have at any other time or any comments you hear as you monitor the course of the hearings that you would like to share additional information with us on, please feel free to communicate with us in writing.


The Chair: I would like to call next T. G. Barton, consultant. We have received a copy of your presentation. Please have a seat and introduce yourself. You have a total of 20 minutes for your presentation. We would ask if you would leave a few minutes for questions at the other end. Please begin now.

Dr Barton: My name is Dr Tom Barton. I am a professor at the Royal Military College of Canada here in Kingston. I have been associated with the college since about 1963 and am presently on leave without pay from the college because of medical reasons. I just want to take the opportunity today to comment on Bill 143.

Bill 143 represents regressive legislation which shows political prejudice to the scientific assessment of waste management systems. At the outset, it promotes the use of landfills as a preferred disposal technology, rather than energy recovery systems or incineration. This situation cannot be supported from an environmental and scientific perspective. The prejudice is exemplified in the news release of April 11, 1991, in which "Environment Minister Ruth Grier Bans All Future Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators in Ontario." The basis given for the ban reflects unsubstantiated rhetoric that has attached a stigma to incineration and that represents a total lack of scientific thinking on the matter of waste management.

Why is it so important in this legislation to neglect the verifiable performance of incinerators? In his speech on January 21, the Honourable Bob Rae stated that the Ontario population must be tired of hearing half-truths. This situation is not corrected if half-truths are used as the basis for pre-emptive legislation such as Bill 143. This legislation treats scientific matters as though they can be resolved by argument rather than with verifiable and accurate data. There have been lobby groups preaching the evils of incineration to the point that the technological benefits of such systems lose recognition within Bill 143. This approach to scientific honesty is deplorable and destroys any confidence in the future application of scientific approach in the development of future waste treatment systems. If it is politically expedient to simply ban a maligned product, what will be the next industrial, commercial or agricultural sector to be attacked?

There have been many similar politically expedient episodes in recent history in which the innocent have paid as a result of argued rather than scientifically supported situations. For example, we have all heard that there is a hole in the ozone layer caused by CFCs. The fact of the matter is that the hole was discovered prior to the commercial development of CFCs. That being the case, the argument was changed to "CFCs contribute to the increased size of the hole." In fact, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that in the upper atmosphere, there are approximately 60,000 ozone molecules produced for every one destroyed by the chlorine molecule from CFCs. The quantity of ozone in the upper atmosphere is mostly influenced by solar activity and solar flares.

Following the signing of the Montreal convention in 1986 to limit CFCs, it was forecast that the hole would continue to increase in size in future years. It is ironic that there was no evidence of thinning in 1987 and that the hole did not even appear in 1988, according to an Environment Canada Atmospheric Services fact sheet. The year of 1988 was one of intense solar flare activity, which contributed to the maintenance of the ozone layer in spite of man's feeble initiatives to impact on the hypothetical problem.

Is more ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth as a result of the end-is-near ozone prophesy? A network of instruments set up in 1974 to measure the ultraviolet light reaching the earth has shown a constant reduction of between 0.5% and 1.5% annually. If the belief in the doomsday attitude were correct, the amount of ultraviolet should be increasing rather than decreasing. I am sure that much of this news will be greeted by the proponents of fear as a coverup.

With regard to chlorine in the atmosphere, Mount St Augustine in Alaska spewed into the atmosphere approximately 289 million tonnes of hydrochloric acid, or 570 times the total 1975 annual production of chlorine and fluorocarbon products in the world. Nevertheless, we have entered into a replacement program at a cost of over $100 billion to replace CFCs in North America as if that would cure the problem, if a problem exists at all. Sober scientific thought will show the ineptness of our activities on this matter.

How about acid rain and the call to shut down combustion processes, as they are touted as being a primary cause? Sweden in 1848 and then England in 1872 first reported on acid rain. The original data by Likens which were used to prove that acidity was increasing have been discredited by Vaclav Smil. Clean rainwater has a pH of 5.0 to 5.5, which compares well to the pH of a carrot at 5.0 and spinach at 5.4. A cola drink has a pH of about 2.2.

Is this acidity in the rainwater the result of man-made combustion systems such as incinerators and coal-fired power plants, which have been blamed for much of the reported problem? It is interesting, from ice pack analyses, that in the Himalayas the precipitation over hundreds of thousands of years had a pH value ranging from 4.2 to 4.8. In addition, 7,000-year-old Greenland ice pack samples showed pH values in the 4.4 range, with periods of high acidity lasting for years. Coal-burning utilities and incinerators spewing out sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide could not be seen as the culprits either then or now. It seems too convenient to blame these systems today.

Much has been written to show the influence of natural sources on acid rain. It is estimated that lightning alone creates enough nitric acid in the atmosphere to keep rainwater at a pH of approximately 5.0. Once it was believed that stack emissions of SO2 and CO2 were the primary culprits in the death of forests. While this belief cost millions of dollars in reducing emissions, the emphasis on the pursuit of culprits has now been shifted to oxides of nitrogen, hydrocarbons, photo-oxidants and soil minerals such as aluminum and magnesium.


To date, the costs of reducing SO2 are greater than $2.5 billion, yet the acid rain problem persists regardless of the intervention of man. Volcanoes alone are responsible for an estimated 100 million tonnes of sulphur compounds annually, a contribution much greater than that from anthropogenic sources, yet we continue to leave a legislated trail of banned activities which from a political standpoint is intended to ameliorate the situation. The result is to tie the hands of industry and to limit our ability to compete in a free world.

Consider the impact of the wrongful banning of DDT on human life. Politics approached the problem by substituting passion for science and reason. In the First World War, more soldiers died from typhus, a situation correctable by DDT, than from bullets. Prior to the introduction of DDT, approximately 200 million people were stricken annually with malaria, of which two million died. In Sri Lanka prior to DDT spraying in 1948, there were 2.8 million cases of malaria. By 1963 there were 17. Spraying stopped in 1960 due to public pressure, and the number of cases rose to 2.5 million in 1969. In the six years that followed the ban on DDT, there were 800 million cases of malaria and 8.2 million deaths.

With all the benefits to mankind, why was DDT banned? Most of you will be aware of the classic rhetoric. DDT was found in the environment at low concentrations and blamed for everything from eggshell thinning to the reduction and fear of annihilation of species. In the case of eggshell thinning, this phenomenon predated the use of DDT and is now attributed to diets low in calcium or vitamin D, fright, high nocturnal temperatures, various toxic substances and disease such as Newcastle's disease.

Quail fed throughout their reproductive period at 6,000 times more DDT than the 0.3 parts per million found in their body fat managed to hatch about 80% of their eggs, with a control group hatching 84%. Similar testing on pheasants showed even better results. The Audubon Society reported increases in bird populations from 1941 to 1971, when DDT spraying was at its peak, of from one to two orders of magnitude. So where was all the substantiation for simply banning DDT?

Human studies in which volunteers were fed over 500 times the estimated daily intake of DDT from normal sources for a period of 21 to 27 months showed no ill effects either then or now, some 30 years later. It has been shown not to be a carcinogen. It has a life expectancy in sea water of approximately 38 days. Nevertheless, passion ruled the day and another Nobel prize-winning contribution from science had been banned. The ban was imposed regardless of the 300 documents and the testimony of 150 scientists which stated that the total ban on DDT was not desirable, based on the scientific evidence. The technique of making unsubstantiated charges, endlessly repeated, has been used successfully in the political arena against asbestos, PCBs, dioxins, Alar, nuclear power, incineration, fossil-fuel plants and so on.

Those who believe the world's population can exist without the help of science and technology are pathetically mistaken. In the last 40 years, crop yields per acre have more than doubled. The use of pesticides and fertilizers has prevented crop failures and increased productivity. Ignorant opponents of all man's efforts to improve life continue to insist that extremely low levels of industrial chemicals can be toxic or carcinogenic and everything synthetic is somehow uniquely dangerous to man. This is totally false, for it is the dose that determines toxicity.

As an example, arsenic, cadmium and chromium are all officially identified as carcinogens, yet they are naturally present in every cell in the human body. As for arsenic, we normally have about 100,000 molecules per body cell. Cadmium represents about two million molecules per body cell and chromium about 700,000 per body cell. To dwell on scare tactics which demand zero discharge of such elements is nonsensical at best, yet fearmongering persists.

To refrain from ingesting these naturally occurring substances, one would have to avoid eating carrots, radishes, onions, olives, melons, ham, shrimp, potatoes, parsley, butter rolls, broccoli, watercress, avocado, lemons, cheese, bananas, apples, oranges, tea, milk, wine, and the list continues. These elements occur in the products independent of any anthropogenic pollution.

In order to avoid nitrates, nitrites and nitrosamines in food, you would eliminate virtually all vegetables from your diet, especially beets, celery, lettuce, radishes, rhubarb, mustard kale, turnip, cabbage -- and the list continues. In addition, if these foods were required to undergo the same screening used for synthetic chemicals, they would all be banned. The bottom line is, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it."

What justification is there for Bill 143 not to consider incineration as a waste treatment system? Three points were listed in the April 11 declaration. The first point stated that incineration is inconsistent with the surviving 3Rs due to its gluttonous appetite for waste. This is totally false. While there is an economy of scale in incineration systems, they can be built on any scale to handle that portion of waste remaining following diversion efforts. It can be shown both practically and analytically that post-recycled waste provides better fuel for incineration than raw refuse. Fuel values increase dramatically and ash values similarly diminish, so where is the inconsistency in having incineration as a component of a waste management program? If nothing else, the quantity of ash remaining for disposal will greatly enhance the life of an existing landfill.

At this point I would like to apologize because I understood there was going to be an overhead transparency projector here and I did not bring one myself. At the end of your text there is a series of 10 slides which I will be referring to. You can just flip through as we go.

Please allow me to illustrate this point further. In slide 1, I have set a diversion goal, looking at the diversion through normal types of recycling practices. Just setting goals for paper, plastic, wood, textiles and so on, if you really do it right you may get as much as 60% plus of waste diverted, leaving some 30% to 40% of waste to yet be treated. This can be done with new legislation, new markets for the product and so on.

The second slide, the residual material following diversion, shows you the benefits in fuel value for that residual. The total end product is superior in terms of its fuel value. The residual material following diversion has a higher percentage of paper, plastic, wood, rubber and textile, all offering improved fuel potential. The improved fuel benefits are shown in slide 3. Similarly, there are lower percentages of wet yard- and food-waste components, as well as a smaller contribution of metal and glass components, which add to the ash quantity produced. In terms of the landfill requirement, the weight percentage of waste getting to the landfill is less than 7% of the raw municipal solid waste, thus greatly increasing the life of the landfill. This significantly smaller mass of material, as shown in slide 4, makes landfill containment, management and monitoring a much simpler and cheaper task.

The second point raised in the ban declaration states that the combustion of municipal solid waste during incineration releases a wide range of air pollutants including dioxins, furans, volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and heavy metals such as mercury, lead and cadmium. How do these releases differ from those of a landfill treating the same waste? Biodegradation of such wastes with a release of the landfill gas and leachate has a significantly greater impact on the natural environment.

The conclusion of a 1987 study on toxic substances emitted by MSW landfills stated, "The total amount of carcinogenic substances emitted into the air from a landfill even under controlled conditions" -- conditions where the landfill gas is collected to the degree possible and burned -- "represents a significant amount and `may' exceed that which is projected to be emitted from a waste to energy facility processing an equal amount of municipal solid waste."

There are ministry guidelines which apply to the air emissions of an incinerator. Modern systems are proven to be able to comply with the most stringent guidelines and can be readily monitored. Landfills enjoy a freedom from such gaseous-emission monitoring. It is interesting to note that uncontrolled landfills emit far more carcinogens per unit of waste than incinerators treating the same waste, as illustrated in slide 5.


The third point states that dioxins and furans pose a significant threat to human health. They have been linked to a number of health problems in test animals, including the weakening of the reproductive and immune systems, skin irritation, liver damage and cancer. Here again, the rhetoric persists. Dioxins are produced in the natural environment as a result of forest fires and volcanoes. Just how toxic are dioxins? Animal studies have not resolved the issue. It requires a dose of 5,000 times the hamster dose to create the same symptoms in a guinea pig. There is no evidence that dioxins have caused cancer, spontaneous abortion or birth defects. The 37,000 inhabitants of Sevesto, Italy, who were dusted with one to four pounds of dioxin in 1976 showed no long-term adverse effects and no cancer. A 30-year study on Monsanto workers exposed in 1949 to high levels of dioxin showed no long-term effects. How then have we perpetuated the fear that dioxin "is the most toxic chemical known to man," even though no deaths or serious harm can be attributed to it? It was the belief in this repeated fear, into which even I had been drawn, that led to the hysteria of Love Canal and Times Beach.

While I could go on now with many additional political miscarriages of science which took place in the name of environmental justice, I believe I have made my point. History has a way of revealing our mistakes of the past, particularly when episodes have been triggered by reactionary stupidity rather than careful deliberation based on verifiable, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

We are to celebrate 125 years of Canada this year. We cannot live on earth without altering it and without using natural resources. We have the ability to learn from our mistakes and we are capable of making improvements and becoming better stewards of the environment. We should pursue knowledge and understanding rather than create obstructive legislation which is not without prejudice in the agenda for waste management. Incineration must be considered as an option in the development of any waste management system, and its application should not be omitted in the contents of Bill 143. To simply ban incineration without substantive, scientific evidence is arrogant and scientifically repressive, especially where landfill is the proposed alternative.

With regard to global warming, it is interesting to note from slide 6 that the Vostok ice core in the Antarctic shows levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 130,000 years ago to be greater than the current levels today. It is also interesting that there has been a progressive increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide of almost 40% in the past 20,000 years. The dynamics of such change must be appreciated with consideration to geological time, whereas we are attempting to react and resolve such cyclic issues during periods of terms in office. The influence of man on these changes has been infinitesimal, both in the past and today. Remember that oxygen is a relatively new gas in the earth's atmosphere geologically speaking. I am pleased that when oxygen was first observed, the single-cell politicians of that day were unable to implement a ban on its production. Had the reverse been the case, this meeting today would not have taken place.

What is the motivation behind the scaremongering associated with global warming? I believe that crisis news sells better than good news and provides the general population with a common thread of unity. Whether or not the cause is honest is incidental. It is interesting that the federal government has just directed a further $85 million to study global warming. These funds would be better spent on breast cancer research, for it is a major killer and a situation that research funding of that magnitude can influence. The impact of the expenditure of these funds on global warming will be piddling.

By way of review of the illustrative example used in this presentation for the disposal of the 37% of the waste following the fulfilment of diversion initiatives, slide 7 shows the operation of an uncontrolled landfill. In theory, controlling the landfill gas emissions over the extended area of the landfill does mitigate somewhat the pollution potential, as shown in slide 8. The problem is that the landfill emissions occur over hundreds of years and cannot be shut down should problems arise. Applying some gasification technology in vessel as shown in slide 9 allows for total control and monitoring of the production of gas from that residual waste. The process can be shut down in a matter of hours should problems arise. Combining all the technology benefits for disposal of the remaining 37% in a totally monitored, modern incineration technology is shown in slide 10.

In summary, I encourage the government to avoid acting precipitously on expensive bans for unproven environmental problems. Action must not be taken in advance of understanding the problem. Insist on the facts and accountability of the source of those facts. Without any help from mankind, history and geology show that the earth has encountered dramatic change. It has never been stable or remained the same for long. It is time to regain a sense of perspective and deal with the facts instead of letting our ardour carry us to the realm of noble lies. The effort of the physicians of Orillia to cancel the progress of a waste incineration program for that area met with success, a testimony to the process that the end justifies the means. Peer review by CanTox of the physicians' report, Hazards of Incineration, concluded, "Overall, the physicians' report appears to contribute more `heat than light' to the discussion of a possible siting and operation of a municipal solid waste incinerator in Orillia, Ontario, and cannot be considered a valid scientific assessment of the situation."

History shows that our life expectancy is on the increase, so is the sky really falling? Life expectancy at the turn of the century was 45 years. By 1940, it had risen to 65 and further, to 76 years, by 1982. It is anticipated to rise to 82 by the turn of the century. All of this has occurred during the greatest development and application of technology in recorded history.

Let the study and potential application of incineration be supported with Bill 143 and have the opponents held as accountable as the proponents for peer-reviewed, scientific evidence which leads to either the rejection or acceptance of a technology which is regaining favour throughout much of the modern world.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for a very thoughtful and well-researched presentation. Unfortunately, you have taken up all your time, so I would just like to thank you for this controversial brief. I know the members would like to pose some questions, but unfortunately, due to the constraints of time, we cannot allow any extension. If the members have any questions, they can talk with the delegate outside and maybe clear up some of their questions.


The Vice-Chair: I would ask the next delegation, Environment Watch Products Inc, to come forward, please. I understand Linda Lynch is responsible for the goodies we have at the back of the room, the brownies and the cookies, so we thank you for that. There is the little room at the back beside the coffee pot, and anybody who has not tasted them should avail himself of them. They will go like hotcakes.

Would you please identify yourself for the purposes of Hansard. You have 20 minutes, and we would appreciate it if you would leave some time at the end for the members of the committee to ask questions.

Ms Lynch: I would like to thank you for the opportunity of being here today. First of all, let me tell you, for the record, that without malice or erroneous intent, the previous speaker's content has infuriated me to the point that I am coming off my formal presentation. I am going to ask the committee to please read my presentation, very important parts that have to do with my product and some problems that have arisen in the past when government gets involved in the private sector. That will be submitted to you in written form for you to review next week.

One other comment, in terms of the goodies: I was not trying to find my way to the committee's heart through its stomach. What I am trying to do is show you that government procurement policy could stimulate small business. For example, instead of purchasing those kinds of things wrapped in cellophane and so on, if I can bring them in a tin from Toronto by train, then you can make a call to a local bake shop in Kingston and have it brought over in bulk or do that at Queen's Park or wherever government is carrying on its negotiations.

I would like to just introduce Environment Watch Products Inc by way of its corporate mission statement:

"Market-driven environmentalism shall be the underlying principle behind all of our corporate initiatives. The dynamic of sustainable development will be rigorously adhered to, reflecting our belief that business for a better environment will mean a better environment for business."

I will make one reference to the fact that many of you know me as the activist who led the fight to close the Commissioner Street incinerator, who personally and successfully lobbied the former Liberal cabinet to designate the first company to go through a full environmental assessment. That was the TSI Trintek incinerator proposal, and you may remember me as a cofounder of Citizens for a Safe Environment.

I am going to appeal to you as a government not to set a dangerous precedent with regard to the Keele Valley and Britannia Road landfill sites. If you were to have no hearings, no due process, to set that legal precedent, then in a few years' time when there is a garbage crisis upon us and there is another government and an incinerator company is standing by, pointing to the legal precedent and saying, "There's a garbage crisis," neither I nor anyone else would have any justifiable due-process way to stop it. I think you have an opportunity to use a mechanically collapsed environmental assessment process here. I think you could do things like bring in additional staff. I think you could have the board meet four extra hours a day, six days a week, and I think there may be a way, given the slowdown at landfill, for you to have an opportunity to study the environmental assessment process and go through due process so you do not open the door down the road.

With respect to section 28 of the bill, section 74 of the act, regarding litter, packaging, containers and disposable products, we agree with a lot of this legislation. We think it would level the playing field. We are the new, emerging green industry. We are elbowing our way on to the shelves of the economy in educational products and consumer products. We cannot fight if the playing field is not level.

