Tuesday 24 March 1992

Waste Management Act, 1992, Bill 143 / Loi de 1992 sur la gestion des déchets, projet de loi 143


Chair / Présidente: Caplan, Elinor (Oriole L)

Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Beer, Charles (York North/-Nord 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)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:

Beer, Charles (York North/-Nord L) for Mrs Caplan

Johnson, Paul R. (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings/Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud ND) for Mr Hope

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

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

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

Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L) for Mrs Fawcett

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Jan Rush, assistant deputy minister

Drew Blackwell, assistant deputy minister

M. B. Jackson, solicitor

Leo B. FitzPatrick, solicitor

Jim Merritt, acting assistant deputy minister

Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn

Staff / Personnel: Spakowski, Mark, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1005 in room 151.


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

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Ladies and gentlemen, we will begin the morning session. When we reached 5 o'clock last night Mr Wiseman had the floor. Just to remind people, and particularly those who may be watching, we are discussing the motion that was moved by Mr Cousens. We started the debate on that motion yesterday.

Mr Wiseman: I was in the process of reviewing some of the history of P1 because there definitely seems to be a change in the outlook of both opposition parties from where they stood at the time. I am going to pursue that a little bit more.

To recap a little bit, the history of the problem of landfill for Metropolitan Toronto goes back a long way in terms of the history of Pickering with the Beare Road landfill site on the western boundary of Pickering, in Scarborough, and the fact that it has about 18 million tons of garbage in it, and right across the road almost, southeast from there, is the Brock West landfill site which is a horrendously poorly run dump. It is so badly run that even Metropolitan Toronto's own engineering firm, Conestoga-Rovers, has condemned it as being one of the worst-run landfill sites in North America and clearly not an acceptable way of running a landfill.

To go back to the early 1970s prior to Brock West coming on stream, Metropolitan Toronto moved into what I consider to have been very faint-hearted attempts at recycling. I lived in Scarborough at the time and I remember how they would put up depots and have people bring some of their recyclable materials to these depots. There did not really seem to be a dedication or a commitment to recycling on the part of Metropolitan Toronto. There was a lot of verbiage to the effect that they were going to support recycling, but in fact it did not get off the ground. There are a number of people who are convinced it was really just window dressing until they got the landfill site. Metropolitan Toronto makes huge amounts of money off its landfill sites, and that was the case back in the early 1970s.

The Brock West landfill site came on stream and from the very beginning it was fraught with problems. Part of it slipped into Duffins Creek at some point and leachate is constantly being leaked, and the methane gas is now being extracted by Eastern Power and being burned off, but there are still many other problems. This brings us up to the history of landfilling in Ajax and Pickering.

When Brock West began to fill up rather rapidly because of Metro's faint-hearted attempts at recycling -- actually it just cancelled its programs -- it began to shop around and look for another landfill site. They cast their eyes on a place called Brock South, which is right next to Duffins Creek and the site of an old stone quarry which sits on an aquifer. That caused a group of people to come together in Pickering and Ajax to fight landfill sites because they already knew the history of Metropolitan Toronto's incompetence in terms of running a landfill site. Brock North has about 143,000 tons in it and today it still has to have leachate removed from a holding tank in order to make the surrounding area safe.

That brings us to the stage of the game where Durham and Metro had this marriage of convenience and wanted to have the landfill site together and the people of Ajax and Pickering banded together. When I say the people of Ajax and Pickering, I mean that literally; there were over 3,000 people actively participating in the events of the town who raised money to fight these landfill sites, and over 1,000 people put their names on a legal agreement and put money up to go to court against the previous administration over the P1 landfill site. But I am getting ahead of myself here.

What happened was that in March of, I think it was, 1988 or 1989 -- probably 1989 -- an announcement was made by the then Premier, who reversed his previous position that no government lands would be used for a landfill site. But in that announcement they also announced that an interim waste dump would be created. Durham put on the table, with an agreement by the provincial government, the site of P1. York put on the table a lift on Keele Valley. I find it rather interesting that the member for York Centre would be in here yesterday crying foul over this when at the same time he was quite prepared to move for a lift on Keele Valley under an EPA.

Metropolitan Toronto's presentation to the interim waste solution was M2 and M3, which were in the Rouge Valley. M2 and M3, of course, were far too small, divided and not really suitable, since the Rouge Valley had already been dedicated as a park. It was rather cynically said by the then chairman that they were not really going to be suitable sites but they had to put something on the table, and I can remember that at that meeting as well.

What really concerned me here and really, I guess, prompted me to move into this discussion of P1 is that prior to our being elected -- we being the New Democrats -- it had always been the position of the group I belong to and the New Democratic Party that P1 should have a full Environmental Assessment Act hearing. It was a greenfield site, and it should have that.

It was the position of the Liberal Party that an EPA was sufficient, and that was good enough. It was the position of the Conservative Party that P1 should have a full Environmental Assessment Act hearing, and that statement and promise was made by its leader in Whitevale during the election campaign. So it is with a little chagrin that I hear the member for York Centre talk about, "There was such a wonderful process on it for P1."