I want to talk to you about the fact that we wholeheartedly support this incineration ban. I recall scrambling to find a few hundred dollars to pay for Dr Connett's airfare when I initiated his first visit here to help our incinerator battles back in 1987. I was filled with admiration and empathy as I watched many residents' groups and activists present health and conservation arguments against incineration. But I am worried. I do not feel banning incineration via legislation permanently closes the door on the technology. I think you have to do it, but that is not going to be the way to put an end to it. Legislation can be changed and governments can come and go.


As you have just seen, the dogged persistence of this industrial lobby has to be grudgingly admired. I am continually hearing a line from a movie that haunts me. It keeps saying, "They're back." Two years ago, after I totally exhausted myself fighting them from coast to coast at the grass-roots level, at the municipal level, at the provincial cabinet level, on televised debates, on radio, in print, arguing interminably about data interpretations and never getting definitive, conclusive evidentiary support which they could not challenge in some bizarre form of comparative risk analysis, I said to myself: "Enough of this. There has to be a better way of winning, not just once but for ever."

I decided we could put an end to them if we could beat them to the garbage stream. Take away the feedstock and the monster dies. Declare marketing warfare. Unleash a private sector attack that will use every fabric of the economy to weave a competitive web that will leave them helpless and unable to survive.

Step one for me was to form Environment Watch Inc. You saw me last week presenting a new industrial initiative, a multimaterial recycling facility. Its capability is 800 tonnes a day. That is the usual capability of incinerator technology. More about that type of initiative later.

The next step for me, besides forming the corporate consulting firm, which would have a main focus in the advancement of industrial initiatives that address the 3Rs of waste management, was Environment Watch Products Inc. When you get down to it, this little product has won awards. It is being sold at the Bay, Collacutt, Toys-R-Us. It is all reusable. It is the most environmentally friendly thing we could come up with and it turns on the phrase "Choose to reuse."

This is what I got on the train this morning. This is what the incinerator companies want to have continue in the waste stream. This is the part of the waste stream that people say you cannot do anything about. This type of product, in a slightly different configuration, can totally eliminate this part of the waste stream, which I agree I do not think we can recycle and recover in a cost-effective way.

I want an opportunity to realize my investments. The incinerator company competes with me. If you do not let me in to play at the economic table of private sector competition in the marketplace, the incinerator company steals my opportunity for growth. It takes away my reason for doing this. It takes away the educational component. Why should kids go to the bother of having a garbageless lunch at school or why should people bother not to produce garbage on a train if there is an incinerator that is going to take a Rambo approach to garbage sitting there? You have to keep feeding it all the time.

Let's talk about that in terms of economics. First of all, I want to blow something right out of the water. When we talk about reduction of the total amount of garbage and they tell you there is an 80% reduction, that is true if it is refuse-derived fuel. That is state of the art which you can get, but they do not tell you that you have to add 10% water to all the ash to transport it. So you are going to be looking at 30% to 40% coming back out, not 20%.

This information, by the way -- I would give my source to the committee in in camera confidentiality -- comes from a senior vice-president of waste management at a multinational waste management company who handles incinerator technologies and thinks composting now is the technology of the 1980s and 1990s; incineration was the technology of the 1970s.

I want to talk for a minute about the fact that when you look at an incineration cost-benefit analysis -- and all this information is going to be before the committee in a very well documented form next week -- if you look at an incinerator, a large municipal composting facility and a multimaterial recycling facility for construction and demolition or industrial, commercial and institutional waste, at a daily input of 800 tonnes per day and a required tip fee of $55 to $70, they all have that in common.

Let's look at the capital costs for a municipality. Who can afford $120 million to $160 million for an incinerator? A composting facility is $40 million to $50 million. A multimaterial recycling facility such as the one I presented to you last week is $10 million to $15 million. Now let's look at the jobs: 35 to 45 with an incinerator; 15 to 25 with a composting facility; 60 to 70 with an MRF. So if you have a compost facility and an MRF at the front of it, you can then be looking at probably 125 to handle 90% of the garbage stream. Look at volume reduction: an incinerator -- it says 80, but it is really only 70, maybe 65; volume reduction with composting, with a sort at the front, 40 to 50. Now take a look at an MRF: 70 to 80.

At the very end of it, what do you get? In incineration, you have 22% of the ash as a hazardous waste material that has to be landfilled at $300 a tonne. Composting and MRFs have wood, which is new particle board, which is new industry, which is new manufacturing jobs, retail jobs, transportation jobs. Take a look at economic growth requirements: No economic growth with an incinerator; all kinds of opportunity with MRFs and compost. We need new industry, new technology to export, and we have new businesses like me that want to get on to the shelves. Do not let these guys take the garbage away from me. I need it to grow.

Mr Wiseman: That is a really spirited defence. I am just going to play devil's advocate for a moment, because I have been using one of these since 1988. I got it at a conference where educators came together in Durham region. We spent the whole weekend carrying around mugs instead of styrofoam cups and really getting into it. It is growing in the schools; it really is. I think there were 105 of us just from the Durham Board of Education alone and then last year another 100 or so. You know where I am coming from when I say this, but is it not nice to be able to read a document such as this and know that there are no problems?

Ms Lynch: I think I will be able to present a document to the committee, which you will have next week, which will show there is nothing but economic opportunities to eliminate incineration from the waste management scenario. Just as they can play with figures and make it look so wonderful, I can play with figures and make it look so promising without them.

Mr Wiseman: My other question has to do with the fact that NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, has discovered that the ozone layer above North America is being depleted. This space agency of noted scientists attributes this to the leakage of chlorofluorocarbons out of refrigerators, but they have also found that the cleaning agents for the computer boards which the military uses have chlorofluorocarbons. In fact, the American military contributes 75% of the chlorofluorocarbons. The American military has even admitted it is responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer. I wonder if you might comment on that in light of the fact that the previous presenter was saying incineration is good. Also, even if it is good, even if everything they said about it is accurate, I would like you to comment on why we would burn up our natural resources when the population of the world is going to double within the next 20 years.

Ms Lynch: First of all, I like to look at the air shed like a retail shelf in a store. For example, if I have room on that shelf for four shampoo bottles, and if in my air shed, before it becomes overloaded with contaminants or before the ozone is more adversely affected with contaminants, we are already at a base-loading maximum, which we know we are -- that is why we are all cutting back with international protocols -- then there is not any more room on the shelf. We cannot manufacture a bigger atmosphere. So, sorry folks, there is not any more room for you in the air shed. It is just like a tough-nosed retailer. It does not matter how good this shampoo is, there is no more room for its physical presence on the shelf. There just simply is not space.

Is it fair to a company like Inco, is it fair to some of the other heavy industrial manufacturers, to say to them, "You have to spend $200 million in retrofitting your technology to cut back, to meet emission standards on CO2 and all the rest of it," and allow these guys in at the expense of the other industries? It is not fair. I suspect that quite an interesting lobby of other industrialists could be put together that would say: "Wait a minute. How come we have to cut back to make room for them when you've got an alternative that you could use?" No.


Mr McClelland: Thank you. With some reluctance I want to try to bring you back to the first part of your presentation and ask if you would expand upon the danger you see in terms of the precedent-setting elements of Bill 143, which essentially, in terms of the implementation of the minister's policy, removed the opportunity for public participation in the expansion of Britannia and Keele Valley; also, part and parcel of that, the provisions of the bill that say, "We're sorry, but the following acts," and you are well aware of them, "are to be overridden." It goes on further to say, "Even if we find something else down the road, we will move that out of the way by regulation."

In fact, in spite of stating that those pieces of legislation are impediments, many would consider them tools and elements of protection for the environmental integrity of our society and indeed the part of the world that we inhabit. I know that was useful for you in shutting down the incinerator that you were active against, and that scheme of legislation, I feel, is very much in jeopardy as a result of Bill 143. I wonder if you just might want to expand on that.

Ms Lynch: I have to agree with you in terms of removing citizen access to the levers of government. As an environmental activist who helped lead the community -- it was not just me, it was thousands of people; 12,000 people's names on a petition -- we would never have had the nerve to approach a level of provincial government. We came from our communities, then we sort of learned about the municipality and then there was this big thing called the provincial government in front of us. Then there was this all-powerful being called the cabinet.

If there was not a piece of legislation, if there was not something ironclad that the incinerator companies could not fight back with us on, which was the environmental assessment process and the natural extension to pick up where the Tories had left off and apply it to the private sector and get that precedent set, I am terrified what could happen. I know why you are doing it, and I am just saying I think there is another way to save the process and never make an exception that loses the process; that says, "Look, there's always access to power, to the government levers, through this due process."

I come from south Riverdale, and you know the heartaches of that community with the lead contamination. We are battling constantly. It is one company after another. If you did not have a light at the end of the tunnel that the due process allows you, you would not even be able to begin to fight, because you would have no pathway. Traditionally, this government is identified with that kind of grass-roots activism, so you might be tainted a bit in the way you are looking at things, because you are a government sympathetic to these types of things. But what if it is a new generation, a new dimension of government, a different party, a whole new scene in a few years' time? Do you think this industrial lobby is going to go away? No, it is not. If you take away our tools with a precedent, how are you ever going to be able to hold that up as an ironclad block to this type of initiative again?

I do not want to sound too emotional here, but you have to find a way to keep that environmental assessment process intact. I think you have enough time. I am just terrified that to set a precedent that would take it away kills it for ever, because then there is always a reason to take it away after that and it would not matter how hard I tried or my community tried or another community tried, they would beat us with a fancy lawyer and an army full of legislative specialists. We would be dead in the water and we would not even be able to go to the Supreme Court to fight. At least now we can say: "Damn it, you didn't have an environmental assessment. We want an injunction against this project."

You are going against all the traditions of Ontario's legislation. Please try to find a way to keep this legislation in place so that you do not take the light away from the end of the tunnel, from the citizens in the future, because I do not know how I would fight if that were gone.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate your coming before us today.


The Chair: I would like to call next the Port Granby Newcastle Environment Committee. Please come forward and introduce yourself to the committee. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. Please begin by introducing yourself. If you would, leave a few minutes at the end for questions from committee members.

Ms Boothman: My name is Wendy Boothman. Madam Chairman and members, thank you for this opportunity to present some concerns of the Port Granby Newcastle Environment Committee in regard to Bill 143.

Directly, our committee represents hundreds of residents in the Durham community of Newcastle, an area of this province that is operating landfill sites, toxic waste storage sites and a nuclear energy plant, among other environmental dangers. Indirectly, we represent many more concerned citizens, a result of our committee liaising constantly with other environmental groups, such as the No Ganaraska Dump Committee, Save the Ganaraska Again, the STORM Coalition and the Ontario Environment Network, just to name a few.

The Port Granby Newcastle Environment Committee has been around since 1976, evolving through a series of amalgamations with smaller grass-roots organizations dealing with waste issues of all kinds, from nuclear through toxic waste in the Great Lakes to dumps.

I have four concerns and questions.

One, concerning section 34, which is a fairly broad section, are initiatives papers part of that section? What falls under section 34? I have a specific question regarding initiatives papers. Are there any data available from the Interim Waste Authority on the costs of implementing the guidelines of initiatives papers to small and medium-sized businesses and the institutional sector? Who pays?

Since the Liberal government introduced reducing waste 25% by 1992 and 50% by the year 2000, which was subsequently endorsed by the NDP, I understand that at least 60% of our waste is from the industrial, commercial and institutional sector. Currently it costs businesses standard tippage fees to dispose of their waste, while they could save money by radically reducing their waste. But how to reduce? What is the infrastructure? Where do they go to learn how to radically reduce and divert waste in their specific business environment? Who finances this instructional process and how are the businesses compensated for time off for their staff for instruction?

Two, the Oak Ridges moraine must be considered a primary constraint area. In reference to the approach and criteria for landfill search, we are extremely concerned that the Oak Ridges moraine is not listed as a primary constraint area. The significance of the moraine has been recognized by both the previous and present governments of Ontario and by a private member's bill in the House of Commons.

The Kanter report of 1990 resulted in an announcement of an expression of provincial interest in the moraine as well as a two-year study of the moraine with guidelines for its protection during that time. Also in 1990, David Crombie released the interim report of the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, Watershed, in which he gave great emphasis to protection of the moraine in order that the waters downstream and into the harbour not be contaminated. Both Premier Bob Rae and the Honourable Ruth Grier were present at the release of this report and indicated their full support.

Subsequently, in June 1991, the implementation guidelines and the two-year study were initiated by the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Natural Resources. With all the interest and concerns addressed in both the Kanter and Crombie reports and the recognized environmental sensitivity of the moraine, why is the Oak Ridges moraine not considered a primary constraint area in the search for a dump site?

Three, concerning the Interim Waste Authority Ltd, part I, section 4 of Bill 143 does not address the difficulties that result after the publication of candidate site lists and the hardships that ensue during the interval until the final site is selected and approved. Recently, our community has felt the negative impact resulting from the site selection process for Durham region. Farmers who normally borrowed to finance spring seeding were turned down. They could not readily mortgage, sell or build once the long list of proposed candidate sites had been published. Home owners who had been planning to sell for various reasons unrelated to the site search suddenly found their properties depreciated, and in many cases these properties could not be sold at any realistic price.

I am aware of two specific situations in our area where the "slander of title" resulting from the site search has so negatively impacted on their lives that they may lose their homes. It is crucial that the consideration of hardship in the legislation must be extended to include hardships created by the initial and ongoing aspects of the selection process. What format of compensation is being addressed regarding possible slander of title?


Four, what happened to the environmental bill of rights? The environmental bill of rights has been discussed for approximately 20 years. As Environment critic, Ruth Grier introduced no less than three private member's bills proposing an environmental bill of rights to the Liberal government. One presumes she is committed to the concept. But once armed with Bill 143, such a powerful legislative weapon, the provincial government can tailor the site selection criteria in ways to facilitate a hasty decision that will be devoid of public input, input that the minister assured would be sought and considered.

The Port Granby Newcastle Environment Committee has had many years of experience with the environmental assessment game. To permit Bill 143 to pass unchanged and as it stands today will change the rules of the game, to further detriment of the opponents. The playing field will not only be uneven; it will be completely tilted towards the opponents' end of the field. Why is she not levelling the playing field by bullying through her environmental bill of rights, instead of widening the gap against human health, social rights and the environment by bullying through Bill 143? To quote a Toronto lawyer, Mr Ian Blue, "The bill is legislation of a type citizens should only be asked to accept in wartime."

Mr Jackson: Thank you for a very good presentation. I particularly appreciate your reference to slander of title, which no government seems to be able to get a handle on, how to protect people who are innocent by standards to this process.

My question is for staff, actually, and has to do with the questions raised by the deputant regarding costs and what falls under section 34. Has that been previously answered or could we anticipate a clearer answer and communicate that to the deputant?

Mr O'Connor: I am glad you asked that question, because I suppose our deputant today has not seen the answer. It was asked, I believe, on January 22. We got a subsequent economic analysis by the ministry on that answer. It has been provided to the regular members of the committee in a list of answers that we did receive. It has been answered.

Mr Jackson: Can we get that to the deputant? That is my question.

The Chair: Do you have a copy of that answer here?

Mr O'Connor: We can probably make a copy available.

The Chair: Could I just suggest that you give it to the deputant or perhaps read it into the record?

Mr Jackson: I would rather just hand it to the deputant.

Mr McClelland: Thank you for being here this morning. You heard the last question I put to the previous deputant, I am sure. She very ably, much more ably than I, from personal experience raised the danger that I see in Bill 143 in terms of involvement of citizens and the rights that have been protected. I think your quote, which you rightly attribute to Mr Ian Blue, more or less says it all.

I asked the minister the question that was contained in your second-last paragraph: "Where is the environmental bill of rights? Why haven't you come forward with it rather than Bill 143?" The answer that I speculated and put forward was that if the environmental bill of rights were in fact brought forward, it would be included in Bill 143 as one of the pieces of legislation that would not apply. You would have this great irony of the Minister of the Environment bringing forward a bill of rights and then, on the other hand, saying, "We override it with Bill 143," as she has overridden all the other legislation. I find that very disturbing. I suppose "ironic" is one way of putting it. "Disturbing" is actually a little soft to describe how I feel about it.

That question was asked. We had something in the Legislative Assembly called a late show, which is a process where you put that question specifically and give the minister five minutes to answer the question. The minister was unable or refused to answer the question. I hope you will get an answer to why there is no environmental bill of rights. I suspect the reason there is no environmental bill of rights is because the concept of an environmental bill of rights is completely contrary to Bill 143. It is at odds in totality. I do not know if you want to comment on that, but I just wanted to share for your information that the minister on two occasions refused to answer, and, given five minutes, still did not answer that question.

The Chair: Did you want to make a comment?

Ms Boothman: No, that is fine.

Mrs Mathyssen: I think actually Mr Jackson asked my question. I was going to ask for Mr O'Connor to have Mr Blackwell from the ministry explain the process of the Ontario waste reduction office. I will ask the deputant, though, if she has seen a copy of the draft approach criteria that have been published that set out beforehand the criteria for siting a long-term landfill? It is very specific in terms of being clear beforehand what areas cannot be considered for landfill and therefore would, I think, alleviate some of her concerns about there not being a clear direction and public participation in that process.

Ms Boothman: Yes, I have seen that and we have tried, through the No Ganaraska Dump Committee, to partake in public input, but we are not satisfied that the public input is being sufficiently taken into consideration at this point. In fact, there was a public meeting with Dillon. They were unable to answer 75% of the questions asked of them concerning that approach and the criteria.

Mr Wiseman: My comments have to do with the dictatorial powers and also with the draft document. We know in Durham from the experience of P1, which is in my riding and which I fought -- I have been to Newcastle, and before I was elected to talk about landfills I was a founding member of Pickering Ajax Citizens Together, so we know that the minister, any minister, has some far-ranging and very extensive powers to impose whatever he or she wants to impose and to do it however he or she wishes. I see this document as setting out some limitations on that, through the criterion that says you cannot expropriate any land unless a certificate of approval has already been issued. This greatly reduces the powers.

My residents in North Pickering know that governments have the right to expropriate huge tracts of land. This prevents the minister from doing it. There are other sections of this bill that I see reducing her powers. Actually, one of the sections under consideration for amendments would have reduced it more, but groups of people do not like that section.


The Chair: One minute.

Mr Wiseman: The first draft document of the Durham region site criteria plan sets the broad framework for the initial stages. There are other criteria that will be coming out that are very technical in terms of the extensiveness, about hydrogeological formations, and these are going to be used and set out as the criteria against which all landfill sites are going to be measured. I find that to be a much better process than the previous one where five sites were picked and then you had to pick the least of the bad lot. Could you perhaps comment on that?

Ms Boothman: I do not feel right now that I am sufficiently familiar with the document to be able to comment on that, but I certainly think that the Oak Ridges moraine, for example, and similar enviromentally sensitive areas, should be taken into consideration. We do not have any written evidence at this point that they are, or if they are, they certainly have not been identified.

The Chair: Mr McClelland, you have the floor.

Mr McClelland: Maybe you can help me reconcile some questions and difficulty I am having in my mind too.

You talk about the Oak Ridges moraine. We have a minister who said there would be no expansion without a full environmental assessment, who stands literally together with the Premier on occasion on the Oak Ridges moraine, at or near Keele Valley landfill site, and then says: "I'm sorry. We don't like to do this, but we're going to go ahead and expand, notwithstanding the fact that it is on the Oak Ridges moraine, with no environmental assessment, no guarantee of even an EPA hearing. Too bad. We have to do it. Notwithstanding the fact it's contrary to everything we said prior to being elected and notwithstanding the fact it's contrary to our proposed environmental bill of rights, we're going to go ahead and do that."

On the basis of that, what kind of assurance or comfort level do you have that the provincial interest in the Oak Ridges moraine will have any beneficial impact down the road? Does it not seem to call into question the whole concept of setting aside land? Are they not on their face blatantly contradictory?

Ms Boothman: It needs to be identified. One of the reasons we find this Bill 143 so scary is that it just totally bypasses any environmental assessment and can be forced through, but at least if environmentally sensitive areas such as the Oak Ridges moraine are identified as such, admittedly it is small comfort, but it is down there. It is written down.

The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before us today. We appreciate your presentation and would suggest that if you have additional information you think would be helpful to the committee, you can submit to us in writing over the course of our deliberations, and that applies to anyone who appears before the committee or anyone who is just an observer. If there is anything you would like to share with the committee, you may do so in written form by sending it to our clerk.


The Chair: I would like to call next the city of Kingston. Welcome. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We are pleased that we are able to be here in Kingston this morning and thank you for your hospitality. Please begin your presentation now by introducing yourselves, and we would appreciate it if you leave a few minutes for questions by committee members.

Mr Clements: My name is John Clements. I am the acting mayor. Mayor Helen Cooper sends her regrets, but I believe she is on AMO business today. With me today is Bert Meunier, who is the chief administrative officer for the city of Kingston.

I believe you have our brief. I would like to say thank you for getting us on at the last moment. We very much appreciate that. I am not intending to read the brief. I believe that our education system is excellent and that we can all read. I am also very well aware that it is close to lunch time. I speak only as a board of education employee in that sense, by the way.

Mr Daigeler: Vested interests.

Mr Clements: No conflict, though.

I am very well aware that it is close to lunch and I may be competing with other urges at this time, so what I would really like to do is to leave you with a sense of what we as a municipality feel, some of our feelings, and some of the points in terms of the whole environmental assessment process we feel are important, particularly as it impinges on Bill 143.

To begin, I would like to give you a small summary of where the city of Kingston and the greater Kingston area is at. In 1985 the township of Kingston, our neighbour to the west, began a waste plan. In 1986, at the urging of the Ministry of the Environment, the city of Kingston joined with the township of Kingston. At that particular time, the local landfill, Storrington, was projected to last until 1995 or 1996, satisfying mainly the city of Kingston. However, at that time, in the township of Kingston, their particular landfill was full and we managed to accommodate them, as did Laidlaw, the owners of the Storrington landfill site there.

In April 1991, after I believe it was two extensions, Storrington was closed. Since that period of time, the city of Kingston, because it has a contract with Laidlaw, has been trucking its garbage to the Carleton site, which is privately owned by Laidlaw, at a cost of some $4 million per year.

At the same time, there have been extensive attempts at implementing the 3Rs. The blue box program, which was implemented in 1989, is now to all single families and to most of the apartment buildings, and we will continue to implement those phases where it is profitable and economical for the blue box program.

At the same time, last year there were a number of materials that were banned from landfill, wood pallets, for example, construction materials, cardboard, and in the city of Kingston itself, office material that is recyclable. This has resulted in a 37% drop in less than one year in the amount of materials that are going to landfill. We project on a long-term basis that within two years we will be below 50% of what we were sending to landfill.

We have been making provisions for a municipal diversion facility, which hopefully will be up and operating by 1994, if all the approvals are in place. With that facility in place, we will be able to divert more than 50% from landfill.

I should mention to you that the costs have been extravagant, of course, and I think everyone is well aware of that. Tipping fees have gone from $25 a tonne to $155 a tonne. The cost to the average taxpayer has increased 60% in two years. Given the long-term costs of finding a landfill and the blue box program and the costs associated with it and diversion, we suggest to you that they will be at that same level or even higher.

In regard to this particular bill and in regard to the whole matter of waste management, we have five major points we would like to bring to you today. We do not have all the answers, but we have some concerns, and if I end up leaving you with a sense that we are frustrated, upset, perhaps even angry, then I will have done my job.

It appears to us that Bill 143 does not treat the rest of the province outside of Toronto either fairly or equitably as municipalities. We find it very difficult -- and maybe it is not being in Toronto. I know that for those who are not from Toronto, we tend to take a different view of what happens once you hit Oshawa or Bowmanville. But we fail to understand why the so-called crisis in Toronto is not similar to that being experienced in the greater Kingston area. It is our understanding that one landfill, Britannia, I believe it is, is to close in 1992, another one is to close in 1996 and another one to close in 1999 in the Toronto area.

We have had no landfill for over a year. Our consultants, Gore and Storrie, going through the waste management master plan, based on their discussions with everybody involved, now tell us it will be the year 2002, 10 years, or 16 years in the planning process, before we have a landfill site in this area. Part of that problem of course is that we are restricted to the township and the city of Kingston, and if you are familiar at all with this area, you know that approximately two thirds of the land area is urbanized and it is very difficult to find appropriate sites that meet the environmental aspects.

Basically it appears to us that Toronto is being treated as a different kettle of fish, quite honestly. You are giving it a different viewpoint than you would here, and we are in as much of a crisis. Perhaps the garbage is not as much, but certainly on a per capita basis there is very much comparable.


We believe that this bill really has not addressed the environmental assessment process. Why is it taking another 10 years? I should note to you that our costs so far are over $1 million, just with consultants. I sometimes think, as an aside, that really the government has got a create-work program by hiring consultants to go through all these environmental processes, and right now I should have a job with Gore and Storrie and not with the board of education. But we really find it difficult to look at the environmental assessment process and suggest that it is working fairly and equitably. I would suggest to you that this particular bill is a recognition that it is not working, that it is slow and that it is not working in the best interests of all parties.

I must tell you that we were very disappointed that we were not consulted in the approach to this bill. We received notification, basically through a fax from AMO, and I think that is because our mayor is president of AMO. That was a week ago Friday. I believe there was notification in the local newspaper. I talked to one of the councillors in our neighbouring municipality, the township, and it had not received notification either of this bill, and it affects us greatly.

We have had at least three different representations to the Ministry of the Environment and twice with the Minister of the Environment personally where we have requested various things. For example, we requested their opinions on user-pay legislation, waste import and the speeding up of the processes regarding the environmental assessment, fast-tracking, if you will.

One year from our first representation, we got an opinion from the Ministry of the Environment that in effect it would concur with user-pay systems, because the legislation is not in place. Contacting the Minister of Municipal Affairs, he indicated to us that he had never heard about it. So now we have to wait for the impending legislation. I realize that the bigger you get, the harder it is for all departments to know what is happening, but quite honestly, waste management is a major crisis in this province and we really hope there would be a touch more cooperation.

I would like to point out to the committee that our interpretation of the Municipal Act in regard to solid waste is that the municipality may act in this regard. It is not our specific responsibility.

The costs I have mentioned to you in 1991 dollars are running $4 million a year for trucking. Over 10 years, that is $40 million. Our projected costs for studies, when finally done, are in the neighbourhood of $3.6 million. Our costs for the municipal diversion facility are in the neighbourhood of $16 million. Our costs for the landfill itself are estimated at anywhere between $16 to $20 million. I find it ironic that we are paying more to ship our garbage to Ottawa over the 10-year period, if that were allowed -- and it will not be allowed -- than we would be for all the capital facilities and the consultants' fees. We find it very difficult to understand why the process takes so long.

If we are in a situation approximately two years from now when our dispensation to go to Carleton is done, we will have to look at many alternatives, many of which we as individual councillors find distasteful. Quite honestly, one of those alternatives is to look at sending our garbage to the United States. Personally, I find it very difficult to criticize the United States' positions in regard to acid rain or CFCs coming up our way in terms of air when we are sending garbage down there to be burned and then come back up here. It is a little bit ironic and contradictory, but we have very few options after Carleton is done with, which is May 1, 1993.

I would suggest to you that since this is a "may act" clause in the Municipal Act, and since there are significant costs for a municipality which has a limited base, especially in a city that is not growing substantially, it should be part of the disentanglement process, and I would hope this committee or some other committee would take that into their considerations. We feel very strongly that in the same way everything is being discussed, this should be discussed as well.

We would urge the committee to look at provincial initiatives, not just by region. As I mentioned before, we are cooperating with the township of Kingston. Through the Environmental Assessment Act, our range for looking at sites is limited to the township and to the city. It is interesting that two of our neighbours who participate with us in KARC, the Kingston area recycling committee, actually have landfills that would last awhile. But if I were in their shoes I would never participate in a waste management master plan with them. Why? So that they can have their landfills filled up by the city and the township? It is crazy on their part.

I am suggesting to you, Madam Chair, that the province must take regional and provincial initiatives. I would give you the example of New Brunswick, where they in effect have taken a look at it on a regional basis and have established either 12 or 15 regional landfill sites that have been the responsibility of the province. They have gone ahead with that with certain criteria in place.

I would like to end up and leave with questions, if that is your wish. Basically, at this time we are feeling very frustrated with the process. Quite honestly we do not understand what makes Toronto any different. I hope someone will explain that not only to myself today, but throughout the rest. We are extremely frustrated with the environmental assessment process and we really believe we have not had the full attention of the government in dealing with our crisis in the greater Kingston area. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr McClelland: I want to indicate that I am glad you are here, notwithstanding the fact that you were not given initial consultation. To give credit where credit is due, Miss Cathy McVitty of our research office sent faxes to AMO and other people, bearing in mind of course that the government wanted this bill passed prior to December 19, which was right in the middle of municipal elections. Notwithstanding the fact that it has tremendous implications for not only the greater Toronto area but municipalities right across the province, the government did not want to talk to you about it because, my God, you might come up with some better ideas or show that there were some deficiencies in the planning.

I think you pointed out a very interesting and important element, that the environmental assessment process, notwithstanding its good intent and the foundational principles I believe in, is not working well. What we ought to be doing as a province is addressing that with a comprehensive plan for the province, if you will, within the context of the EAA process that is not working, so fix the thing that is broken, rather than an emergency-type response to an area in the greater Toronto area. The legislation is really just crafted together to kind of deal halfheartedly and holus-bolus with the problem.

I also want to indicate to you, sir, that not only does it set out a scheme that is different across the province; it is a different scheme within the GTA. It depends on where you are in the GTA what rules will apply as well. It is just totally a lot of balls being juggled and it depends on which side of the fence you are on and which day of the week it is, which principles and which laws apply, and just adds confusion to an already difficult situation.

I can only say that I hope you are consulted, I hope you are listened to and I hope your problems are addressed in some comprehensive manner. I thank you for the recommendations you have brought to us. You may want to comment.

The Chair: Did you want to respond?

Mr Clements: Very briefly. Thank you very much. I must say that we are quite willing to consult with anybody. I think that to some extent we have been forerunners. You tend to learn from those who go first. Because we have been at it since 1985 or 1986, we are quite willing to share our experiences so that other people may benefit by them.

Mr G. Wilson: Thank you very much for the presentation, John. Certainly there is the frustration, the concern and the anger as well about the situation we all face. As you know, I was sort of flung into this question of the landfill crisis here in Kingston. I think the one aspect of that, though, is the fact that it did not happen overnight. This is something that developed over a number of years that other governments have tried to address and not done all that well. But again, there is an experience that we can develop and work on and that is what we are trying to do.

You say part of the frustration comes from your perception that Kingston is not being heard in Toronto, that there is one rule for Toronto and another for other areas. I should point out that Ruth Grier is also minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, and it is partly the base of that responsibility that this act addresses.


The other are the longer-term things that do include the consultation with communities like Kingston through organizations like AMO, and of course the mayor of Kingston is also president of AMO, so there is a very direct relation there. But still, Kingston is a member of AMO and there are continuing discussions on various aspects. Perhaps the longest-term are the reforms to the environmental assessment process, trying to make it more streamlined and more inclusive.

There is Initiatives Paper No 2, which --

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Wilson. Did you wish to respond?

Mr Clements: No.

The Chair: Mr Jackson, you have the floor.

Mr Jackson: John, it is good to see you again. I remember you from the Bill 30 hearings when I was here in town. I come from Halton region. We are unique within the GTA because we have probably spent more money per capita than any other municipal jurisdiction in Canada with respect to fighting a landfill application.

I was intrigued by your comments about the narrowing down of your options. This is what happened in our community as we legally used the framework to slow down the process environmentally responsibly so that we would not end up with an offensive landfill site.

We are shipping our garbage to the United States extensively. It was the only option available to us. I am familiar with your geography and your extensive watershed. I doubt seriously that you have a landfill site within your city or township, but that is another story.

Could you comment about how you feel about being narrowed down to that series of options? Your own staff have looked at the future and told you, given these circumstances. There is only one other scenario and that is the government interceding. Would you like to comment about that?

Mr Clements: As you are aware, Madam Chair, municipalities are creatures of the province, both by legislation and by regulation. I must say that I personally find shipping our garbage to the United States somewhat distasteful and the last option that is available to us.

I think I will speak not from a technical basis, but from the point of view probably of the man in the street. They find it very difficult to understand why, in a land as vast as Canada with the land mass that we have and the population density that we do not have, there are not sufficient spots within Ontario to accommodate the landfill sites.

Having said that, as you quite adequately pointed out, the environmental assessment process states basically that we will look at the two municipalities we are concerned with. For those of you who are familiar with Kingston, below the 401 is urbanized extensively and the plans are for same. There is a small section of the township and the city that goes north maybe five miles.

Three sites that are available at this time are the prime sites. They are in an area called the Glenburnie area. I would invite any of you to go out there. We are in effect looking at one of the sites in the Glenburnie area which is very close to the Rideau River, that watershed. I know that the technical people tell us you should put a landfill there because in effect the water system will take out all the bad things that are in the garbage and will act as a filter system. At the same time you have other people saying, "But you're going to end up polluting the water," and we find it very difficult. Those are the three prime sites.

It is interesting that one person told me that if this were western Ontario, where you have extensive clay beds, which I guess are the prime prerequisite for landfill sites, none of our top six sites would even come close to being acceptable. Those are what we are allowed to have and all we are allowed to look at. We are not allowed to go beyond that.

You guys set the rules, quite honestly. I think that is what we are saying in our frustration. I would invite you all to drive out to Glenburnie and take a look at it. I could wear my other hat and tell you there is a school within 520 metres of this landfill, which is probably applicable to Halton. We are frustrated, Madam Chair. Unless you change the rules, this bill and all the consultation with AMO will not help us one little bit in the least and we will be into a confrontational situation when we come to the Environmental Assessment Board. I think all parties would love to avoid that.

Mr McClelland: I heard Mr Wilson tell Acting Mayor Clements that notwithstanding the fact that the city was not consulted, AMO was consulted. I also heard Mrs Cooper, who is the mayor and who is president of AMO, say that AMO was not consulted. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant can clarify that, because I have heard Mr Wilson say that AMO was consulted and that Kingston should not worry. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant can clarify what, if any, consultation did take place.

Mr O'Connor: Thank you. I am glad you raised that. I think Mr Wilson actually pointed out that the mayor and president of AMO was involved in Initiatives Paper No 1 and will be further involved as the process proceeds through Initiatives Paper No 2 and with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs when we get into the powers around that as well. I think that is what Mr Wilson was talking about.

The Chair: We appreciate your coming before the committee this morning. I know you are aware that if there is additional information over the course of our hearings that you would like to share with us you can do so in writing through our clerk. Thank you very much once again for your hospitality and also for your excellent presentation.

I have two items of housekeeping for committee members. First, your bags must be in room 113 of the hotel. They are going to be picked up by 5 o'clock. The hearings here should be completed shortly after that or around that time. We will be picked up here at 5:30. The preference would be for you to have your bags in the room at the hotel. They will be picked up and then we are going to be picked up here shortly after that. If you could arrange to get that done, that would expedite matters.

Second, lunch has been arranged for committee members and staff in an adjacent room. It will be available over the course of the break. The committee will reconvene in this room at 2 pm.

There are a number of changes to your agenda for the afternoon. If anyone is interested, I have the corrected copy. The standing committee on social development now stands in recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon.

The committee recessed at 1238.


The committee resumed at 1400.


The Chair: The standing committee on social development is now in session. I would like to call our first presentation, Alcan Recycling Canada. Please introduce yourself to members of the committee. We would also remind you that you have 20 minutes for your presentation and ask if you would leave a few minutes at the end for questions from committee members.

Mr Primeau: Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Michel Primeau, national recycling manager of Alcan Recycling. Also with me is Chris Koszewski, works manager of our Kingston plant. I have come to make a brief submission to the committee on Bill 143 and Initiatives Paper No 1: Regulatory Measures to Achieve Ontario's Waste Reduction Targets, which set out the draft regulations that flow from the bill.

I am pleased to speak to the committee on behalf of Alcan Aluminium Ltd, which has been a pioneer in developing recycling systems and achieving high levels of aluminum recovery. Through its involvement, Alcan is demonstrating its commitment to product stewardship. This means taking responsibility for our product. Aluminum recycling makes good economic sense for our customers, municipalities, and ourselves, and is environmentally responsible.

In this submission we make three fundamental points about Bill 143 and the regulatory approach to solid waste diversion. First, a partnership which combines industry knowhow with a clear public policy framework will achieve the desired results cost-effectively. Second, recovery of materials should not be mandated without addressing the issue of cost and who pays. Third, competing materials and packages must be treated equally.

Partnerships are becoming the new way for business and government to work together. The Premier of this province recently appeared on television to talk about the current economic reality facing Ontario and solicited the participation of the business community to work in partnership with the government to stimulate an economic renewal. Partnership implies cooperation and building on each other's strengths. We in the private sector believe that it is our responsibility to facilitate the development of markets for secondary materials to enable communities and businesses to expand their recycling programs and meet their responsibilities. But the process must be an evolutionary one.

In sharp contrast, the strong command-and-control approach taken in this bill and its supporting regulations is unlikely to stimulate the creativity of industry and capitalize on private sector knowhow in combination with government guidance to achieve the desired results. Many in the business community are ready and willing to work in partnership to assist in achieving Ontario's ambitious waste diversion goals. We believe the role of government is to provide policy guidance and a clear and stable business climate to encourage the private sector to make the necessary investments.

The power to regulate or ban products or packaging on the grounds that they may pose "waste management problems," as set out in section 29 of Bill 143, is vague and does not lend itself to creating a stable business environment. Waste management problems must be better defined and, if invoked, must be applied appropriately to both domestically produced as well as imported materials and products. We believe it is only fair that the minister be more specific about what constitutes a waste management problem, so that industry can be given the opportunity to develop solutions to the problem.

Costs: This bill and the regulatory requirements set out in Initiatives Paper No 1 mandate a prescriptive approach to divert wastes without regard to the costs. Mandating recovery of materials without regard to the cost is not sustainable in the long term. Moreover, the financial burden of the system should not be borne through the taxes paid by residents and businesses. All materials included in a recovery program should cover all of their costs of collection and processing.

Aluminum has been recognized as the economic engine driving Ontario's blue box program, which has become an international success story. Alcan has been involved in this program from its initial pilot trials in the early 1980s. Aluminum beverage and other containers are easily captured by the blue box and baled for recycling.