The P1 landfill site was, first, not going to be given by the then Premier, and then it was given, and it was given under an EPA. There was no legislation, there was no consultation and there was no consideration given to people who opposed it. In fact, the P1 landfill site had no hope of not being approved. Given the scenario that was outlined, there were no comparisons, there were no alternatives on the table and there was no way you could say that at the end of spending $10 million or $12 million on a site evaluation, it could not go ahead.

Some say that in fact it could have been turned down, but Dillon, who were the engineers involved in that, at a very early stage brought forward its report that said the P1 landfill site would be hydrogeologically difficult to groom into a landfill site. That just sent up huge numbers of concerns in the community, because it sits on a very high promontory of land on top of three aquifers and three riversheds, and the fact that it would be hydrogeologically difficult really clearly sent a message into the community that it was not being listened to.

It was so strong that the town of Pickering, which is the organized elected body from the area, hired its own lawyer and spent almost $300,000 -- actually it was $300,000-some-odd -- to fight the P1 landfill site. PACT, which is Pickering Ajax Citizens Together, raised somewhere in the neighbourhood of $250,000 over the three-year period, hired its own lawyers and actually launched two lawsuits. One lawsuit was to be directed by Morris Manning. It was a constitutional challenge. The other lawsuit was against both Durham and Metropolitan Toronto and would have gone down the road of saying it should have been under the Environmental Assessment Act.

What is interesting here is that what we as a government said was exactly the same thing the Tories promised to deliver if they had been elected. It strikes me as a little strange that they would now be here saying they could solve the problems they would have faced if they had kept their promises. Nobody would say they would not keep their promises -- good people all. We would not consider that they would not keep their promises, but they would face this dilemma.

I can remember a day in September when I sat in front of some rather bright cameras in the studio and launched a lawsuit against the government of the day -- which happened to be my own -- with PACT, because I had been there for so long and because that was the time line we were faced with. It was really quite a pleasant occasion when Ruth Grier, the current Minister of the Environment, said that P1 would have to undergo an Environmental Assessment Act hearing, which in effect meant it would have to go back to square one to be considered in the context of all sorts of other landfill sites.

That immediately led to Durham and Metro deciding to pull the site. Lawsuits ensued and lo and behold it was found by a hearing board that Durham would have to pay both the town of Pickering's and PACT's legal expenses, which amounted to some $300,000. That left us where we are today.

One thing really bothered me coming into the Legislature. We were not here more than about two or three weeks and we had what I consider to be a really unacceptable motion by the then critic for the Liberal Party, Barbara Sullivan, about having full Environmental Assessment Act hearings on all landfill sites and all suggested landfill sites in Ontario, a direct reversal of the policy in government, a policy which, I would say, contributed to the defeat of the incumbent I ran against.

I find that disturbing, because we come here and we are supposed to consider that what is being said is really the truth coming from all members. We are supposed to accept it as being the truth. In that light, all I can say is that I am really quite pleased with the conversion of the Liberal Party to this new-found sense of fairness and equity. It is quite remarkable. I am sure we all appreciate, now you are out of government, that you have found that to do things right is now acceptable, as opposed to what you were prepared to do before. I find it just a little bit disconcerting.

What happened after that, of course, was that the numbers started coming in and we had to evaluate one way or another what was going to take place. We the government found ourselves with an interesting situation where the history of Metropolitan Toronto's inability to deal with its problem was to be visited upon all the communities in Ontario: Lambton, Marmora, Plympton and Sarnia. All over Ontario, Metropolitan Toronto was looking for landfill sites. Compounding that was Metropolitan Toronto's legally given right to be the only municipality that could expropriate land in other jurisdictions outside of its own legal boundaries, which I find to be appalling.


I think what is represented in Bill 143 is a recognition that this is not an acceptable way to proceed. Metropolitan Toronto must accept responsibility for its own garbage and for its problems without visiting them on to its neighbours, as it has done in Pickering with such total disregard for what has happened there.

There we are with the history of P1, the history of the apparent coming to their senses of the Liberal Party and the apparent changes in position of the Tory party from what its members said when they were making campaign speeches in Whitevale in 1990.

Mr Cousens: There is no change, and I take exception to the lunacy of this dying, drowning person who is going down again with his swan song before he --

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Order, please. There will be opportunity for all members to speak.

Mr Cousens: Let him talk about his own stupid moves in his own stupid party rather than coming along and making allegations.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Order.

Mr Cousens: I will not tolerate that.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr Cousens, there will be plenty of opportunity for members to speak.

Mr Cousens: He is just taking advantage of --

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr Wiseman has the floor.

Mr Cousens: -- the last cry of despair, the drowning skipper --

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr Cousens, if you would allow Mr Wiseman to speak, you will have your opportunity.

Mr Wiseman: I must have hit a nerve.

Mr Cousens: So have I.

Mr Wiseman: I think it is rather interesting when we listen in the House to the member for Etobicoke going on about what a wonderful process it was --

Mrs Marland: He is not the member for Etobicoke.

Mr Wiseman: It is Etobicoke West.

Mrs Marland: No.

Mr Wiseman: Chris Stockwell.

Mrs Marland: Oh, I am sorry.