The market value of scrap aluminum from used beverage containers has ranged from $700 to $1,500 per tonne over the past few years and has the highest value of any materials in the blue box. While aluminum accounted for less than 1% of the weight of materials collected in Ontario's blue box programs, it generated 10% to 25% of all revenues. In other curbside programs, aluminum represents 1% of materials and generates up to 50% of total revenues. Aluminum is still the only material which more than covers its costs of collecting and processing, and it helped to support the collection and diversion of over 370,000 tonnes of other materials from the waste stream in 1991 through Ontario's residential curbside program.

Canada-wide, over 55% of the aluminum used in beverage containers is collected and recycled. Alcan Recycling processes over 40 million pounds of recovered aluminum annually in Canada, which represents approximately 1.1 billion beverage containers.

We strongly support the concept of product stewardship and we want all the aluminum back that we can get. We have not stopped with beverage containers. Alcan is committed to recovering aluminum from more sources. We have been working on the collection of foil materials from households. Materials collected from a pilot program in Guelph recently arrived at our plant here in Kingston and are being assessed for their content and level of contamination. We have also tested a special collection day to recover aluminum from garden furniture, ladders and other household items. Aluminum recycling provides a unique opportunity for all involved: a win for municipal recycling programs, a win for the environment, and a win for Alcan. Aluminum recycling is economical, saves energy and enhances our competitive position.

At Alcan, we are continuing to invest in research and development to expand our aluminum recycling capabilities. That is why we have been involved and will continue to be involved in testing recovery and processing technologies. We want to work closely with the ICI -- industrial, commercial and institutional -- sector to increase recovery and separation of high quality post-consumer aluminum.

Level playing field: All packaging and materials which compete against each other must be treated equally. Other packaging materials which are alternatives to aluminum have not been specifically designated for separation and will continue to be a burden on our landfills. There is merit in putting producers and users of these materials on notice that they are expected to demonstrate the same degree of environmental responsibility as their competitors. A key role of the private sector is to develop markets for recovered materials to ensure a financially self-sustaining recycling system. We must go beyond just collecting materials and provide processing capability to effectively close the recycling loop. Alcan has responded to this need, and other material producers should do likewise, yet Bill 143 does nothing to address this critical issue of end markets.

We have shown leadership and are continuing to commit to developing processes to recover and reprocess aluminum, and we cover the costs of recovery. We believe that a similar commitment should be made by all packaging suppliers, particularly those which compete with our product. Regarding Initiatives Paper No 1, we believe that all packaging materials should be similarly included. For example, in the area of plastics, only PET has been specifically mandated for recovery, yet other plastics such as high- and low-density polyethylene, bottles and films, are used in high volumes and justify inclusion in this program.

We believe this will stimulate the expansion of processing capacity and assist in increasing the volume of materials diverted from landfill. Communities throughout Ontario are experimenting with expanding the types of material collected. Some communities have broadened their blue box programs to collect 12 or more materials, while others have leapt to what is seen to be the next generation of diversion, which is wet and dry systems. The regulations should be sufficiently flexible to continue to support innovative collection systems and develop the necessary processing capability in Ontario as a means of stimulating the economy.

In conclusion, I would stress the need to avoid creating roadblocks and stymying industry in its search for workable, cost-effective solutions. Give us the framework and the latitude to develop solutions which work, rather than prescribing narrow solutions. As demonstrated through our involvement in the blue box, Alcan wants to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Alcan has been a leader in supporting curbside recycling systems in Ontario and is continuing to pilot new approaches to recovering aluminum from residential and non-residential sources, as well as researching technologies to increase aluminum recovery.

Finally, aluminum competes against a variety of other packaging materials, many of which are not specifically mandated for recycling under the proposed regulations. This creates an unlevel playing field for us. We recommend that producers of these materials and packages should be similarly encouraged to accept their environmental responsibility. Alcan is prepared to work with the provincial government to achieve its waste diversion goal, but let's do it within a legislative framework which fosters industry-creative solutions and in a fair and competitive business environment.

I would welcome any questions. Thank you.


The Chair: Thank you for your excellent presentation. Question, Mr McClelland?

Mr McClelland: As much a comment as a question: I hope your concerns are just, sir. We would be at a loss as a province and indeed as a country if we were to lose the investment and the initiative that Alcan Recycling has brought to bear for the recycling of aluminum in the province of Ontario. You indicated that you are continuing to invest in research and development to expand the capabilities. You indicated that uncertainty, although not imminent, certainly calls into question the stability of future investment.

I hope we would not lose that and I would hope that the framework you ask for is established so that you are given the latitude to do what you do best, as businesses, to be allowed to compete and compete efficiently and cost-effectively and not to be seen as adverse to the goals of the government and the society that we all share, but rather to be brought in as an equal partner, a partner who is not just given passing lipservice but actually listened to and incorporated into a solution in a very meaningful way. I hope your presentation today helps ensure that that happens and that some of the uncertainty you expressed will result in some open, honest and direct dialogue that will address the problems.

The Chair: Did you wish to comment?

Mr Primeau: The other comment I would like to make is yes, Alcan is investing a lot of resources, money and people, to develop recycling technologies, and again we hope we are not doing it for nothing.

The Chair: Mr Lessard?

Mr Lessard: I have a couple of questions: one, whether you can give us some specific suggestions about what we can do to stimulate the creativity of industry and capitalize on private sector knowhow to achieve the results of Bill 143. You made one reference to treating different packaging materials equally, but are there other suggestions you can offer?

Mr Primeau: I think that is the key issue. If in legislation all packaging materials are treated equally, that will keep competitiveness as the main issue and I think that is the basis of industry success in the long term, to make sure that a piece of legislation is broad enough for all materials and does not narrowly single out an issue specifically that will remove competitiveness.

The Chair: Mr Daigeler, question?

Mr Daigeler: My question is perhaps along the same lines. I think you pointed out some fundamental shortcomings of the present bill. You are talking about a command-and-control approach. You are talking about a prescriptive approach without regard to the costs, and about narrow solutions not giving us the latitude to develop solutions which work. Could you be a little more specific as to what you have in mind precisely with regard to this bill that we now have before us so that we can possibly put forward some recommendations for changes?

Mr Primeau: Again, it addresses the area of the materials covered by that piece of legislation. It should cover all packaging materials, and if there are problems, if we look at what it costs society or municipal or provincial governments to dispose of those materials, what we support is that you should carry your own weight through that process, through your whole life-cycle process. If yours is a packaging material that is used to package a certain commodity, you should have enough money in the sale price of that commodity or that product to cover the cost of disposition right up to landfill, if that is the solution, or recycling, if that is the solution. Landfill is the solution for material that has no value, or enough to bring it back to its market if it is to be recycled.

Mr Wiseman: My question has to do with the equality section. One of the difficulties that is arising, for example, is in the capturing of glass and the reuse of glass in a recycling system. Now it is finding itself in direct competition with glass coming in from Mexico. We know it is the wage differentials in Mexico. Labatt's is in fact buying its bottles from Mexico and it has put two glass recycling companies out of business in Ontario already. We have heard some suggestions that maybe content regulations and legislation would be necessary in order to make sure the products we are recycling actually have a market. My question is that, and the other one is, how would we help you get 100% of your aluminum back?

Mr Primeau: If your question is how to get 100% back, I guess you would have to design -- if this government decides to implement a curbside program across the province, make sure it is implemented. I think the legislation is looking into that to make sure that every municipality over 5,000 people will have to have a curbside program and then the ICI sector will have a mandatory source separation. That is the way to go after 100% aluminum.

Mr Sola: Sir, you state that a key role of the private sector is to develop markets for recovered materials. My question is, is there a role for government in this market development, and if so, what is that role?

Mr Primeau: For aluminum, my suggestion would be to ask government to stay out of it, because there is no problem with the aluminum market. If I want to take another example, maybe we would look at newsprint, which has been a problem in Ontario, or glass, which has been an issue. Maybe there should be assistance provided. Importers of glass have been a problem, and I do not think the local producers have been treated equally. It is the same for newsprint. When there was assistance needed to make sure that commodity was moving, again the government of Ontario stepped in at that point to help make sure the stuff was not landfilled.

Mrs Mathyssen: I understand the high value of recovered aluminum made the blue box system viable. Now the soft drink industry has switched over to steel cans. Could you comment on the effect on your industry of that switch?

Mr Primeau: The impact of the switch is basically compounded with the poor recovery, because the curbside program in Ontario was being built -- I mean, if you go back three years you had only a small fraction of the households covered by blue box programs and basically none in the ICI sector. So the capture rate of aluminum in those days was extremely low. Over 40,000 tonnes of aluminum has been landfilled in Ontario over the last two years, 1989 and 1990. Had those 40,000 tonnes been given to municipalities and not in landfill, 40,000 tonnes at $1,000 a tonne is $40 million that should have injected through that curbside program. Right now the industry has been pumping money into it, the provincial government has been putting in money, municipal governments have been, and that aluminum is landfill. If there is a way to get it back, we will gladly take it back.

Mr Jackson: What would the impact have been of having $40 million worth of additional aluminum on the market for your industry to buy back? What would that have done to the price of aluminum?

Mr Primeau: In terms of the price of the secondary material?

Mr Jackson: Yes.

Mr Primeau: There is no risk of glut, if that is the sense of your question. The market has an infinite starvation for aluminum. We need everything we can get back. One way to keep that commodity, the beverage canning sheet, to the level it is right now is to get it back, to be very competitive. So the impact would have been extremely positive on the market.

The Chair: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation. We appreciate your coming before the committee today. As I have said to other presenters and I say to everyone monitoring these hearings, if there is additional information you would like to share with us, please feel free to communicate with us in writing through our clerk and we will take your comments and presentations into consideration during our deliberations. Thank you again.



The Chair: I would like to call next the Cornwall Environment Resource Centre. Please come forward and introduce yourself at the start of your presentation. You have 20 minutes in total and we ask if you would please leave a few minutes for questions. Please begin your presentation now.

Mr Milnes: I am presenting to you today in the vain hope I might make a difference. I am very disturbed that a US emotionalist, Paul Connett, was allowed one hour to speak to this committee and I, as a Canadian environmental scientist, have been allowed only 20 minutes. This causes me considerable anger. Do you honestly believe that Canadians are a lesser people?

No doubt Mr Connett told you his famous line, that he has made more than 700 speeches around the world. Did you have the wisdom to understand what this actually told you? That someone who is a lecturer at a university spending as much time as that on talking engagements has no time in which to test any of his theories, yet you were fooled into giving him one hour of your time at a cost to Ontario taxpayers. I note Dr Cohen, another US citizen, was also given the same amount of time. I am wondering who pulled the strings for this to happen. I am, to say the least, discouraged and angry.

Let me present my credentials. I graduated in the 1960s as an environmental scientist from a British university. In the years since then I have been a practising environmentalist and teacher in the public school system of Ontario. From 1988 to 1991 I was the full-time chairman of the public advisory committee for the St Lawrence River at Cornwall. As a member of their technical subcommittee I was the writer of most of the technical papers that represented the committee's position to five international government agencies.

I was the only member of the public to sit on the all-government-agency scientific remedial action plan team for the St Lawrence River. I was the person who caused the US Environmental Protection Agency to come to Cornwall to receive a Canadian submission on the environmental impacts from US industries on the St Lawrence River and Canadian people.

I was one of a team of three Canadians who discovered that aquatic sciences have addressed lake environments through limnology studies and ocean environments through oceanographic studies. We found the missing link. There was no concerted research on the channels that connect the lakes and the oceans, more commonly known as rivers. I, as a Canadian, introduced the name "riverainology" as the science of studying the large rivers of the world. I wrote the book on how to develop the proposed institute of environmental studies for large rivers, which will be located in Cornwall on the banks of the finest freshwater laboratory in the world, the St Lawrence River.

I created the Cornwall Environment Resource Centre, a non-profit organization to undertake environmental actions and to disseminate factual environmental information to the public. We formed environmental partners with whomever we could to cause environmental actions to be instituted.

We have a pop can collection program which is self-supporting and is covering the inadequacies of government to take action. The program would not be necessary if the provincial government were to take the simple action of putting a levy on pop cans like they do in Quebec and New York state. My centre has, as a partner with the city of Cornwall, carried out a complete audit of waste generated by industry, commerce and institutions in the city of Cornwall.

We have evolved a program, again as a partner with the city of Cornwall and the federal government program, Environmental Partners, to collect all old corrugated cardboard from industry, commerce and institutions in the city. We are collecting all the rags from the entire region and we sell them to Rags International for distribution to Third World countries.

We are environmental action workers who actually do the job rather than just talk governments into not doing something. We provide the unemployed with employment opportunities. Our only time for talking has been with local schools, municipal councils and service clubs to build the people involvement in real environmental programs.

I have made representations to so many groups and government agencies to gain environmental actions. I have even tried to get Elinor Caplan, your Chair, to undertake health studies of the most polluted river in Canada, the St Lawrence River at Cornwall. She refused. But since then I have been able to convince the Department of National Health and Welfare to undertake those studies.

We are acknowledged by some. In fact, the honourable Jean Charest, federal Minister of the Environment, came to Cornwall only four weeks ago to be a guest speaker for a fund-raising dinner for the Cornwall Environment Resource Centre. The Honourable Ruth Grier, the provincial minister, is coming to Cornwall to meet with me in two weeks' time, on February 29.

Last October I made a presentation to the three united counties council of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. My purpose was to inform them that I have determined from my own research of present-day technology that I had been forced to change my position of being in opposition to incineration of municipal solid waste. I would love to share with you the reasons I changed my thinking, but time does not permit.

As a result of my presentation to the three united counties council, a resolution supporting waste-to-energy processes through thermal methods was made. This resolution now has the support of more than half the municipal elected officials across Ontario.

That concludes a brief overview of my background. It provides, I believe, sound reasons for my discouragement and anger at only being given 20 minutes of your time.

Is the government of Ontario willing to listen to the voices of the people of the province? I guess that is the $64,000 question. Of course, critical to this decision is how the Minister of the Environment, and in fact the provincial government, can ignore the unofficial shadow cabinet which seemingly is the real decision-maker in all environmental matters. In the event you may not recognize the shadow cabinet, it is made up of the environmental advocacy groups who adversely influence Ontario provincial government policy making.

We, the staff at the Cornwall Environment Resource Centre, CERC, examine all data brought before us. We take the time to look and see if the evidence of scientific viability can be substantiated through practical application and findings, and yet we receive not a penny of support in funding from the Ontario provincial government.

Even while on my holidays I dragged my wife along to see yet another waste-to-energy plant in Lake county, Florida. I wanted to see for myself what this commissioner Swartz fellow might have found to justify his position of opposition to incineration. You will be aware that Swartz has been paraded in Ontario by the advocacy groups because of his opposition to the Lake county, Florida, waste-to-energy plan.

Respecting the stand of an individual, since I have often walked that same path, I searched diligently for grounds to support his stand. I could find none. I now have to say I agree with all the other commissioners. That plant in Lake county, Florida, is yet another incinerator success story. Did you know this letter exists? It tells everyone that all the other commissioners on the Swartz board rejected his position and absolutely endorsed the waste-to-energy project.

There is a growing impression that only when the provincial government has approval from the shadow cabinet can it firmly make a decision. Then usually it is to ignore all the scientific evidence, turn a blind eye to the advances of Britain, Europe, the USA and technologically advanced Japan and refuse to even consider proven technology relative to waste-to-energy methodology.

In fact, Ontario even ignores Canadian expertise found through the federal government NITEP, the national incineration testing and evaluation program, and the findings of SWEAP, the solid waste environmental assessment plan, the Toronto investigation into municipal solid waste management.


It does not seem to matter to the provincial government of Ontario that the greater Toronto area, the area under the microscope at this time, representing about 45% of the population of this province, has studied the subject and made its decision. The Toronto decision is not approved by the unofficial shadow cabinet, so we are into this humongous time-wasting process when in fact honestly held environmental assessment hearings should have provided the answers. It seems to me this process is geared largely to providing support for that shadow cabinet position.

Think about Phil Jones who was one of our top national environmentalists. He was a doer. Remember the man? He founded Pollution Probe. He gave us the phosphate-free washing powder, the innovative sewage treatment plant. He was even the founder of the University of Toronto environmental studies department. Like me, Jones became discouraged. Where is he today? In Australia. He left because he was discouraged by the manner in which we are allowing ourselves to be misled by environmental activists, the unofficial Ontario provincial government shadow cabinet.

Even the mighty Greenpeace suffered loss of important founder figures and leaders because of disenchantment. So it should, of course. When are we going to realize that all those fancy Greenpeace figures that are constantly floated in front of us are largely emotional hype and that we are being held to ransom? What actually is one part per million, the famous figure thrown at us by the environmental activists? It represents one drop in a swimming pool. But perhaps more important, a drop of what?

Let us take a peek at that dreaded Greenpeace devil, dioxins, one of the so-called reasons for not incinerating. Let's not put aside the scientific evidence but just dwell on reverse Greenpeace actions. Let us look at actual known histopathological facts related to dioxins, which those doctors of Orillia should have been looking at.

Let us look at the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency now has gross concerns about its position relative to dioxins and furans. The US EPA presently believes it may have overreacted in the matter of those so-called toxics because there is now evidence that the host bodies for their research, the rats, are thought to have been killed by the massive doses of foreign matter rather than the dioxins themselves, and that has to be quite interesting.

But what about the real evidence from the case of the Monsanto workers of West Virginia in 1949; the Dow workers of Michigan in 1964; or Servaso, Italy, which was the largest spill of dioxins on record?

The dioxin spill at the Dow plant potentially reached levels equal to 10,000 parts per million but no one died from that seemingly massive dose. In Servaso, Italy, a whole section of the community was dusted down with between one and four pounds of dioxin -- not one drop in a swimming pool but one to four pounds of the stuff -- and there is no histopathological evidence to demonstrate serious human health effects.

Let us be reasonable. Who is fooling whom? If those humongous doses caused nothing more than chloracne and sleeplessness then why would we have seen how scientific studies should be undertaken -- I am sorry. I seem to have jumped a page. I have, but no matter.

I would like you to perhaps look at a document I have here. I ask that you read the first six pages of this document because it really does address the matters the doctors of Orillia should have been addressing and it tells you how the studies should be carried out. I think it is very important that you learn. If you study nothing else, look at the first six pages of that document.

Your penchant to favour US expertise might also cause you to want to read this paper which is from Dr Lawrence. Both of these documents clearly outline how the doctors of Orillia produced an unscientific document.

Would it not be appropriate to put a stop to all the waste of time and money and begin to make some sound decisions based upon known scientific and environmental facts?

We know of three methods of processing municipal solid waste. We have landfilling, composting and thermal approaches.

Landfilling: In fact, any form of storage procedure is extremely dangerous since it tends to be uncontrolled. We finally burnt the tires at Hagersville and we had no controls there. The methane gas emanating from landfill sites surely cannot be considered under control. Nor, might I add, are the toxics controlled, which migrate downward from the landfill sites into the groundwater locations.

Composting, the saviour of the green people: The supporters of composting seem to conveniently forget those very toxics which they feel should not be incinerated. Composting does not remove toxics. Why, then, can the toxics now be put out with the compost? I do not believe they can. They will leach out of the compost into the soils that they are supposed to be enhancing.

We are left with thermal approaches. These are not perfect but they are, at minimum, the soundest means of managing our municipal solid waste despite all the unfounded environmental hype.

In summary, I must say it is time for the provincial government of Ontario to get its act together.

It is time to legislate a solution to the pop can problem. We must fix a return cost on cans so we might be relieved of trying to commercialize something which only gives us an income of $52 for 750 kilograms of work each week.

It is time to recognize that Ontarians do not with to be, to quote the song, Secondhand Rose. Would you people wish to wear secondhand clothes? Was Mr Connett wearing a secondhand suit when he came to address you?

It is time to recognize that organizations such as our CERC need some kind of support funding for our recycling programs. Talk is very cheap but Ontario does not have any type of funding program to help the environmental doers, such as CERC. Our rags recycling program is a classic example of where help is needed. We sell the rags we collect to Rags International. We do not cover our costs but we divert close to 1,000 bags of rags from the landfill site each month and allow them to go to Third World countries.

It is time to legislate that industry, commerce and institutions must separate their waste and be responsible for the cost of collection for recycling purposes. This would mean we would not have to be waiting with bated breath to see if yet another federal government grant will allow us to do that which Ontario only avoids doing. We are tired of holding out our cans and jam jars begging loonies for recycling programs the province does not fund.

What I want to see for the greater Toronto area and the rest of Ontario is the application of what we are doing in Cornwall, operating community recycling programs. The city of Cornwall is a microcosm of what is happening in Toronto and indeed across the province. We have in place the elements of recycling, and Cornwall could be the testing ground for the province.

But you must take this to the next logical step and complete the cycle by allowing us to turn the remainder of our waste into energy. At the same time, we can produce from the ash a material which can be used for roadmaking, thus saving us from quarrying yet another natural resource. This would be total recycling. It is what I would describe as being environmental.

What I am suggesting is that the talking be put to one side. Let us see the provincial government of Ontario get its act together so that we might have a total recycling program which will allow us to become fully environmentally active.

I am now going to throw down some challenges. If you really seek an answer to the municipal solid waste problems of Toronto, and thus the rest of Ontario, you must come down from your ivory towers. You must close the door on that unofficial shadow cabinet and step into the real world. You must go out and see for yourselves, as I had to do, before I could accept what I have found out only by looking and seeing with an open and honest mind.

To this end, I have personally arranged for you to visit a modern waste-to-energy plant. I am willing to go with you myself since I have, at my own cost, become quite familiar with these plants.

I must ask you, are you really able to bring back an honest decision? Are you ready and willing to accept my challenges?


I know I have not shared a fraction of my knowledge with you. However, I am as close as the telephone and, health and finances allowing, I will meet with you to further debate this fairly simple matter.

My closing remark must be that in order for me to keep abreast of all the scientific changes that are occurring, I am on the mailing list of all significant bodies, from MISA -- where I am one of only 59 persons named, together with the Minister of the Environment -- to companies involved in manufacturing environmental equipment, such as the much-discussed Ogden Martin.

I believe you must do the same. You must cause the province of Ontario to undertake its own scientific research rather than bury its head in the sand and simply say no to technological advances. Please remember, because I am only a Canadian I was not allowed the one hour you gave to the US emotionalist, so you are short on question time. Thank you for receiving my viewpoint.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. I think I speak for all members of the committee when I take this opportunity to say how pleased we are that you came forward today to share with us your knowledge and your expertise. We also hear your frustration, and I would like you to know what the process was for the committee deciding how we were going to hear presentations.

We wanted to accommodate as many points of view and as many people from around the province as possible. Each one of the caucuses submitted a very short list of stakeholders and interests they thought should be given one hour of time to express that point of view. It was then agreed that all others would be given 20 minutes to verbally appear before the committee. But it was also agreed, as is the standard practice with the committees, that anyone could submit as long a brief or presentation, in writing, in whatever format they would like, so that the committee would be able to consider those kinds of briefs in writing.

Also, as it often happens, committees are not able to accommodate everyone who says they would like to appear. I am pleased to tell you that with just a couple of exceptions, this committee, by the time the hearings are over, will be able to hear from just about everyone who said they wanted to appear before the committee. I think we all felt we would like to have more time to be able to hear a longer presentation or be able to ask more questions, but that just is not possible in this kind of format. I hope you understand that.

On a personal note, I want to say how pleased I am that the federal government, which has jurisdiction for the St Lawrence, agreed to do your health study. I also know that the committee here today would be pleased to receive from you any additional information you would like to share with us, including your phone number, as individual members of the committee might like to be able to have a chat with you after. So if you would leave your phone number with the clerk, we would appreciate that. Thank you very much for appearing today.

Mr Milnes: Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I just say that my frustration is rather that a Canadian was denied one hour when US citizens were given that full hour. That was my major frustration.

The Chair: I appreciate your point.

Mr Milnes: I do have single copies of everything here. It is just a matter of finances to make full copies for everyone.

The Chair: If you will give it to the clerk, it will become part of the public record. Members will receive copies of everything; further, it will also become part of the research document that is being put together.


The Chair: I would like to call next on the Glenburnie Residents Association. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. I ask, if you would, to begin by introducing yourselves and, if you could, leave a few minutes for questions, but that it is entirely up to you. Please begin your presentation now.

Mr MacPherson: I am Bruce MacPherson and this is Bob Wolfe, representing the Glenburnie Residents Association. Thank you for taking the trouble to come to Kingston and thank you for giving us an opportunity to be heard on these vital issues.

There has been too little consultation on waste management in the past. The very first thing wrong with this bill, as we stated in a letter to the Premier, was that there was inadequate provision for discussion. Consultation is of the essence on this issue. Some people act as if the environmental truth has been revealed, but there is only one environmental imperative and a great many political choices. The imperative is to have a healthy planet on which future generations can live. For the rest, we have to make choices among competing objectives.

The choices that the Legislature makes with regard to Bill 143 will affect waste management planning throughout the province. It is shameful that the minister has still not explained her waste management policy to the Legislature. The result is that waste management policy appears to the public to be even more incoherent than in the past, a problem compounded by this bill.

On behalf of the Glenburnie Residents Association, I am calling for the withdrawal of this bill and for the creation of a royal commission on garbage.

Glenburnie is largely a rural area just north of Highway 401; it is formally part of Kingston township. You should know at the outset that our group was formed in 1985 when Kingston township proposed to site a new garbage dump in our community. We have been active in the discussion of waste management in this area ever since. It has been a frustrating time.

There is still no dump in Glenburnie, nor is there a decision not to build a dump in Glenburnie, because there is still no approved waste management master plan for the area. Such a plan is at least six months away and new facilities are still years away. We hope there will never be a dump in Glenburnie. We also hope that no other community will have to accept our garbage. Most of all, we hope that we never again have to go through such a bizarre planning process.

Our association has had more experience with the Environmental Assessment Act than we would like. It is a flawed process, but some parts are worth preserving. The Kingston master plan began by looking for a new dump and nothing more, but the EAA requires a search for alternatives and public consultation. Both requirements have been instrumental in creating a set of circumstances in which we will have an aggressive waste diversion program long before we have a new dump.

The essence of EAA is transparency, openness and public participation. EAA requires that anyone making a proposal be able to go before a board to justify both the planning process and the need for the proposed facility. All of these principles are endangered by Bill 143.

Bill 143 will be known as the Waste Management Act, 1991. The title implies that the government has asked for all the legislative authority it needs to get on with its attack on the garbage crisis. I hope that that impression is wrong.

This bill identifies two problems: finding a hole in the ground in which to hide Toronto's garbage and allowing the government to implement its waste reduction initiatives. Both tasks may or may not be necessary. On the limited information available about the government's waste management strategy, there is no way of knowing. One thing is sure: A comprehensive approach to the province's garbage problem would not be so limited in scope or imagination.

The implicit principles, if we can call them that, underlying the bill are that this government knows best that existing legislation is flawed and thus that the government needs more power to get on with the job. We are not told what the flaws are or why the legislation cannot be improved instead of being undermined in this way. It is hard to know why an NDP government thinks that power should be taken from ordinary people and given to Queen's Park.

When we wrote to the Premier about this bill on the basis of a quick first impression, we were principally concerned about the effects of part III on the transparency, consultation and fairness of the existing environmental assessment system. Let me give you some examples of the flaws we see in this bill.

In section 13, the minister will be able to tell the corporation how much waste will be generated in the service area. The corporation will then be required to use that data. There is no place here for a public discussion of the assumptions upon which planning will proceed and presumably little place for an EAA review to question those assumptions. In our experience with the environmental review process, such public examination of official assumptions is essential.

In section 14, no alternatives other than the ones specified by the act are to be considered, whatever the requirements of the EAA might otherwise have been. What we have learned in Kingston is that circumstances change and the people in Queen's Park do not always know what innovative solutions are possible.

This provision of Bill 143 undermines the EAA requirement to show that the solution proposed is the best available in the circumstances. It goes farther by saying that incineration need not be considered. "Incineration" is an out-of-date word, one that should not be enshrined in the legislation. There are now a host of rapidly evolving combustion technologies designed to recycle or recover the energy in garbage. Why is none to be considered?


The simple answer is that the minister has issued a press release banning what she calls incineration. Since that brief press release nearly a year ago, no background studies have been released and no consultations have been held. No legislation has been introduced to give legal effect to the ban. If the ban was now a matter of law, not press release, section 14 of Bill 143 would not be necessary, which makes us wonder if the policy will ever be given general legal effect.

So the simple answer will not do. The fact is, we have no way of knowing why incineration is not to be considered. This back-door approach to regulation should be dropped. Instead, Ontario should follow the example of the UK, where a royal commission on environmental pollution is doing special studies on energy recovery technologies. Only when we have real information should there be specific legislation introduced to give proper effect to whatever general policy then seems appropriate on this important issue.

Section 15 of Bill 143 says that the minister can make policies. The meaning of the term is undefined. Perhaps she will issue more press releases, which will then have standing under the EAA. Subsection 17(7) and section 18 taken together seem to make the EAA irrelevant anyway since the director can do whatever seems appropriate in the public interest without need of messy details like review under the EAA.

Kingston and Kingston township have expended much time, effort and money trying to find a new landfill site. We have been required to look only within Kingston township, which means that any new dump will be close to existing communities. The people who might be affected have been told that they will never have to accept garbage from outside the communities that have participated in the study.

Now look at section 26 of Bill 143, which amends section 29 of the Environmental Protection Act. This provision would allow the government to order a municipality to accept garbage from elsewhere. Such an order may be in the public interest -- whatever that means in this context -- but were such an order to be made here in Kingston, which Bill 143 would allow, it would make a mockery of the whole planning process that we have been through.

"Mockery" is too mild or polite a word to use for the other provisions of Bill 143 that would allow bureaucrats to tell elected municipal politicians near Toronto that their local plans, contracts and laws are superseded by the decisions of bureaucrats with regard to Toronto's garbage.

Why is this assault on common sense happening? Why are existing environmental assessment procedures too onerous for Toronto? Why is this retreat from democratic participation being proposed? We can try to imagine the answer. "The greater Toronto area is in crisis," it will be said. "In an emergency, corners must be cut. This is war."

Such reasoning cannot stand the light of day. If the minister believed there was a real crisis, she would have allowed the Kirkland Lake idea to proceed as an interim measure. Kingston faced a genuine crisis when our dump closed nearly a year ago, and we are now trucking our garbage to Ottawa at exorbitant cost. Neither Kingston nor Ottawa is happy with this interim solution, but we had no other options.

In forcing Kingston into an emergency transport option while denying Toronto the right to transport garbage to Kirkland Lake, the minister implied that Toronto was not in crisis, that there was time available, and that there was no need to trash environmental principles in the search for a quick fix.

If Toronto is not in crisis, perhaps the minister believes that the environmental assessment process is in crisis. Those of us who have lived through the long, agonizing planning process in Kingston might agree. People all over the province struggling to draft master plans under these rules might also agree, but the part of the system that is in crisis is not the principle of open, transparent consultation. The problem is procedures which constantly change. The problem is a process that is arbitrary, confusing, time-consuming and expensive. The problem is a process that does not provide a provincial overview into which local plans must fit.

The city of Kingston, like Toronto, cannot keep its garbage within its municipal limits. The questions then become not whether it will be transported but where it will be taken and with what justification. In the absence of a provincial master plan, the answers to these questions are unsatisfactory.

The government recognizes how hard it would be to resolve the GTA's situation in a timely fashion under existing law, but this bill simply compounds the problem. Instead of fixing the system, it will make it even more arbitrary and fragmented. Moreover, if it is agreed that the existing process is bad for Toronto, then it is surely bad for the rest of the province. We would hate to see the system fixed by having the lack of principles in this bill generalized to the rest of us.

The government has been unable to articulate a clear strategy for waste management. Some bits of a policy, like the ban on incineration, have been delivered from on high without consultation or explanation. Rumours have reached Kingston that Toronto environmental groups have been consulted on other bits of the policy, but nobody has seen a comprehensive strategy.

The drafting of this bill, the Waste Management Act, 1991, implies that the minister has a grip on the problem and that this bill is the solution. "First we control packaging; then we find a good piece of prime farm land for a new dump." It just will not do any more.

The GRA has three recommendations for this committee, all of which proceed from the premise that Toronto may be bigger but that its problems are otherwise not unlike those facing other communities in Ontario.

1. We need a royal commission on garbage to inquire into a waste management master plan for the whole province, having regard to the need to reduce waste of all kinds throughout society while disposing of garbage with least harm to the environment and with most benefit for our troubled economy. There is a great deal of good work being done on the garbage crisis, both in and out of the government. A royal commission would allow all of this work to be pulled together in one place. Only then can the public make sense of the government's legislative agenda. Rather than sweeping it under the carpet, the aim of this royal commission should be to bring it out in the open as quickly as possible, so that our province can make informed choices.

2. The result of such a public process should be a comprehensive waste management act for the province. Bill 143 is so flawed that it should be scrapped. We do not need a series of piecemeal acts, we do not want a series of Band-Aids to deal with one local crisis after another, and we certainly do not need to give more power to bureacrats.

3. If there is a real emergency in Toronto, then pragmatic solutions must be found. As an interim measure Toronto should be allowed to consider the shipment of garbage to Kirkland Lake while awaiting a new province-wide master plan.

Thank you again for taking the trouble to come to Kingston. This kind of public participation in the process is the essential component that is undermined by Bill 143. We would be happy to answer your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much for an excellent brief. I would like to call first Ms Haeck. Question? I am going to ask that you keep the questions very short. We have five minutes in total, so I am going to be firm.

Ms Haeck: Thank you for your brief. I am going to raise an issue which you raise on page 2, which relates to incineration. Obviously as a committee we have been hearing from a wide range of groups, people who live with incinerators in their backyards.

I have here a copy of an article brought to our attention yesterday by a public health nurse which outlines the hazards of incineration. I am wondering what kind of technical data you have that supports the use of incinerators. Would you like it in Glenburnie?

Mr MacPherson: There are multiple questions there. The fact is that we are not a professional research organization. We do not have those kinds of resources. We have done a lot of review of what is available in the field. We, too, are opposed to incinerators like Commissioners Street and anything else that I think most people have in mind when they talk about incineration.

Unfortunately, that happens to be a rather inclusive term that covers a whole range of other alternatives such as refuse-derived fuel, which does not add to the net amount of combustion going on in the province; rather it provides an alternative fuel source to existing processes. Those are the kinds of considerations that should be made and evaluated in comparison with other alternatives for selective components of the waste stream.

Mr McClelland: I think you had a couple of very important points: that the two problems of waste management and waste reduction are two separate issues and ought to be dealt with as such, and not to try to confuse the issue by rolling it into them and saying that dealing with waste reduction therefore justifies a misapplied and, quite frankly, terribly mixed-up approach to waste management.

You talked about discussion. On your compliment at the end for having this process, this process was not accepted very happily by the government, and I want you to know that.

The EA process is flawed. We recognize that. In terms of fixing that, as a solution rather than wiping out every kind of public participation in acts that have been there for people, how would you like to see the scheme of legislative environmental law we have while at the same time maintaining those principles in a workable fashion?

Mr MacPherson: First of all, we would like to see, as we mentioned in this report, a royal commission that would really serve two purposes. One is to bring together a range of knowledge on the subject. The second point is to arrive at a public consensus on what the right way to go is. Environmental issues are not purely the jurisdiction of the environmentalists. There are a lot of other issues to be considered.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate your presentation and I know I speak for all the members of the committee when we say how much we appreciate you coming before us today.



The Chair: I would like to call next the Storrington Committee Against Trash. Please come forward. Begin by introducing yourselves. You have 20 minutes in total for your presentation. We hope you will leave a few minutes for questions from committee members. Please begin your presentation now.

Mrs Fletcher: My name is Janet Fletcher. This is George Luck, the chairman of our committee. The Storrington Committee Against Trash welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposed Waste Management Act, Bill 143. We are an environmental group concerned with waste disposal and resulting pollution of the natural environment, specifically the Rideau Canal. We are currently involved in the environmental assessment process regarding a proposal by Laidlaw Waste Systems to expand its Storrington site north of Kingston, which was closed in April 1991.

We would first like to commend the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Ruth Grier, for having the courage to propose such a bill. As in all matters human, the proposal is not altogether perfect; however, we view this bill as a first positive step in reversing our current trends towards destruction of our environment. It is unfortunate that these changes must be forced through legislation.

We have no specific comments to make regarding part I of the act, since it is necessary in order to accomplish part II. With regard to part II, generally speaking, municipalities in Ontario do not appear to be very successful in carrying out proper planning in a reasonable length of time with regard to their waste management needs. As landfills across the province close for one reason or another, it has become the practice for many of our municipalities to find an active landfill in another municipality and ship their waste there until that site is closed, and so on. For example, the town of Cobourg now transports its waste to a site in Napanee. The city of Kingston and Kingston township, along with several other users, found it necessary to transport their waste first to Storrington and subsequently to Ottawa as a result of closure of landfills.

The Kingston-Kingston township joint waste management master plan has been under way for over eight years and does not appear likely to reach the hearing stage by the time their agreement expires with Ottawa. This may result in a situation where yet another municipality may be forced to take its waste, that Ottawa may be forced to extend its agreement, that the Richmond township site may be expanded, or that the Storrington township site may be reopened or expanded, all without benefit of proper environmental assessments and public hearings. Where does this stop? What can be done to convince municipalities that they must seriously address the issue of waste management?

In the past the Ministry of the Environment has not contributed positively to the development of waste management master plans. Meaningful assistance must be provided to municipalities which are going through this long and involved process. In addition, deadlines and penalties must be established throughout this planning process to prevent lengthy delays and manipulation.

Storrington township council has declined to participate in the Kingston-Kingston township waste management master plan and has recently stated it does not intend to develop its own waste management master plan because of the cost involved. We are aware that the Ontario government is planning to streamline the master planning process. It is our hope that our township will take advantage of any new process to develop a complete waste management strategy for our community that does not include burdening another municipality with our waste. It is our deep and strong conviction that each and every municipality must take responsibility for waste management within its own boundaries.

If Toronto's waste, or any other municipality's waste for that matter, is allowed to be transported to Kirkland Lake or Storrington or Ottawa or any other municipality in or outside of Ontario, when and how will the municipality learn to deal with the wealth of waste being produced in its community? If you are not allowed to send your problems to another location, you are forced to confront them and find a solution.

Although this act respects the management of greater Toronto area waste, it may set a precedent for the whole of Ontario. In order to protect the public and the environment, we feel it is absolutely necessary that the minister designate the search for and assessments of these sites under the Environmental Assessment Act and make public hearings an absolute requirement.

With regard to part III, we support the minister's motives for proposing this act. However, there should be some tempering with regard to the sweeping emergency powers available through this change in legislation and the precedents being set.