Mr Wiseman: He talks about the wonderful process he continues to defend now that he is a member of the Tory caucus, while the Tory caucus has taken an entirely different view. I remember sitting in a meeting with the Tory caucus prior to being elected when Mr Cousens and Mrs Marland were there and they did say there would be a full Environmental Assessment Act hearing on P1.

Mrs Marland: Are you using your 20 minutes today from yesterday?

Mr Wiseman: I would think that instead of interjecting -- it must have hit a raw nerve or something that they are so touchy about this.

Mr Cousens: Talk about raw garbage; that is what we have in this room.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I remind honourable members that we are discussing the motion moved by Mr Cousens, and everyone has an opportunity to speak and for as long as they wish. Mr Wiseman has the floor. I have given him the courtesy --

Mr Wiseman: I had not intended to take much more time, Mr Chairman. I just wanted to remind members that the situation we find ourselves in today has a long history to it. A cynic might say that it has been fraught with political manoeuvrings and changes over a long period of time and that it is time to move on to solving the problem, as Bill 143 does. For it to be withdrawn at this stage would be totally unacceptable because it would mean going back to the old Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee program, which would put all the communities in Ontario back on the table for a Metropolitan Toronto site selection search and would move us way back to a stage where the likelihood of finding and successfully locating landfill sites for the GTA waste problem would likely not be accomplishable in the time we have available between now and then. I think it is important that this bill go on and that we expedite its passage.

Mr Cousens: We could go on on my motion for the next two days, and in that way we would never get to the amendments we would make on the bill. It is tragic, though, what I have just heard from the member for Durham West, I think it is, because part of the statement he made was that of someone who lives in a riding that until recently has shown a tremendous amount of concern about where landfill sites would be located.

I happen to have been at Whitevale and I have been at other meetings within that area. Part of my motion and implicit in it is the lack of information from the government where a number of things would be going. I would like to have asked for -- I did yesterday, and I think this is going to come back to bite the honourable member somewhere on his body. The government has not released the possible sites where we might be having landfill sites. I wonder where they will be in the honourable member's riding and at such time --

Mr Wiseman: It might not be in my riding.

Mr Cousens: Oh, indeed. You might be so lucky. I will tell you this much, the Conservatives and the Liberals are really stinging from the fear that it is going to be our ridings that are selected, because this lovely process you have really does not give us much recourse once this legislation is passed. Once this legislation is passed, the opportunity for people to react --

Mr Wiseman: Read the document. You haven't even read it. You don't know what you're talking about.

Mr Cousens: He is being rude, Mr Chairman, interrupting.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Order, please.

Mr Cousens: He cannot even take it. It is one thing to give it; it is another thing to take it.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Members of the committee, order, please. I would ask, when one of the members is speaking, to allow that member to complete his or her comments. Mr Cousens has the floor.

Mr Cousens: If he hit a nerve on me, I can see I also found he has a loose nerve. It is certainly not my desire that the committee deteriorate into the kind of conduct that is quite capable of coming from that member.

I just want to say that part of our purpose in having this motion was to try to get more information from the ministry on this bill. It is not forthcoming. So when we decide what is going to happen with Bill 143, we are going to have placed in law a bill that is going to change the way in which the greater Toronto area handles its garbage. Tragically it is going to affect every one of us, because of the way it limits the thinking and controls what is going to be done. We do not know what regulations are going to come in. We do not know what the new papers are going to say. We do not know the cost benefits. In fact, we do not know enough to make a decision on this bill right now. What I would have liked to have done through this motion was to postpone consideration of Bill 143 until we had all that data.

Those are my concluding remarks on this motion.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I have no further names on the list, so we will put the motion that has been moved by Mr Cousens.

The committee divided on Mr Cousens's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes -- 5

Cousens, Marland, McClelland, Ramsay, Sola.

Nays -- 6

Haeck, Johnson, Martin, Mathyssen, O'Connor, Wiseman.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): We will now move to clause-by-clause. I believe you all have copies of the amendments from the government and the two opposition parties.

The first amendment I have before me is a Liberal motion to amend part I, sections 1 to 11. That motion is out of order. If those who wanted to move it want to vote against it, that would be done by voting against the section.

Mr McClelland: I will move that part I of the bill, consisting of sections 1 to 11, be struck out notwithstanding your ruling that this motion is out of order. I am still moving that because consistent with our arguments of yesterday and today, we feel certainly the first three parts of this bill are so ill-conceived that we ought to abandon it and start afresh.

We have made that point, and I am not going to revisit the points made by my colleagues Mr Cousens, Mrs Marland or Mr Sorbara yesterday. I simply say that the rationale for moving that was, as I said yesterday, that we believe there are parts of the bill, particularly in part IV, that we would be prepared to support, with amendments, but feel that the first three parts of the bill are so ill-conceived and so flawed that we could not support them and accordingly have moved this amendment that part I of the bill be struck out.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I appreciate the arguments from the honourable member. As I mentioned, the motion is out of order in terms of dealing with the section. You can vote against all those sections when they arise.


Mr Wiseman: Mr Chairman, this is a question of information: At what point are you going to inform the committee of the subcommittee decisions from last night?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): We were going to meet again at the end of the day, so we can discuss our meeting now or --

Mr Wiseman: It might bear on how the proceedings go for the rest of the day if they were to know our decision.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I believe they do, but I can summarize what happened. There was a meeting of the subcommittee at the end of yesterday. There was a suggestion that the committee might look to concluding its work by noon on Thursday and members were to discuss that. There were a number of reasons for that. In talking with Mr Wiseman this morning, he has indicated that if things are at that point where we have completed our hearings by then, that is fine, but the government is not prepared to commit to that timetable. At the present time we are still working within what we were asked to do by the House, which is that no later than 4 o'clock on Thursday we will have to begin voting on all of the various sections we have not as of then dealt with. If we find as of Wednesday or so that we may be able to be finished by Thursday, if I understand what Mr Wiseman has said, then there is no problem in finishing at that time, but we do not have a specific commitment to do that.

Mr Wiseman: It sums it up very nicely. Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Then if we can continue on, I would just reiterate that this first amendment is out of order. Mr McClelland, do you have a further amendment?

Section 1:

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr McClelland moves that section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:


"1. In this part and part II, `corporation' means the corporation continued by section 2."

Mr McClelland: By way of explanation, Mr Chairman, this motion standing on its own does not really make a whole lot of sense. If you would bear with me, I will try and explain how it fits. It fits with the subsequent amendment that basically changes the name of the Interim Waste Authority to the Ontario Waste Authority Ltd. I suppose I am in your hands with respect to how to want to proceed, if we should proceed at this point in time with that particular amendment as put on the floor or do them in concert, inasmuch as the motion for the amendment to section 1 does not really stand on its own. If you would bear with me, Mr Chairman, you will notice the subsequent amendment does in fact change the name from Interim Waste Authority Ltd to the Ontario Waste Authority Ltd.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Yes, clearly the two are related. Is it your request that you would present both of them and --

Mr McClelland: I will be prepared to move the subsequent amendment and then discuss it, as you see fit.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): What I would suggest, if this is agreeable to the committee, is that both of them are linked. If you wish to discuss and speak to both, we will have to vote on the first one, and were that one to fail, then the second one would not proceed. But they are linked, and if that is agreeable to members of the committee, then I would be prepared to accept that we discuss both, it being understood that we would vote on the first one, obviously, separately.

Mr McClelland: Thank you. The rationale, very simply put --

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Excuse me, Mr McClelland, I wonder if just for the record, you want to read the second one and then we will have them both on the table.

Mr McClelland: Certainly. I move that section 2 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Corporation continued

"2. The corporation known in English as the Interim Waste Authority Ltd and in French as the Office provisoire de sélection de lieux d'élimination des déchets Ltée is continued under the Business Corporations Act as the Ontario Waste Authority Ltd in English and Office ontarien des déchets Ltée in French.

"Crown agency

"2.1 The corporation is a crown agency within the meaning of the Crown Agency Act."

The rationale simply is this: The bill in many respects has implications for Ontario, notwithstanding the fact that the Interim Waste Authority has been set up with a view to handling the waste problems within the greater Toronto area. It has been the opinion of many, expressed before this committee, that the implications reach right across Ontario. I will be very surprised if some day we do not find that this is the thin edge of the wedge and that with the process that is established here, where the government is making decisions, as said by Mr Sorbara yesterday, in many cases by fiat, taking unto itself the responsibility of locating landfill sites within the greater Toronto area and as it were dictating unto the municipalities within the greater Toronto area how and where and in what manner they will operate their landfill sites, the waste authority will inevitably, once the door is opened, need to respond to the crisis situations that are developing all across this province. We have heard as we have travelled across this province that there are countless -- we have heard estimates that between 80 and 190 landfill sites will be closed within the next two years.

This government has indicated it has no comprehensive plan of action. They have no idea of how they are going to deal with waste on a comprehensive, rational basis across this province. It seems to me that inevitably, when we accept the provisions of Bill 143 for the greater Toronto area, in so doing we have to be realistic. We are opening the door for the same provisions to be applied across this province. In many communities they are facing like crises as the greater Toronto area, whether they be real or contrived.

Accordingly, we have made this amendment to recognize the reality that has been presented before this committee, that the government's management with respect to waste is totally out of control, that it is operating on a crisis management methodology, as is evidenced by Bill 143. The creation of the Interim Waste Authority is not just, I believe, or we believe, for the greater Toronto area, but inevitably will have implications all across this province. We think the name ought to reflect that and ought to reflect it accurately, and that is the rationale for the change of name that would change it to the Ontario Waste Authority Ltd.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Thank you. Mr Wiseman. Could I note, just to be clear, as someone who from time to time watches the proceedings of committees on television, that I often find, particularly in this room, that there are some things the viewer does not necessarily know, because we all have paper in front of us, and that is why in terms of that amendment to section 2, for the purposes of information so people out there will have a sense of what is actually being discussed, I felt it appropriate that it at least be set forward. I just want to underline that was not moved in any formal sense but was simply there for information.

Mr Wiseman: I will not be supporting this motion, and there are two reasons why. First, I think by changing the name of the authority you do two things: One, you imply that it is a permanent authority, and two, you open it up to a provincial-wide scope, which I think is just a veiled return to the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee policy of trying to locate Metro garbage dumps in all the communities around the province, so I would not support that for those two reasons.