The Storrington dump, a site which has environmental problems we hope to have addressed through Environmental Assessment Board hearings later this year, was twice forced open through the issuance of emergency certificates. These actions were taken without just cause and in flagrant disregard for the intent of section 31 of the Environmental Protection Act. The Ontario Ombudsman is currently investigating the validity of these actions under the law. Indeed, in the past, many other communities have had to suffer through the same abuse of power. There must be some mechanism in place whereby the concerned citizens of Ontario have the right to provide input to decisions which will impact their lives. Citizens must be granted the same rights as proponents. Current legislation under section 31 allows only the proponent to input to or appeal decisions. We suggest section 31 of the Environmental Protection Act be amended to allow for equal rights for impacted citizens and also to avoid constitutional challenges.

If residents living in the immediate vicinity of the Keele Valley or Britannia sites have environmental concerns about those sites, their concerns must be addressed prior to approving lifts. Further, we recommend that heavy fines be imposed on the users for each day Keele Valley and Britannia have to remain active. This will be an incentive for the users to locate new suitable sites in a proper and timely fashion. Perhaps the funds collected through this means could be used to support and enhance 3Rs programs in Ontario.

With regard to part IV, we would like decision-making with regard to this act to be the absolute responsibility of the minister and not delegated to a director. We commend the minister's introduction of legislation to control packaging. Change is never easy, regardless of motive. We believe that this type of action, taken now, will in the long run result in a positive change for all of Ontario. There is no doubt that some suffering will take place during this period of change; however, we believe it will be for the short term only. Although jobs or businesses may be lost, new jobs and businesses will be created, requiring new skills, which may also bring about an upswing in our economy.

To continue along the road we have followed for the past 40-odd years is unconscionable. There is really no place in our society for excess packaging such as bubble packs and tetra packs, disposables and other items that pose waste management problems. We have sacrificed our environment for the sake of convenience and profit margins and in the bargain have lost our sense of community, our ability to face the challenge and our sense of responsibility to our fellow man and the natural environment around us. We have taken the health of our environment for granted, and this cannot go on for much longer without serious repercussions.

This act will give the minister the authority to require 3Rs programs in larger municipalities. We are especially pleased by the inclusion of the industrial, commercial and institutional sector. Since the ICI sector is responsible for a large portion of the waste generated, its inclusion in 3Rs programs is essential. While recycling and reuse are positive methods, reduction of waste at the source is really the key.

Incineration is not a solution to the problem. In addition to encouraging wasteful habits, or the "Who cares how much waste we create when we can burn it all up?" syndrome, we have concerns about the integrity of the operators of such incinerators. Cost effectiveness would certainly be a consideration, and in the end the environment would once again be sacrificed for the sake of dollars. We therefore support the minister's ban on incineration.

Banning of items from landfill is not a solution to the problem. This simply means the waste must go somewhere else, likely to a site where such a ban is not in place. If we do not produce wasteful products in the first instance, we will not have to deal with them later as waste management problems. Our need for landfill or incineration or any other waste disposal technology is dictated by our creation of waste. A change in our habits is really what is required, and we respectfully submit that Bill 143 will help us to achieve this.

We hope that the honourable minister will give serious consideration to our suggested amendments to this bill. We are confident that the minister will continue her policy of public consultation on waste management issues, and we are confident that if problems arise as a result of this new legislation, the necessary steps to ensure a satisfactory resolution will be taken.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.


The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for a well-thought-out brief. Mr Daigeler, you are first for questions.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you very much. Your brief is indeed very clear as to its views on the minister's project, and I thank you for that, because sometimes it is difficult to establish precisely on what side the presenter is.

You mentioned that your own township council has declined to participate in the Kingston township waste management master plan, and you criticize that. Why did your councillors take a different position?

Mrs Fletcher: I believe initially they did not want to take part in the master plan because we had our own facility in the township. I do not think they had the foresight to realize that the site was going to be filled as quickly as it was because we took on the major generation of waste from Kingston and Kingston township, which shortened the life of the site. I also believe there may have been a cost involvement there as well.

We have a new council, elected last year, which has a different view of waste management needs in the township, and we believe we may be successful in lobbying it to produce its own master plan. We would like to see the garbage that we create in our township stay in our township. We do not necessarily want the council to be part of the joint plan.

Mr Daigeler: But the decision has not yet been changed?

Mrs Fletcher: No. At the moment our waste is going to Ottawa, along with Kingston's and Kingston township's waste.

Mr J. Wilson: A very good submission, Janet, and a good coverage, I think, of the issue here locally as well as how Bill 143 affects it.

I am just wondering, with your experience with this, whether you see some development of the ideas you are proposing; that is, people should become more aware of the problems with disposing of waste, which should be dealt with locally, but the first step is to reduce the amount of waste. Do you feel you have more support for those ideas in the time that you have worked on this issue?

Mrs Fletcher: I believe that since the issue of the Storrington dump started four years ago, there has been a tremendous raising of the consciousness in this area about problems with landfill sites, in particular old sites like Storrington, and what damage they can do to the environment.

In addition to that, the waste crisis has drawn people's attention to waste reduction issues. Unfortunately, they are being allowed to send their garbage elsewhere and are not really being charged an exorbitant sum of money for this, although they say they are. I personally feel that tipping fees are too low. I believe higher tipping fees are necessary to encourage people to really look at what they are doing with waste, which is the reason I like this bill. It hits the main generator of a lot of this waste, which is the manufacturer.

I believe that if waste is kept in a community and people are charged a lot of money to dispose of it, they will do something positive about it. It is unfortunate it has to happen that way. I would rather see people come to it on their own, without being forced into it financially or through legislation, but that is just not the way it works in most cases.

Mr J. Wilson: How do you deal with the NIMBY factor, because often when people oppose --

Mrs Fletcher: I ignore NIMBYs.

Mr J. Wilson: Is that the best way, or do you think there are other ways around it?

Mrs Fletcher: You cannot convince people who are going along that track that there are other things in the world besides whether it is in their backyard. Storrington dump is in my backyard and I never worried about that until I discovered the problems that were going on with it. We live within a kilometre of the site. We bought our property after the site was in operation for 20 years and did not give it a second thought. So that does not enter into my mind; the fact that it is in my backyard does not mean anything to me. The fact that it is leaking and possibly contaminating the environment is something I am concerned about. I just cannot discuss it with someone whose only feeling is that they do not want it in their backyard.

Mr J. Wilson: So you hope there will be more reasonable --

Mrs Fletcher: I hope that consciousness changes to a more realistic view of things.

Mr J. Wilson: And you see Bill 143 as helping in this process?

Mrs Fletcher: I believe it will.

Mr Jackson: Just briefly, you made some commentary about incineration, and you had come to some conclusions. I think it would be fair to ask the same question the government has been asking: What technical data do you base your information on?

I have a second question to do with the notion of higher tipping fees, and one of the options that may be available to your community will be to ship to the United States.

Mrs Fletcher: I do not agree with that.

Mr Jackson: I know you do not agree with it, but it is an option that is there and that could be utilized if all other efforts failed. We have heard that Kingston, and I presume Kingston township and other areas, may be in a similar position, and those tipping fees will be rather expensive. That might achieve a positive end, in your view?

Mrs Fletcher: It might, but I would rather not see it shipped to another community. I think you should look after what you generate. I do not think you should shove it on to somebody else to deal with.

Mr Jackson: I am from Halton. We have no other option.

Mrs Fletcher: I know.

Mr Jackson: We have spent $40 million and still do not have a site. We are shipping to the US and paying a fortune. And we have excellent recycling and reuse programs.

Mrs Fletcher: Do you think that is a problem of where to put it or do you think that is a problem of planning?

Mr Jackson: I do not think you can indict our council for planning.

Mrs Fletcher: I do not know your situation; I am not criticizing.

Mr Jackson: No, that is fine. We had some government interventions by previous governments that threw us off track. I think one of the previous deputants you heard referred to the changing of the rules in midstream, and Halton really got caught badly in that regard. That is why we now have an exemption. That is why we will be treated differently, because we are leading edge, but we are not so sure in Halton once Bill 143 goes through. But I appreciated your comments very much.

Mr Luck: If I may just say something, I think you reinforce Jan's point in that without the extremely high tipping fee you say you are paying now, you probably would not have an efficient recycling program. I think the same can be said of this municipality. If they were still dumping for next to nothing in Storrington township, there would be no recycling in Kingston or Kingston township.

Mrs Fletcher: I might point out that the tipping fee at Storrington, I believe, was $25 to $35 a tonne, which is a pittance and does not reflect the waste problems going on and does not provide any incentive for anybody to reduce the waste stream. The reason they are howling and screaming so much about it is because it went to $120 a tonne to go to Ottawa. But what they do not seem to realize is that they are still getting a deal on that, and they are not really working on the master plan to complete it earlier. I heard the city of Kingston's position on this matter and they referred to a 10-year extension to their master plan and faulted the government for this. I happen to know the background on this and know that it was not the government at fault here; it was the consultants to the master plan who took it upon themselves to revamp their scheduling based on a paper presented by someone in the approvals office, but it had nothing to do with government policy or government discussions going on about the master plan.

I think it is more a problem of the recession and how it is hitting the pockets of the consultants than a policy of government interfering here.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Daigeler, you had another question?

Mr Daigeler: If I have some time, yes. I must say that your brief strikes me as expressing a broad concern about how to reduce waste and how we can be a more responsible society with regard to the use of our resources, and I certainly support that very much.

Perhaps I am wrong in my feeling, and you can just dispel that uneasy feeling. What is the origin of your own committee? I see you wearing these buttons. Usually when people wear buttons, frankly, they are a one-issue group and they are very intent on one particular item, and they are usually against one particular thing.

Mrs Fletcher: I think the name of the group says it all.

Mr Daigeler: I saw -- if I could just finish it -- at the beginning of your brief that you say that you are against the expansion of the Storrington dump site.

Mrs Fletcher: Well, that is not true.

Mr Daigeler: Is that the origin or is that still the main purpose of your group, or what is your group itself?

Mrs Fletcher: The group name is Storrington Committee Against Trash, and that is where we are at. At this particular moment in time we are concerned about pollution of the Rideau Canal. We are not opposed to an expansion of the Storrington site if it can be proven that it can be made safe and operated safely without contaminating the canal or the surrounding drinking water of people who live near it.

As we have said time and again to the municipalities that have used the site, we have no problem with the site reopening if it can be proved safe, if it can be operated safely. They have not demonstrated that to me yet, but we have not been through the environmental assessment hearing process to hear all the evidence.

On other matters, we are concerned about the site that the master plan wants to be put in Glenburnie, also on the Rideau canal. That will make three sites in a very close proximity along the Rideau canal, because we also have the Kingston dump on the canal. It is at one end, Storrington is at the other end and the proposed site is in Glenburnie. It crosses a number of rivers and streams, runs 100 metres from the Rideau canal for quite a distance and is the preferred site for the master plan.

We are concerned about it because there is no technology available that can prevent a landfill from leaking eventually. You can keep it from leaking for a certain period of time but you cannot keep it from leaking for ever, so why put it near a body of water and near residential wells? I would rather see these sites located in an industrial park, on a sewer system, away from residential wells, away from bodies of water.

As far as the waste reduction aspect of it is concerned, and why we are concerned with this bill, we are concerned about what people are throwing out because it is going to go into our dump if it is reopened. It has gone into our dump in the past. We would like to see most of that diverted and removed, and people changing their habits is a big part of that.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Your input is appreciated very much, but now I would like to call on the Eastern Ontario Public Participation Committee, if it is here. They have not reported to the clerk.



The Vice-Chair: Since we have had a cancellation, I would like to ask Richard Rohmer QC, the solicitor for the Ontario Waste Management Association, to come forward, please. Identify yourself and your associate for the purposes of Hansard, please. You have 20 minutes to make your presentation, and we would appreciate some time towards the end for questioning by members of the committee.

Mr Rohmer: My name is Richard Rohmer. I am before you today in my capacity as general counsel for the Ontario Waste Management Association, and with me is Mr Carl Lorusso, the president of the association. Mr Lorusso is vice-president of Wasteco, a major Toronto-based company involved in waste handling and recycling, ICI, residential haulage and other services. He is the expert for you.

I reside in the great four-season town of Collingwood -- I am not here to sell it, but I want to mention it -- where I actively participate in the blue box program and make regular garbage donations to the efficient A. Judges and Son Ltd of Collingwood, which carries out, for and on behalf of our municipality -- it is a member of our association -- the collection of residential, industrial, commercial and institutional waste and conducts landfill and recycling operations. Like so many of OWMA's more than 300 members, the Judges, as private enterprise, have a vital and increasingly important role in waste management in a local Ontario municipality.

One other point: Two years ago I singlehandedly, with the persistent, upfront pressure of one of the Ministry of the Environment's able officers at Barrie, succeeded in having the town of Collingwood's ancient, high-polluting incinerator put to its final rest. I will not give you my opinion on incineration; I have not got any technical information with me.

Having identified with the ecosystem, the preservation of the environment and the 3R principles that will move Ontario into being a conserver society, the reason I am here before you in the dog days of this committee's hearings is to deal with the questions that were put on the record after the able presentation to you of the association's director, Jim Temple, on January 22, 1992.

Mr Temple clearly enunciated the concern -- he called it "paranoia" -- of the Ontario Waste Management Association that, "As far as this legislation is concerned" -- Bill 143 -- "the existing private waste management industry simply does not exist." He said: "To put it bluntly, does [the government] intend to use the legislation to compel the municipalities to set up municipally owned and operated recycling facilities with all their attendant flow control and price control regulations? Such an initiative would devastate a flourishing private sector and create an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer."

Add to Mr Temple's reference to recycling all the other functions carried out by our members for and within their constituent municipalities, both inside and outside the main object of the minister's much-loved focus, the greater Toronto area.

Mr McLean, who was sitting at the time, and others expressed concern about the position of the private sector, but it was Mr Martin who put the question on the record that Mr Lorusso and I want to answer. Mr Martin's question was, "What role does the private sector see itself playing in the management of waste?"

Before answering that basic question, let me give you a few words from Minister Grier when she was responding to questions put to her at the opening of this committee's hearings on Monday, January 20, 1992. Mr McClelland had raised the matter of the total lack of reference to the private sector in Bill 143 and earlier statements by the minister that indicated that all waste management should be handled by the public sector. Do you remember doing that, Mr McClelland?

The minister gave Mr McClelland words that began to ease the Waste Management Association's pain of paranoia, but by no means cured it. The cure, if any, is in the gentle hands of this committee. The minister said: "I see a very real role for the private sector in continuing to run and operate a lot of the recycling facilities that exist in this province. I know there are some municipalities where the private sector still controls the disposal as well as the infrastructure."

What role does the private sector see itself playing in the management of waste? Let me start to answer that question by painting a picture of the scene in Ontario if we were required by the decree of this minister, or by the minister's director under Bill 143, to shut down all our waste management operations tomorrow. The picture would be of total social chaos in the greater Toronto area and in scores of municipalities from one end of Ontario to the other.

In the GTA, the contentious landfill sites of Britannia and Keele Valley would receive no refuse from the hundreds of apartment buildings and offices, institutions and industrial and commercial operations that rely totally on the services of our members for daily pickups. The townships, villages and towns and cities of Ontario -- scores of them -- that rely on private sector operators like the Judges would have to buy and operate hundreds of the massive specialized vehicles our members use in the service of the public. All recycling plants in Ontario -- all of them -- would be shut down and nothing would be in their place.

The role of the private sector in waste management is to provide a service to the public, either directly or through a contracting municipality, whereby any and every type of solid or liquid waste is collected, disposed, recycled and/or reused. In the GTA, the private sector does not operate the existing landfill sites, but its role is to collect and transport, even across artificial political boundaries, waste to those landfill sites and waste for recycling to the privately owned plants in the GTA.

Its role is to recycle waste, sell the recycled products and materials for reuse and transport those products and materials to market in or outside political boundaries. The role of the private sector in waste management is to augment the services to the public that are provided by regional and local governments in the GTA and to provide to municipal governments, both within and outside the GTA, a full range of waste management services.

The role of the private sector in waste management is to operate and conduct business in accordance with the legislation and rules and regulations laid down by the government of Ontario under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act, the Environmental Assessment Act and Bill 143, when it is finally enacted and the regulations made under it are in effect.

Mrs Mathyssen, I apologize to you for the way I have spelled your name. Please forgive me. Mrs Mathyssen put on the record the question, "Would clear rules, regulations and waste management objectives in terms of reduction not help your industry to do its job in fulfilling the needs of society in meeting those demands?" That was the question you put.

The association's answer to that question, which is a very valid question, is yes, the role of the provincial government in waste management is to set policies, rules and regulations. It is the role of the private sector waste management firms to carry out those directives in concert with municipalities and with other users of the services of the private sector.


Now to the ultimate question, as posed by Mr Lessard from the Windsor area. He asked Mr Temple "to provide the committee with...amendments that he" -- that is, the OWMA -- "would like to see in Bill 143 that would provide some assurance to private industry that they do have a role in waste management...in Ontario." That was your question. The association is pleased to have the opportunity to answer that question.

To provide assurance to private industry in the business of waste management, the Ontario Waste Management Association offers the following amendments to Bill 143, as listed in schedule A. I will just turn to that, to get through it fairly quickly. It is straightforward.

First is a preamble to the act in these or similar words, "The purpose of this act is to ensure that waste management and disposal in Ontario is based upon a clear and cost-effective approval process where waste is reduced, reused or recycled using the facilities and services of the both the public and private sectors," a broad statement.

Second, add an additional section at the end of part II in these or similar words, "Nothing in this or any other part of this act shall preclude any municipality from carrying out and discharging its responsibilities under this act or the Environmental Protection Act, as amended, through contracting with private sector corporations."

Third, amend subclause 14(1)(a)(iii) by adding the words "whether public or private" after the word "sites" so that the same shall read, "(iii) use of other single landfill waste disposal sites, whether public or private, in the primary service area."

How is my time doing, Madam Chair?

The Chair: There are approximately 11 minutes remaining.

Mr Rohmer: Oh my gracious, that is great.

Fourth, amend clause 14(2)(a) by adding these words "other than products and material derived from recycling" after the words "transportation of waste" so that the same shall read, "(a) an alternative of waste reduction or reuse or recycling if that alternative would involve incineration of waste or the transportation of waste, other than products and material derived from recycling, from the primary service area to any other area." There is a difference between the commodities.

Fifth, amend clause 14(2)(b) by adding the words "whether public or private" after the first word "site" so that the same shall read, "(b) an alternative of some other single landfill waste disposal site, whether public or private."

Sixth, amend section 15 by adding the words "after consultation with the public and private sectors" after the word "may." We have noted that the minister is very keen on public consultation. That would provide these words: "The Minister of the Environment may, after consultation with the public and private sectors, establish policies for the purposes of this part."

Seventh, amend subsections 17(1), 17(2) and 17(3) by the deletion of the words therein "shall establish, maintain and operate" and the substitution therefor of the words "shall ensure the establishment, maintenance and operation," so that the obligation of the municipality to perform can indeed be shared with the private sector. Otherwise the legislation directs the municipality and gives no flexibility.

Eighth, amend subsection 17(4) by deleting the word "comply" and substituting therefor the words "ensure compliance" and by adding after the words "require the municipality" the words "with the participation of the private sector where appropriate" so that the same shall read, "(4) A region or metropolitan municipality shall ensure compliance with this section even if to do so would would require that the municipality use the participation of the private sector where the municipality deems it appropriate."