The second reason is that to do so would change the entire intent of the bill to such an extent that it will not do what the bill is intended to do. From the rest of your amendments, and I guess everybody should know we have seen them, it seems to me that a lot of the amendments you are bringing forward have that intent, and that is to open up the whole province to Metro's garbage again, and therefore I will not be supporting this.

Mr Cousens: I think really what Mr Wiseman is trying to say indirectly is that he is looking forward to the day Durham will be the recipient of Metro's garbage and he is going to be the guardian of another landfill site. That is certainly the way I hear him talking, and I am really pleased you are welcoming that kind of opportunity.

Mr Wiseman: You had better put me back on the list.


Mr Cousens: I do not know how we can call this an Interim Waste Authority. If it is interim, I do not think it is something that is permanent. It is something that is going to be short-lived. It has a duration to it that really does not expect it to be a fixture that is going to be around an awful lot longer than this government. That may be the way we describe longevity these days, how long the New Democrats will be in power, 1,400 more days or something. If that is the interim we are talking about, maybe it is a good name, because this whole bill will have to be revisited following this government.

But it is still wrong to have the illusion that we are talking about something that is interim and long-term. It is going to be there far longer, especially for the consequences that are being created. The decisions that are being made now as they affect the areas adjoining my riding in Keele Valley, Margaret Marland's riding in Britannia and Mr Wiseman's riding over in Durham -- there are at least three of us on this committee who are very close to what is happening, and it is not going to be an interim problem that is created; it has very long-term implications.

I am sympathetic to the direction my colleague Mr McClelland is taking in presenting this amendment. What he is really trying to do is come up with a responsible name for describing what is going to be done through this authority. I have to compliment him for not being flip in developing some of the names I heard described by people outside the committee room.

Mr Ramsay: Such as?

Mr Cousens: They wanted to have the words "New Democratic" in there in some way, NDP Waste Authority. Someone suggested it may even be the Bob Rae Memorial Authority because it is going to be one of the biggest memorials to his government that you could possibly ask for.

I do not want it; I do not want the authority; I do not want the way it is being done. I do not like the name it has now. I am really caught in a dilemma, Mr McClelland, in that you have presented a motion here that almost means I have to support the bill. There is so much else that is wrong with it, unless you can really promise to support a number of the other amendments that are going to begin to put into question what this bill is all about -- and I happen to know you well enough to know that is the case -- so that we can then assume the bill will be changed in such a way, when it becomes a corporation as described by this motion, that it will not have the powers that have been brought forward by this government. I think it is a responsible amendment in light of all the other amendments that follow after it. If this were the only amendment the Liberals had, I would have major problems.

Mr McClelland: We have 63.

Mr Cousens: With the 63 amendments that you have, I do not know how many we are going to get passed, but that is a lot of amendments. This happens to be one of those that I will support it because you have 62 others that are going to begin to bring some sense to this authority.

Right now, it is wrong to call this the Interim Waste Authority Ltd. We have had opportunity to discuss this in the Legislature and in committee, the fact that the government could not think of a better name. The original name was developed by the Liberals. Why did you guys ever give them the idea for this? It all starts back with your friend Mr Bradley, when he was Minister of the Environment. He started calling it --

Mr McClelland: The sins of the father visited on the sons.

Mr Cousens: The sins of the father visited now upon the son; that is part of the problem with this whole bill. We would not be in this situation as badly as we are if you guys had handled it a little bit better. I do not think people should forget the fact that the Liberals are not without sin. Maybe that is not the way you describe it here in the Legislature.

Mr McClelland: None of us is.

Mr Cousens: None of us is. But this is a responsible motion. Though it is hinged on many others being carried, I will support the intent and the desire that has been so eloquently expressed by Mr McClelland, and I sincerely hope we have a chance not only to change the name in the bill but to change the content in a drastic way, because as it stands right now, this is going to come back and haunt not only the New Democrats and Mr Wiseman in his re-election; it is going to haunt this government for as long as it is in existence.

Interjection: Fourteen hundred days?

Mr Cousens: I think it is 1,400; I have to get the exact number.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr Cousens, the Chair appreciates the theological perspective you have provided to our discussions. Mr O'Connor, and then Mr McClelland.

Mr O'Connor: For our viewers who are going to be watching us as we go through this process of clause-by-clause over the next period of time, there was perhaps a mistake in the statement of the honourable member for Markham just now, saying Metro's waste would be going to Durham region. If we take a look at the bill itself, where it is being directed and where the sites are to take place, it does not say Durham region. In fact, Durham is supposed to be responsible for its own waste.

In the motion as put forward, perhaps Mr McClelland's version of the long term and interim could be different for many people. As Mr Cousens said, an interim NDP government might only be here for a short time, but that interim government could be here for 42 years, like the Tory government was previously. Maybe interim is a little extended, perhaps.

The fact remains that the Interim Waste Authority has a mandate to try to find some sites, through a process of as much public involvement as possible, through the draft approach and criteria document, trying to get as much public involvement into trying to set aside a process that in fact could be a model, as Mr McClelland has alluded to, to deal with problems of waste management in other municipalities throughout the province.

In trying to develop a name, the Interim Waste Authority, maybe some people do not like that -- the IWA. I suppose, even with Mr McClelland's Ontario Waste -- what did you call it now, the Ontario Waste Authority? There is an Ontario Waste Association that, of course, is an association of private haulers and perhaps we would cause some confusion. Perhaps we do not need to create any more confusion in the private sector that you seem to be championing right here. We do not need to cause any more problems than there are.

The minister spoke yesterday about the involvement of the private sector, and I am sure we will get into it a little further as we get into some of your debates surrounding the involvement of the private sector, but I do not think there is any need or reason for changing the name right now. In the process that has been going on, the Interim Waste Authority has held an awful lot of public meetings throughout the GTA, taken a look and tried to come up with a process that is going to be very good, so it would be ludicrous to change the name and confuse people for no reason whatsoever other than to have a motion put forward that would maybe please one member.

We have a position that has to be taken, a responsible position. We have a problem in front of us, a waste management problem, and An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act as a name for this bill, I think, is very appropriate.

I would not recommend that any of my colleagues support this motion as it stands now. I know I will not, so I will pass it on.

Mr McClelland: I guess it begs the age-old question, what is in a name and does the name really matter? It is interesting that Mr O'Connor mentions that this is interim, and what is interim? I suggest to Mr O'Connor and to all my friends sitting around this table that when their constituents realize they may have a waste management site, a dump site, for 20 years in their neighbourhood or constituency, and when Mr O'Connor -- if it should come to pass that the good people of Durham-York recognize that without the protections that have been previously afforded them, a waste management operation has been placed in their neighbourhood, close to their homes or farms and they are told it is for 20 years, I will be very interested to come to one of your town hall meetings or public forums when you try to explain to them that it is simply an interim measure.

I thought there would be a fairly quick and clean debate on this particular motion, Mr Chairman, but it is interesting that as my friends talk they bring up so many points that it is very difficult to contain ourselves -- my friend Mr Cousens and I listening -- and not comment on them.

You talked about the name bringing confusion; this whole act brings confusion. It sets out rules for York that are different from Metro. It sets out rules that are different for Durham and Keele. There is a different set of rules depending on where you live in the province, and as I said throughout the course of debate, I suppose it sets different rules depending on what day it is and whether it is a full moon or whatever is happening. We talk about confusion, Mr O'Connor. This bill does nothing but add to the confusion, and layers confusion upon confusion and uncertainty.


You talked about the fact that it is only intended for Toronto. Let me tell you -- remind you, not tell you; you were here -- what the Conservation Council of Ontario said during public hearings. It said this legislation "was a blueprint for abrogating the legislative protection offered by the Environmental Protection Act and the Environmental Assessment Act."

The Conservation Council of Ontario went on to say -- and this is the point with respect to the implications for Ontario. It is not only I myself who believe this will have implications for all of Ontario. We heard that from AMO; we heard it from representatives of municipal councils right across the province; we heard it from citizens' groups and organizations as we went across the province. Here is what the Conservation Council of Ontario said as well in response to the fear that this legislative scheme was the thin edge of the wedge that would have an impact right across the province, "It is critical that this legislative scheme not serve as a precedent for environmental approvals of projects or programs elsewhere in the province."

The Conservation Council of Ontario recognizes the reality -- the probability, if I might say, rather than the reality -- this legislative scheme will come to bear on the entire province of Ontario. If you think for one minute that this is not the beginning of a legacy of waste management by your government, I say to the parliamentary assistant, I think you are being extremely naïve. I say to you very simply, whether you amend the name or not, you will find yourself in a position where you will be using the provisions of Bill 143 all across Ontario unless you very rapidly come to grips with the responsibility, you have in terms of waste management for this province, as a government. I say again that Bill 143 is an admission of failure to do that in the first year and a half of your mandate, and I think we have to be realistic.

You ask "What's in a name?" I think what is in a name is important, because I think it is the sense of responsibility that you have to be forthcoming to the people of Ontario. Let them know that this is not simply for the greater Toronto area but has implications for people right across this province.

I want to remind my friend Mr Cousens -- he was having some difficulty -- of my first amendment, which was ruled out of order by the Chair, that would have scrapped the entire section. Inasmuch as that was ruled out order, I feel that while we cannot get what we want, maybe we can win a little bit around the edges from time to time. You are right. The best thing would be to put this whole thing to bed and get rid of it, but our friends opposite voted against that. The government defends its ideology rather than defend and stand up for the people of the province and the people of its constituencies. We recognize that is going to be its agenda.

Having said that, it is obvious they are not going to support it. They are not going to reflect reality. But mark my words, Mr O'Connor, it is like you said, when you tell the people in your riding that 20 years is only interim, they will still have very little comfort. When you tell them that 20 years is interim and when it starts to be visited upon the people across the rest of the province, you will have an interesting time explaining to them, "We didn't foresee the difficulties coming down the road." I leave it with you. I think the motion to change the name reflects reality and, in all probability, what will happen.

Ms Haeck: I tried to resist commenting but I cannot. The posturing on the other side is just too much to really withstand. The Interim Waste Authority Ltd has quite simply the mandate to locate the site and really assist the municipalities in a long-standing problem.