Ninth, amend section 24 by amending the proposed clause 24(e)(i) of the Environmental Protection Act by the deletion of the words "transferred, treated or processed" and substituting therefor the words "or transferred except when transferred for the purpose of recycling treatment or processing" so that the subclause would read:

"(e) `waste disposal site' means

"(i) any land upon, into, in, or through which, or building or structure in which, waste is deposited, disposed of, handled, stored or transferred, except when transferred for the purpose of recycling, treatment and processing."

Amend section 24 by amending the proposed clause 24(f) of the Environmental Protection Act by the deletion of the words "any arrangements" -- these are very vague words -- so that the clause will read: "`Waste management system' means any facilities or equipment used in, and operations carried out for, the collection, handling, transportation, storage, processing or disposal of waste, and may include one or more waste disposal sites."

This is the last of them. Amend section 26 by amending the proposed new subsection 29(1) of the Environmental Protection Act by adding after the words "order" the words "with the participation of the private sector where the municipality deems it appropriate" so that the section will read: "29(1) If the minister considers it advisable in the public interest, he or she may order a municipality, within such time as is specified in the order, and with the participation of the private sector where the municipality deems it appropriate,..."

Mr Lorusso and I are pleased to have the opportunity to be here and to make this presentation to you in answer to the questions that were raised to Mr Temple.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. With five minutes remaining, I am going to be very firm in question rotation.

Mr Jackson: I am very supportive of the comments you raised. I come from a community that contracts out its garbage collection at great savings to the taxpayers and the avoidance of very messy garbage strikes. I am looking at Hansard of 27 January for this committee. I am quite appalled by the presentation by CUPE. I am sure you are familiar with that. This would cause me concern, and I would like you to comment whether you are nervous that if these amendments are not considered by the government -- certainly we are on record as supporting them -- what do you feel would be the impact to your industry, the number of people you currently employ and the services you provide in this province? What will be the effect on this province if CUPE's vision of removing you completely from this province -- would you comment on that for us?

Mr Lorusso: I think we have to look at what they said that day, and I believe they said they would be creating an additional 2,000 jobs to handle the private sector's waste; quite frankly, we may be able to do it with 1,000. It would be devastating for the private waste management companies. We work in the private sector on controlling our costs at our productivity levels, and that is how our success rate is achieved -- and by winning different tenders, even between the private companies. If one company specialized in, perhaps, residential collection, and it wins a tender, which is an open tender and the prices are shown and the productivity levels are basically shown, it has won it on those grounds. I think it would be unfair to the taxpayers to have to pay additional costs related to maybe less productive sources removing their waste.

Mr McClelland: In light of the proposals you put forward for amendment, hopefully they will be considered and, I would hope, not only considered but brought forward and incorporated as part of the bill if indeed it should be pushed through to third reading. Given that possibility, would you then be in a position to perhaps respond with respect to the potential for investment that I think I heard some of your members say is in jeopardy in terms of --

The Chair: Question?

Mr McClelland: -- the tremendous amount of infrastructure investment that your members are prepared to invest in Ontario? Are we in much better shape if we get these amendments? Can we have some hope that maybe you would be prepared to go ahead and basically stay in the province?

Mr Lorusso: If we have those amendments, I can guarantee you the continued support by the private waste management sector in expanding and very quickly assisting the province of Ontario in finding new methods of recycling and reduction. We are the experts. We do have the experience, and we want to share those experiences with the province of Ontario.

Mr Rohmer: I would invite Mr Lorusso just to tell his own experience of last year. Pardon?

Mr McClelland: What is the flip side if the amendments are not here?

Mr Rohmer: The flip side? Disaster. We are out of business, in point of fact, because you will then require -- the government will require -- all the municipalities under this legislation to carry out their own waste management on the whole program. We are gone, we are history, the way this is worded at the moment.

The Chair: Question. Mr Lessard.

Mr Lessard: Mr Rohmer, I can see your university education has served you well in your current role, even though it was Assumption College at the time you were there.

Mr Rohmer: I was there much after that, Mr Lessard.

Mr Lessard: I realize that as well, but not as a student. I want to thank you for the recommendations you have made for amendments. I think one thing we have learned as a result, as legislators is, never to lose sight of the healthy sense of paranoia that the private sector has towards the government.

I wanted to ask you about your role in shutting down the incinerator in Collingwood and why you became involved in that.

Mr Rohmer: Oh, it is very simple. I am an entrepreneur, in addition to being a lawyer or whatever else I am at any given moment, and with a partner, I was attempting to get a plan of subdivision on a parcel of land of 53 units, 53 lots, and here was this great, pulsating, spewing incinerator; they just brought in stuff from all over Collingwood in bags and threw it into a gas-generated burner and it just generated. My property was next door. Terrible. My role was to work to get it shut down, and it is now a magnificent subdivision.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming before the committee today, both to answer questions as well as make your presentation. I know you are aware that you can continue to communicate with this committee in writing through the clerk.

Mr Rohmer: Thank you, Madam Chair.



The Chair: I would like to call next Eastern Ontario Public Participation Committee. Would you begin your presentation, please, by introducing yourself. You have 20 minutes in total for your presentation and we would ask that you leave a few minutes for questions.

Mr Cowley-Owen: Thank you very much. My name is Michael Cowley-Owen. I am an independent public participant from the eastern Ontario region. I was involved with the Stormont-Glengarry waste management master plan. I am currently involved with an organization called the Eastern Ontario Public Participation Committee, which is an ad hoc group of participants in waste management plans across eastern Ontario.

My apologies for not being here at 3:20. As an independent, I am still running a 1986 car and it did not like the weather today, which brings me basically to the crux of the reason I am here today. I travelled here on my own time and at my own expense. There are few people, I think, around that can afford to do that too much these days.

If I look around a room such as this, or any other of the many meetings I have been to in the last four years since I got involved in waste management planning, there is -- I hate to use the words "class difference" but there definitely is. There are people there that are paid to be there, engineers, consultants, politicians, lawyers, lobbyists, independent business people, and then there is the public which is, to some extent, a ragtag mob of people with different interests.

There is a problem, as I see it, with the recognition of that public component. We live in very tough economic times and I know there is a policy that public participants should not be reimbursed. Part of me understands that, but there is a part of me that does not. Public participation is very time-consuming. I am sure all the professionals in this business know how much time is involved; it is just as much time involved for the "amateurs."

I like to tell the story that about two years ago my wife got really mad at me and said, "You're spending all this time on this public participation business, you're not spending any time at home." I said, "No, you are imagining it," but I thought, " Well, this is a serious allegation, I had better start keeping a time sheet as I do for all my other endeavours." Believe it or not, I was putting 40 hours a month into waste management.

I am independent, I run my own business, I can afford to take a day off, but I am not sure my business can afford me to take a day off. My business stands to gain $300 to $500 a day by my working. I become a liability when I do not work, as my overhead still continues.

Apart from being dedicated, there are two types of people who can afford to be public participants: the unemployed and the self-employed. The unemployed may have the time but they do not necessarily have the resources. There are a lot of long-distance phone calls, particularly in a rural area, a lot of driving, a lot of meetings. In some cases there is a reimbursement, in some cases there is not. There is no policy on this. It depends entirely on the plan. It depends entirely on the politicians that happen to be in power for that three-year period. It depends on a lot of issues.

The reason I am here is to say there is obviously a need to encourage public participation but there is a fiscal problem with doing so. I want to put it to you, if public participants cannot be reimbursed, even with a small honorarium, a token of the hours they put in, then what recognition are they going to get from the system? Believe me, it is not a reward in itself. It is very frustrating, it can be very time-consuming and, frankly, I will be honest with you, when my car started to break down on the way here, part of me said: "Just pack up and go home. You have been banging your head against the wall and against the system for the last four years; they aren't going to listen to you, they aren't going to have any sensible suggestions; just go home and save your time."

But I kept going and I am here, so I am putting the boot on the other foot. You tell me how you see the public -- individuals, not the public as a mass, but individuals -- being encouraged to stay the course, because the waste management master plan is minimally -- in fact, no one knows what the short limit for a master plan is right now; none has gone less than four or five years, and a few have gone as long as 10. How do you maintain public interest over that length of time?

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate you coming before the committee today. First questioner is Ms Haeck.

Ms Haeck: One of the concerns you have raised relates to, let's say, the costs of coming to a meeting like this. I know that in particular for groups wanting to make a presentation in Toronto there is a small pot of money for committees to delegate, so that if you could not have presented here but needed some subsidy to get to Toronto, there is a mechanism to consider that and possibly see some sort of compensation for the cost of the ticket or gas, whatever it might be. It is not a huge sum of money and, therefore, there is a limit on what kind of reimbursement can come.

I do not think that totally answers your question, and I guess one of the things you said when you started is also something which I think gives you a certain validity in coming before us: that you are not making any money from this; you are speaking as a private citizen who does not have a vested interest and, therefore, you are expressing a personal concern, a very valid concern for your community in a way that, if someone is a paid lobbyist, may be somewhat more suspect.

Mr Cowley-Owen: If --

The Chair: Excuse me, I think it would be helpful just for me to correct the record. What Ms Haeck referred to is a small amount of assistance dollars that are available for all committees of the Legislature as a matter of policy. It is not only for people who want to go to Toronto, in order to access that, because the public should know it is a requirement that you have to apply to the clerk in advance and get approval, and then everything is on a receipt under the actual expense only. I think that is correct, is it not?

Clerk of the Committee: After the presentation.

The Chair: And it is reimbursement after the presentation. There is not a lot of money available to do that, but the purpose of it is to ensure that hardship and real need do not preclude participation of the public to these kinds of forums. I think your presentation went beyond that, through the course of work within municipalities, but I did want to clarify that for you as to how it worked with this committee.

Mr Cowley-Owen: I do understand that. It is not a personal issue. I came here because I wanted to, not because I wanted reimbursement. If it is for deserving causes, I will not be claiming it. I have no shortage of cash for gas.

The Chair: Question, Mr Jackson.

Mr Jackson: Madam Chair, I guess this is more to the clerk, because as a fellow Chair I am familiar with the processes; but to tie this back to a previous deputant's question about the five deputants before this committee, two of whom came from the US and were submitted by the government, the NDP, did we reimburse the expenses for those Americans to come up here in part or at all?


Clerk of the Committee: The committee has not reimbursed anyone.

Mr Jackson: So there has been none for this. My second question then would be, being familiar with intervenor funding which was brought in, I believe, by the then Minister of the Environment, Andy Brandt, in the early to mid-1980s -- 1982, 1981, in there -- can I ask the parliamentary assistant, is there any parallel mechanism under consideration which deals with the costs associated with public participation in developing these management plans? If so, is the direction to the municipalities to provide it, or is it something that the province is looking at in a regulatory framework? Mr O'Connor.

Mr O'Connor: It is something I am not aware of at this time. Perhaps I can refer that to Alex Giffen from the ministry.

Mr Giffen: If you are referring to the sites to be developed by the Interim Waste Authority, there will be a form of participant funding provided. The exact form has not been entirely worked out yet but yes, there is an intention to help. More basic, the proponent is looked to to provide for the intervenor funding, whether it be the Interim Waste Authority or a municipality trying to find a landfill site.

Mr Jackson: So the province is not offering the money as much as it is suggesting that the framework should include it so that the local municipalities should have that as part of the --

Mr Giffen: I am sorry, in the case of the Interim Waste Authority, they are responsible for locating the landfill sites in the GTA and it would be through the Interim Waste Authority that funding would be provided for participants.

Mr Jackson: Not outside the GTA, though.

Mr Giffen: No, not outside the GTA, if that is your question.

Mr Jackson: So, Michael, you have to move into the GTA if you want another car.

Mr Cowley-Owen: If I could be cynical for a second, I feel we are in the GTA, as I read it.

Mr O'Connor: Further on that, maybe Mr Drew Blackwell might have a little bit he would like to add to that, from the office of waste reduction.

Mr Blackwell: The ministry does fund the municipalities that undertake master plan studies, usually with 50% funding. A number of municipalities provide some form of remuneration for expenses for public participants in the public liaison committees, and those expenses, when the municipality decides to do it, are eligible for 50% reimbursement, as are the other expenses under the master plan.

The Chair: I think the question Mr Jackson was asking, Mr Blackwell, was, as the ministry funds municipalities, is intervenor or participant funding a condition that the ministry places on the municipalities as the recipient of those provincial dollars?

Mr Blackwell: No.

The Chair: So there is no requirement that the municipalities -- it is up to them to decide whether or not they are going to assist public participation?

Mr Blackwell: That is correct. There is a requirement that there be public participation and there are strong recommendations that not just a public liaison committee be established, but also that there be staff support for such a committee and the position established for it; and there are recommendations for upgrading that kind of position. We do not, however, at this time at any rate, have a policy that recommends there be reimbursement for the expenses of the public participants. That is up to the municipality.

The Chair: If I can, just to assist, I know there were a number of intervenor funding projects or dollars available. Has there been an analysis by the ministry of the effect of those projects in enhancing public participation? They may have been around the large-class EAAs, that sort of thing. It might even have been an --

Mr Blackwell: I would prefer to refer that to Mr Giffen, if I could, or to get back to you on it afterwards.

Mr Cowley-Owen: This is the crux of the issue, as far as I am concerned. There is a lack of policy. I am afraid the point I was trying to make has slipped my mind, but although there may be some strong suggestions to the municipalities, there is no policy that insists upon them doing it; and it seems to be rather backwards when a few thousand dollars of public participation money I think can be demonstrated to save tens and perhaps even hundreds of thousands of dollars of intervenor funding once it gets to the level at which you need engineers and lawyers and accountants.

The Chair: Mr Wiseman, question.

Mr Wiseman: I do not have a question, but I would comment on this. It was not too terribly long ago when I was doing what you are doing in the environmental presentations and all the studying. You raise a point that has been debated for a long time in the circles I come from, and that is how to justly offset some of the sacrifices that are made by individuals such as yourself who come forward in the community and raise the questions and, in effect, do what is called "participatory democracy." How can you be a participant in democracy if you do not have the kind of resources necessary, if you are just surviving day by day?

I think your question here today has rattled the chain in the back of my mind and I have no satisfactory resolution for you, except to say that, in terms of the hours and the amount of commitment that you make, you do provide a very valuable service to your community and I think we would be all the poorer if people such as yourself and the people who work with you did not do it. How you can participate more -- in terms of physical restraints, I know the thousands of hours. On the committee I belonged to, you know, there would be one meeting every two weeks and hundreds of hours on fund-raisings, and that is a lot of time and money. So the participant funding in this bill, I think, is perhaps a first step in the direction of trying to come to grips with the very question that you have raised. Thank you for raising it.

The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before the committee today. We appreciate the perspective you have brought and the issue you have raised. We hear a lot about consultation and public participation, and I think you have described very well for the committee some of the challenges. As Mr Jackson pointed out, the issue has been evolving over the course of a number of years and I think the committee very much appreciates the perspective that you brought to this discussion. Thank you very much.

Mr Cowley-Owen: I have a couple of documents that I have submitted to other committees.

The Chair: If you leave them with our clerk they will become part of the public record.

Mr Cowley-Owen : Thank you.



The Chair: I would like to call next the Kingston Environmental Action Project. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We would appreciate it if you would begin by introducing yourselves and leave a few minutes at the end for questions. Welcome and thank you.

Mr Walton: I am Eric Walton.

Dr Henrikson: I am Helen Henrikson, representing the Kingston Environmental Action Project, KEAP, and the Little Cataraqui Environment Association, LCEA, which is concerned with wetlands. I have been involved with the Kingston waste management plan ever since the beginning, which I realize is eight years. I am also a member of the Advisory Committee on Environmental Standards, ACES, of the Ministry of the Environment. ACES is concerned with standards for pollutants, with zero discharge and with a multimedia approach to pollution controls for our water, air and soil and for our food. But I am not speaking for ACES today.

This presentation focuses on and strongly supports part II, sections 13 and 14, of Bill 143, which deal with waste reduction by the 3Rs and eliminate the option of incineration. We commend the minister for her courage in taking this initiative and proposing the legislation. Our detailed studies of the Gore and Storrie Ltd Kingston waste management report showed that incineration with the necessary landfill almost doubled the cost of waste disposal, while only reducing the waste by about two thirds. Our literature review documented the many serious problems associated with incineration of garbage in several countries. It also showed that many cities in Europe and the United States have reduced their wastes by 65%, with committed recycling. Where waste incineration is dominant, as in Sweden, Japan and Montreal, for example, the recycling record has been poor.

There is ample proof that incineration eliminates the alternative of an effective waste reduction program. A recent example is of a plastic company in Vancouver that was prepared to recycle plastics in January when an industrial incinerator company solicited its plastic wastes for incineration.

In 1989 Kingstonians strongly opposed an incinerator proposal by Montenay Birwell and Dr Tom Barton. Alarmed by Kingston township council's rapid unanimous approval in principle of the proposal, a large citizen coalition studied the issue, including the experimental vitrification process proposed by Dr Barton, and presented the findings. Five hundred people attended the first public meeting, virtually all opposed. Kingston city council's public meeting, lasting four hours, was attended by about 250 to 300 people, at which only the proponents, a single General Hospital representative and the group living near a proposed landfill site, supported incineration. Kingston council rejected this proposal.

Sections 13 and 14 of Bill 143 provide, at last, for much-needed long-term planning for waste management and require municipal commitment to reduce wastes through resource conservation. We will deal mainly with the incineration ban.

Banning incineration should reduce the delays in waste management committees such as ours in which even now some members continually look towards the technical fix and lose time. It will allow time to prove that a commitment to a 3Rs program can reduce waste disposal as effectively as incineration. It will also buy time for the councillors to become knowledgeable and critical about the problems and costs of incineration so they know the right questions to ask proponents and can do their own thinking.

Since decision-makers and the public need impartial studies in order to evaluate decisions, the Ministry of the Environment could help us by compiling and making available factual, peer-reviewed evaluations of all aspects of incineration, with references, as compared with recycling programs.

The public must be told repeatedly what the total costs of incineration and required landfill are. Just for capital and interest payments, incineration costs are about double. To this must be added the costs of overruns, delays in getting operating, frequent breakdowns and repairs, regular maintenance and retrofitting with technological improvements for pollution control. All these problems have caused the closing down of a lot of incinerators in the United States and prevented the setting up of other ones. Retrofitting can add 40% to the capital costs. The environmental and health costs, which are never included, must be estimated and added. Another economic factor to be considered is that few permanent jobs are created by incineration.

The reduction by incineration is only 65% to 70% of the usual waste stream, not 90% as is sometimes claimed. The 30% to 35% left is toxic bottom ash and fly ash to be disposed of by landfill or in a hazardous waste facility. As well, when a mass burner breaks down, the waste usually lands up in a landfill anyway.

The fly ash, which comprises about 0.03 to 0.06 tonnes per tonne of waste burned, is hazardous waste. It contains toxic metals that leach out and persistent organic toxics, including dioxins that reform and are captured in the fly ash during the cooling stage of pollution control. The few hazardous waste sites for safe disposal of fly ash are distant and costly. For example, the cost to Hamilton is $1.8 million for the 6,000 tonnes of fly ash produced annually in the solid waste reduction unit, Swaru, incinerator, and that is from 100,000 tonnes of partially screened shredded waste.