The issue I really want to raise here this morning, which I know the opposition has chosen to ignore, is that there is a world beyond the boundaries of the GTA. The area I represent, St Catharines-Brock, has in fact a great concern about what could conceivably end up in its backyard, which happens to be Toronto's garbage. The regional municipality of York came in here with some high-priced lawyers to plead its case on behalf of its citizens, saying that Niagara should in fact be the recipient of York region's waste. Well, Niagara does not want York region's waste. They believe that York region should really look after York region's waste, as our area is making every attempt to look after our own.

In speaking to my constituents, they are extremely pleased with Bill 143. They are very pleased with the mandate that is being set out here in this particular piece of legislation. Further, they are totally in agreement with the minister's philosophical bent. They are not prepared for the long-range transportation of waste, nor are they happy with the concept of incineration, all of which the opposition seems to support with these amendments and other comments they have made over the last four weeks.

Having said that, thank you, Mr Chair, I will close.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mrs Marland, Mr O'Connor has a point of clarification. I will allow him to make that point of clarification and then we will move on.

Mr O'Connor: Just a quick point of clarification: Mr McClelland raised the fact we are not talking about long-term sites. In fact, we are talking about long-term sites. The authority itself is an interim authority to take a look at long-term sites. On the very first page of the Interim Waste Authority document that was put out for circulation to get people to comment on it, it says right in the very first paragraph, "The release of the draft criteria for the Durham landfill site search marks the beginning of a proposed process to search for, select and establish a long-term landfill site in Durham region." It actually is an opportunity for people to respond. It goes on and I encourage people to take a look at this later on if they need some clarification.

If you would like, Mr McClelland, I could ask someone from the Interim Waste Authority who is here right now, because I do not have the other documents from the other areas, but I could ask them if the intent is still the same and very similar for the other areas that the search is taking place in, but I am sure you will find that it is; just that point of clarification.

Mrs Marland: I just have a brief response to the member for St Catharines. It is very interesting to sit in the same room today with the same members with whom we sat yesterday and hear the member for St Catharines say, "Whether the members opposite understand it or not, there is a world outside the GTA."

I say to the member for St Catharines that she was in this room yesterday when I raised the grave concern of two areas outside the GTA. I raised the concerns, the rights and the wishes of a community in northern Ontario to try to bring some business to northern Ontario. I also raised the concerns of the municipalities in the district of Muskoka, including the township of Muskoka Lakes and Mayor Bill Rogers's concerns in particular with the fact that the rules for him in the township of Muskoka Lakes are totally the opposite than the rules that are established for the municipalities within the greater Toronto area.

It is rather a little insulting to have you tell us today that there is a world outside the GTA. When I asked those questions of the ministry yesterday I pointed out the fact that when we are talking about this bill, we are talking about a situation that this bill does not help or remedy and yet, most important, it does not deal fairly with any municipalities in the province within or without the GTA.

One other thing that I would say to the parliamentary assistant is that when he talks about the Interim Waste Authority establishing long-term sites, I think one of the major shortcomings of the mandate that has been given to the Interim Waste Authority is the fact that long-term sites are going to be 20-plus years.

I think any government with any common sense or any kind of head on its shoulders would have realized that if you want to emplace a landfill site in this province you would have a lot more success if you said to the people: "Look, we're going to emplace this site. It's going to operate for 10 or 12 years and then it'll be closed." That is the agreement, by the way, that the city of Mississauga had with the people surrounding the Britannia site. There was agreement. There was acceptance by the people in that municipality for a 12-year site.

The fact that this has now been totally betrayed by this Bob Rae socialist government is an issue on its own, but the fact is that it is not realistic to try to establish locations in this province for 20 years plus. Nobody wants those garbage trucks rolling past their houses and their homes and their properties for 20 years, but they might well accept it for a shorter period of time, and a landfill site that would operate for eight, 10 or even 12 years is a realistic length of time of operation. That is a major issue in itself that not very many people have addressed, yet the Interim Waste Authority has been given the direction by this short-sighted government to go and establish long-term sites at 20 years plus. Good luck. I mean, talk about Alice in Wonderland. You will never get anybody who wants a site operating for 20 years plus. It is totally unrealistic.


The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): We will vote first on the amendment. Shall the amendment carry? Those in favour? Those opposed?

Motion negatived.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall section 1 of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed?

Section 1 agreed to.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr McClelland, you had linked your second amendment, the second one being on sections 2 and 2.1, and for information purposes I had you put that into the record, and I think you noted at the time that it was linked to section 1. The amendment to section 1 having failed, this is therefore out of order and cannot be dealt with.

Section 2:

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): The next section then is section 2. Shall section 2 carry?

Mr McClelland: I have a subsequent amendment, Mr Chairman.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Yes. I believe we first of all have to deal with section 2, because then your amendment is to create a section 2.1. Shall section 2 carry? All those in favour? Opposed?

Section 2 agreed to.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr McClelland moves that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Quarterly report

"2.1(1): Within four months after the coming into force of this act, and every four months afterwards, the corporation shall prepare a written report setting out descriptions of all the sites the corporation is considering as possible sites for landfill waste disposal sites.