There are many myths about incineration. One is that with recent improved pollution control and scrubber systems, the flue gas emissions are safe. Although much cleaner, the flue gases deliver hundreds of tonnes of pollutants to the environment. Emission controls are based upon the point of impingement of the emission plume of a sensitive receptor, such as a home or the people in the home. Controls deal only with the concentration of pollutant emitted in the stream, not with the total amount emitted to the environment. The cumulative effects of long-term persistent chemicals and the additive effects of other incinerators are not considered.

A rough estimate of the annual loading from emissions can be made from the annual volume of flue gases multiplied by the concentration of each pollutant per cubic metre, as permitted by control order. And emissions are tested only during good operating conditions, not when there are problems.

Table I, attached, provides an estimate of the maximum pollutant loadings permitted by control order for the Montenay Birwell incinerator in Burnaby. This is a state-of-the-art facility with a Teflon baghouse pollution control and scrubbers. Maximum loads permitted include 42 tonnes of particulates per year, and particulates greatly increase the chemical activity of contaminants. The total amount of acids is much more than 500 tonnes, and includes seven tonnes of toxic hydrogen fluoride. As well, 63 tonnes of toxic hydrocarbons, 350 kilograms of cadmium and mercury, which are both very toxic, and 10 tonnes of about 10 other metals, including lead, can be legally spewed into the atmosphere each year from this one incinerator. That does not mean to say that they do that much, but that it is legal.

The federal NITEP showed that even with the best pollution control and operating conditions and a staff of 33 experts, only 93% of the acids in the gases was removed by a scrubber and baghouse pollution control system. Much less was removed by a new electrostatic precipitator. The 7% acid left in the flue gas is a lot of acid contributing to a lot of acid rain. Acid removal is dependent on operating conditions, and these were ideal operating conditions. Respirologists are very concerned about the effects of atmospheric acids in exacerbating respiratory diseases, especially in children.

In toxicological studies, the carcinogenicity of persistent toxics has been emphasized, but other serious impacts on health include asthma and other lung disorders, suppression of the immune system, impacts on reproduction, foetal development, and on the neurological, psychological and behavioural development of animals and people.

Of course, incineration is only one source of pollution through its ashes and emissions. However, incineration emissions were estimated to be the source of about 50% of polychlorinated dioxins in Sweden and Denmark in the mid-1980s. Incineration of Ontario's garbage and sewage sludge alone was stated to emit 28 and 32 kilos of dioxins and furans annually. Those are the polychlorinated ones.


For the existing incinerators, we would want to see legislation for better training of operators, requirement of frequent renewal of licences and control orders, as in Europe, where technological advances are required in renewed licences.

KEAP supports joint and cooperative waste management planning for the local region. We are opposed to long-distance transport, believing that people should be responsible for their own waste, for out of sight is out of mind. However, joint management will not be easy and requires sensitive, skilful and generous negotiations, with ongoing public consultation as well as incentives.

Regarding the costs of recycling, Ontario should draw on the experience of successful programs used elsewhere. Unfortunately, the past government was lured into our rather costly system by the enticement of the beverage industry's partial funding for the setup costs. But the price to our society is a continual glut of bottles and cans, as the government did not require deposits on beverage containers. Such deposits must be legislated, as in most other provinces.

In summary, KEAP strongly supports sections 13 and 14 of Bill 143, which promote the 3Rs and delete incineration. Our reasons include:

1. Incineration locks a municipality into that one expensive, wasteful technology, effectively eliminating other conservation alternatives. EFWs only generate 1% of the energy requirement in Kingston and it does 1% of Sweden's energy needs, so it is not a large amount.

2. The 3Rs can do the same job of 60% to 70% waste reduction with a committed program.

3. Recycling has been less costly than incineration in various cities.

4. The 3Rs create more permanent jobs locally.

5. Incineration emissions, bottom ash and fly ash contribute heavily to polluting our ecosystem and to health problems, and the cumulative impacts have never been determined.

6. There are serious technological problems in the operation of incinerators and for disposal of the hazardous ashes.

7. Incineration is not environmentally sustainable, as it continually destroys resources, whereas the 3Rs help close the cycle of waste generation.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to express our viewpoints to your standing committee. There must be a great deal of reiteration, but this helps sum up citizens' viewpoints.

The Chair: Thank you for a thoughtful presentation. First question, Mrs Mathyssen.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you for bringing this information. My question is that we heard this morning and this afternoon from John Milnes, chair of Cornwall Environment Resource Centre, and from the Glenburnie Residents Association and from Dr Barton. Dr Barton said that the ban on incineration reflects unsubstantiated rhetoric which has attached a stigma to incineration that is not reflected by true scientific thinking. Now you have brought another brief that has other information. Could you tell me why you feel confident about this information as opposed to the kinds of things that Dr Barton told us?

Dr Henrikson: For one thing, when some of the scientists in Queen's University examined the proposal for vitrification by Dr Barton, it leached terribly and very rapidly. For another thing, there is a proposal for leachate in the United States; in 1989, it had been evaluated by the Environmental Protection Agency for one and a half years, and it was expected to take another two to three years for evaluation. It is a problem, and it is not something that can be decided in a hurry.

They are always saying it is clean, but I have studied in detail the NITEP studies, which, as I said, were done by 33 experts under new conditions, and there is still a lot. What you should be concerned about is not the point of impingement, although that is important, but the total loading of incinerators, and when you look at the amounts south of the border, they are going to be all over the place, in farm land where the lead is a real problem where that can get into the milk.

Mrs Mathyssen: So you did do some of the studies he called for?

Dr Henrikson: Yes, I read extensively on it in journals, and I do not agree with him. I specifically took the Montenay Birwell one because the proposal was here for that and, as you will see in the table, they have a lot of problems with the operation of that one. The one that was proposed for Kingston was based on the Peel one, and similar amounts would have been allowed there.

The Chair: Mr Jackson, we have just one minute remaining.

Mr Jackson: I suppose you do not support the current government's test burning of tires at the new Swaru site?

Dr Henrikson: No, I would not.

Mr Jackson: What is your area of expertise as it relates to --

Dr Henrikson: I am a biochemist and physiologist, and I have been involved with land use planning, and I have gained a lot of experience from being on this ACES committee of the Ministry of the Environment for almost two years.

Mr Jackson: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before the committee today. We appreciate you taking the time. Your written presentation becomes part of the public record, and you will receive a copy of the Hansard which contains your presentation before the committee today.

For anyone who is interested, Hansard is the word-by-word written documentation of everything that is said before the committee, including questions and responses, and that is available through Publications Ontario, 880 Bay Street in downtown Toronto. It might also be available through some of the other government bookstores. If you contact them, they can probably arrange to get the Hansards for you, but you will get a copy. It does take a few weeks, so do not look in the mail until a few weeks from now.



The Chair: I would like to call now on our last presentation for today here in Kingston; last, but certainly not least, Lanark County Federation of Agriculture. I ask that you come forward. Begin your presentation, please, by introducing yourself. You have 20 minutes in total.

Do you have a question already?

Mr Wiseman: I am just kidding. It is just because everybody else beats me to it.

The Chair: Okay, Mr Wiseman, you will be first on the list. Please begin your presentation now. We hope you will leave a few minutes; Mr Wiseman wants to ask you a question.

Mr Dobbie: Thank you, Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. My name is Alvin Dobbie. I am here today representing the Lanark County Federation of Agriculture.

Having been involved with the waste management study for the past six years -- I should say, perhaps, associated with it. I have not been involved in any steering committees or in anything legal. I have been watching from the sidelines and been involved mostly through the federation.

I am appalled by and disappointed in the way it has been handled and progressed, which has motivated me to come here today and give this presentation with respect to Bill 143. Although the bill applies to the greater Toronto area, it could establish a dangerous precedent for application in other areas of the province. In general, this bill further erodes the concept of private property; it destroys the possibility of public or local input; it lessens the responsibility of each community to handle its own garbage and therefore works against any incentive to employ the 3Rs; it is heavy-handed and generally insensitive to local concerns; it is a quick-fix, draconian measure to clean up the bureaucratic mess made by the Ministry of the Environment.

One of the main reasons current studies have bogged down is that the Ministry of the Environment has made the process too complicated and is ever changing its requirements. It is an infringement on individual rights and freedoms and will no doubt be challenged in the courts. People are not going to willingly give up their land if proper procedures have not occurred.

My second page is on recommendations:

1. Review of the MOE guidelines to simplify the site selection process, and I emphasize the following: Refrain from the use of prime agricultural land; do not destroy valuable communities; develop a public participation process that leads to commitment on everyone's part; where possible, place the landfill site on crown land and respect the rights of private property ownership; design engineered models to allow the use of expired sand and gravel pits and other environmental eyesores. I would like to point out to you that many of these sand and gravel pits are left and not being used any longer because of clay bottoms in them, which is a requirement of the landfill.

2. Supply a MOE facilitator for each landfill study area in order to lessen internal bickering. Currently, site selection coordinators are frequently consulting engineers who have a vested interest in defending work already done.

3. Stop emphasizing large, cost-efficient landfills and think in terms of smaller, more locally sensitive ones. Pay attention to long-term transportation costs and environmental damage.

That is about all I have to say as far as my speech presentation is concerned. I would like to thank you for the opportunity of being able to come here today to speak to you. I have been waiting for three or four years to get talking to someone about this. It seems very hard to get through to the people in Toronto, we find, to talk about it. From what I hear from other people here today, there are a lot of people wanting to put more public participation into it, which I think has been overlooked in the past and maybe should be considered more. There is a lot of ideas out there that people have. It has been an education for everyone, including myself and, I know, you people as well. I think there could be a lot more input by private citizens.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Although your documentation and your presentation has been concise, I know it contains many important thoughts and ideas that the committee will consider, and I have several members who want to ask you a question. Just for your information, the way the committee works is that I rotate through the caucuses, so although everyone heard Mr Wiseman ask to ask his question first, Mr McClelland has the floor.

Mr McClelland: Thank you, sir, for being here. One of the issues and concerns we have had expressed, right across the province -- my colleague Mrs Fawcett brought it up frequently early in the hearings -- is the impact Bill 143 potentially has on the agricultural community. I should note in passing and commend your federation for its participation in the Ontario Federation of Agriculture's recently released paper and initiative on an environmental agenda and a green plan, if you will, for the next decade. For that, sir, you and your federation are to be congratulated for your participation.

We have said at the outset in opposition that we are concerned about this bill for a number of reasons, because of some of the basic principles it embodies. We have heard good things about the bill. We just heard somebody come before the committee who said, "We like the sections that ban incineration" -- perhaps a debatable issue. I am not making a comment on that, I am simply saying there are elements of anything that are good. But I personally feel very strongly that because of the fundamental principles you talk about -- eroding the concept of private property, destroying the possibility of local input -- those good portions of the bill are not sufficient to redeem it. It is, quite frankly, beyond redemption.

As suggested by an earlier individual, they said the whole thing should be scrapped and we should get our act together and do something that is going to work long-term across the province. I simply want to thank you for coming here, because the principles you are talking about are fundamental and basic to our society. I believe the implications, in terms not only of the greater Toronto area but across the province, have been drawn to our attention yet again by you. I hope that because of your presence here that others who are engaged in agriculture across the province will begin to understand that Bill 143 jeopardizes many things you have pointed out here, including the right and respect that one ought to have for your farm and your colleagues in farming as well.

The Chair: Did you wish to respond?

Mr Dobbie: Perhaps a little. I am sorry we did not pick out some of the good points of the bill. We have hit on all the ones who are condemning it, mostly. We did not get a copy of this until just a few days ago in our county, so we did not really have much time to read it over. We found it a little hard to understand, its context or the way it is put together, but we did the best we could. We picked out the points we thought were interfering with us.

On the farm land, I know landfill sites being located on primary agricultural land has been a serious concern of the OFA right from the beginning. I have attended many steering committee meetings in Smiths Falls, in our county, talking to the engineers and the people on the steering committee, trying to talk them into keeping away from good agricultural land. I am talking to other people across Ontario and Canada, and the United States for that matter.

When you drive across, whenever you come into a prime agricultural area there are signs up protesting landfills. If they put landfills on all this good agricultural land and if these things leak, which has been the case many times -- I still do not think they have the engineering capability to stop that -- you are going to contaminate all the good agricultural land in North America and there is not going to be any land left to produce food on for the people. The next generation is going to say: "What did you people do? You just ruined everything for us." It is going to cost a pile of money to establish these landfills, but if they leak and contaminate water systems, it will cost an enormous amount of money to truck in or pipe in water or whatever has to be done. Farming requires a large amount of water for almost any type of enterprise, especially livestock.


Mr Wiseman: I really do appreciate you coming and putting your concerns before the committee. I am going to take my time to address the four major points you have made about agricultural land, communities, participation and crown land.

The first thing I would like to indicate to you is that this document, the Draft Criteria for Interim Waste Authority Site Selection Search, is part of the IWA criteria for selecting where landfills will go. It sets out the criteria first and then uses the criteria to then examine where landfill sites should be located. The very first criterion, land that has been removed from consideration for landfill sites, is class 1 through 3 agricultural lands and lands with specialty crops. I am going to quote from this because I think you will find that we are listening to what the Lanark County Federation of Agriculture has to say.

"Good agricultural lands are an important provincial resource and should be preserved for food production. Landfill development on classes 1, 2, 3 land is undesirable." That pretty much says class 1, 2 and 3 land, and any land that has specialty crops, are eliminated from the criteria. It is screened out right from the beginning. The land that is in the criteria is land that has already been designated as part of an urban shadow, or land that the city or town has already said it is going to destroy anyway. That is not a really pleasant thought, though, is it? If you would say that we should be preserving our agricultural land even in urban shadows, I would agree with you.

The second point I would like to --

The Chair: Sorry, your time is up.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to speak about this with you after and go through this so you understand exactly where we are coming from. Thank you.

Mr Sola: I would like to go to your recommendations where you state that the government should "develop a public participation process that leads to commitment on everyone's part," and then flip back to your criticisms of the bill where you say Bill 143 will destroy the possibility of public or local input. In view of your criticisms, what does Bill 143 do to your commitment to participate in whatever Bill 143 wants to promote? Go ahead.

Mr Dobbie: Do you want me to answer the recommendation first or the other one?

Mr Sola: Either one.

The Chair: He asks the questions and you can answer them in whatever way you wish.

Mr Dobbie: I should have marked this. I will start with the last one you gave me. The point we are looking at is that if Bill 143 goes through and takes away anything from the county or the township or people in that area who are associated with this landfill -- from what I can gather from the bill, the minister or the people can just walk in and inspect the land, and if they say it is suitable for a landfill site they can expropriate it and just take it away and build a landfill site, and the people in the area have no say in it whatsoever. That is what I gathered. Is that correct? That is what we read; that is what it seemed like to us and that is what we took from it. It would not give us any further input into it. It would just be taken away from us and the decision would be made in Toronto or what not to establish a landfill site on that property.

The Chair: Ms Haeck, you have the floor.

Ms Haeck: Thank you very much for coming because I think it is important that you do participate and make your opinions known. There were about 40 different public meetings and many people had a contribution to make to this document. I think that should be made clear. I know Mr Wiseman has a desire to speak to you at length about this.

I wanted to raise the issue of the expired sand and gravel pits that you refer to on page 2 under your recommendations. We have heard from a variety of people, and I know where I live, which is part of the Niagara Escarpment region, there is a very serious concern about using sand and gravel pits because of the leakage problems, particularly where they have used a quarry and there has been a lot of blasting and fracturing of the rock. Would you concede that possibly this would be a problem and this is an area that should not be considered?

Mr Dobbie: In our particular county there were several expired sand and gravel pits which have clay bottoms. It looks like they are going to have to engineer a site in our county. Anyway, there is no suitable soil for a site to be designed and built like what they were first expecting to do; therefore, they are going to have to truck in clay from another area of gravel pits or clay deposits to make a liner on the bottom. This is the thing that has never really been established or presented to us by the engineers from the start: a picture or a model or anything of a site to show exactly how it operates and how it works. They talk about liners and what not but there has never been a real, definite site design put forward so that people can thoroughly understand how it works.

This is what we say, that rather than putting it on prime agricultural land, use a gravel pit or some other area of poor land or what not. You are going to have to haul in the clay in most cases anyway to engineer the site, so why not use a gravel pit? The Ministry of Natural Resources is trying to get money from all the people who own sand and gravel operations in the province to rehabilitate old pits. I am sure some of them could be designed to put garbage into, and in the end they would have a much better-looking part of the country with the garbage put in there and levelling it up and filling it up than with the hole that is left there from extracted gravel.

Mr McClelland: You are going to have some discussion a little later and I am sure it will be ongoing and I would ask you to listen very carefully to what you hear. You will hear, "Don't worry, there won't be any landfill sited on 1, 2 and 3." That makes it okay for anybody else, with some exceptions, as you have already heard. But that somehow justifies the fact that people are able to walk on to other farms and other lands, as you so well pointed out, and say, "Sorry, that basic concept of the integrity of your personal property doesn't matter any more, because we're a government that used to say we believe in that but we don't any more, and it's all right."

They will also say to you that it is not unusual for governments to have that kind of power, notwithstanding that we have heard from many people who are much more able to articulate the niceties of the law who have said that this bill is more far-reaching and more contradictory in terms of the integrity of personal property and civil rights than any other piece of law they have seen in many years.

I want you to understand the context of what you will hear, that, "It's okay; don't worry." I ask you to be very critical in a positive sense but careful in terms of hearing everything that is being said.

The Chair: Did you want to respond?

Mr Dobbie: No. I think I understand.

The Chair: Mr Wilson, as a protocol and courtesy to the member for this area, you have three minutes either for questions or summation or a speech. The time is yours.

Mr G. Wilson: I know the committee has worked hard and is not too interested in hearing a long speech. I certainly, on behalf of the people in this area, would like to thank the committee for coming here. Perhaps an extreme reading of one of the earlier presenters was that this is a junket for not only the politicians but also the bureaucrats who are on this committee. I think, though, we can see that it is a necessary function that can be tiring as well, and you are suitably compensated for undertaking this endeavour.

I say it is essential because what we have learned here as participants has been very helpful not only for Bill 143 itself but also for the future of this area. You have heard there are similar problems to those that exist in other areas of the province.

I think it is fitting too that we should be in this hall, Memorial Hall, and Kingston city hall during Heritage Week, because it is testament to the care the people of this area have shown in preserving a very important aspect of our past.

At times, I guess when minds wander, you see the portraits along the walls and you note they are mainly men. Certainly in the leadership positions they are men. They look so composed. If they saw a woman in the chair I think they might be a little aghast to see how capably it was handled. I want to commend you, Madam Chair, for the job you have done in moving this along in a very constructive way that led to getting the most information out of the hearing today.

I think the main message, though, is that our government is interested in a comprehensive approach that includes all aspects of the interest in this problem: the government business and the public in addressing this problem of how we deal with the waste we generate in an environmentally sensitive way and at the same time in a way that creates as much economic activity as possible. I think we have done that today. Certainly for this area we have a lot to think about and work with. I again want to thank you for coming here. It certainly focuses our minds in a very constructive way.

The Chair: I will also thank our last presenter for coming before the committee and tell him and everyone else who has sat through the hearings today how much we appreciate their participation. If you have any additional information you would like to share with the committee, you can continue to communicate with us in writing through our clerk. I feel the hearings here in Kingston have been very productive. I appreciate your very kind words, Mr Wilson. The standing committee on social development stands adjourned until tomorrow in Sarnia at 9 o'clock in the morning. Thank you all.

The committee adjourned at 1642.