"(2) The corporation shall give a copy of the report to the Minister of the Environment and shall make copies of the report available to members of the public at no charge."

Mr McClelland: I think it is self-explanatory. We have throughout the course of these proceedings felt that the people of the province who may be affected, particularly in and around the greater Toronto area, ought to be advised of what is taking place, and certainly in light of the fact that Bill 143 by its very scheme undermines the protections and the processes that have been afforded people in the province before. I might add that as to the legislative scheme, particularly in terms of the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Protection Act, many people fought very hard to see it enshrined in the law in this province.

The fact that the accountability and the responsibility of local municipal governments, which are closely in touch with people and which are ultimately charged with the responsibility of managing waste for their communities -- those rights are being eroded and impinged upon. We feel that the very least the government could do is to have full disclosure in terms of what is taking place and to disclose candidly and openly on a regular basis knowledge that is available to let people know, those people whose property may be in jeopardy. Accordingly we have moved this amendment and these additional sections.

Mr Wiseman: My question is to the parliamentary assistant: My understanding is that there is a timetable and a procedure available. I have a number of questions I would like to ask the Interim Waste Authority. How would I do that?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): With the agreement of the committee, would you like to have those questions directed to the Interim Waste Authority so that they can be answered?

Mr McClelland: Questions with respect to the motion?

Mr Wiseman: To ascertain the degree to which this motion is acceptable or unacceptable. I am going to find out some information first.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): If that is so, then please direct your question.

Mr Wiseman: Could you describe for me the procedure that has already been outlined in the Interim Waste Authority document for participation and for site selection search and the timetable that the IWA has advertised and made public?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Please go ahead. Again for those watching, would you mind identifying yourself?

Ms Rush: My name is Jan Rush. I am assistant deputy minister for the Office for the Greater Toronto Area. I am also the chair of the Interim Waste Authority.

Mr Cousens: That is a permanent job.

Ms Rush: No comment.

The Interim Waste Authority said very early in its formation that it would utilize a number of administrative changes that were proposed for the EAPIP process, the environmental assessment program improvement project. I am sorry, I always forget the acronym. The first thing we have done in that is produce the document that has been referred to already this morning, the draft approach and criteria document.

That document -- we are the first proponent that has produced such a document -- lays out for public consultation the process we intend to use for public comment and consultation. It also lays out a proposed timetable and it lays out the proposed steps as to how one gets through that timetable to go through the environmental assessment process. In that particular timetable, what we have done is put forward five documents that would be part of that public consultation component. Those are outlined in some detail in section 5 of each of the documents for each of the three site search areas.

The first document is the one that is released and has been referred to. As I mentioned, that talks about the process to be used and it puts out in draft form the criteria for steps 1 through 4. Steps 1 through 4 are a successive series of criteria by which the authority or the proponent would take the entire site search area and refine it to what is referred to as the long list of sites. That is called EA document 1.

The second document would be EA document 2. In that document would be the activities that led to the identification of the long list. That document would reply to the public consultation. Everyone who raised a point will know what happened to that point, both in terms of the process and also the criteria established in steps 1 through 4. That document would also refine the criteria in step 5, again based on the comments. Step 5 criteria are the ones that take a proponent from the long list to the short list, and would, for the first time, put out criteria for step 6. Step 6 would be the basis by which one moved from the short list to the preferred site.

At each part of this process there is a reply to the consultations that have taken place so far, and some more information and more detail for consideration by the public.

In our original timetable, while the timetable dates have shifted, the times between the sections have not. It is our plan three months after the release of the long list to come back with the next document, which would be the short list of sites, which is less than the motion that is under consideration as I understand it. In three months' time we would again reply to whatever round of public consultation had taken place and would refine that to a short list of sites. Six months after that period we would release the preferred site, and again there would be public consultation, further refinement and reply to the criteria that had been announced.

After that period, there would be activities -- EA documents 5 and 6 -- which would be the conceptual design of the preferred site and the preparation for the EA overview. This is the process that was outlined in the draft approach and criteria document, which has been put before the public and on which we have received comments and consultation. I hope that is sufficient information for you.


Mr Wiseman: To hold you to a four-month timetable like this, what would that mean in terms of cost? Is it even possible, given that the timetable you have outlined seems to have various lengths, some as short as six weeks, others as long as three months and six months?

Ms Rush: I think this would change the whole nature of the consultation program, because, as I say, we have already gone forward on the basis of the EAPIP process. What this process is built upon is that a certain cohesive body of work is completed at a certain point in time and therefore makes sense. That is our attempt. So what you have is a review of materials and a step in the process being achieved. I think a time line that is set without regard to the work that is required to move to the next step might prove to be confusing. Also, the process and the criteria are just as important as the actual results in terms of the list. I think that, perhaps, is something to consider in the review. The period of time does not fit the estimate of the technical work that needs to be done. As I said, it is three months and six months, and the rest of the timetable was outlined. So it does not fit the way we have scheduled the work.

Mr Wiseman: If this amendment was to carry -- you used the word "confusing." Confusing to whom?

Ms Rush: I guess I would speculate there might be a perception that at four months' time, a significant body of work had been completed. I am afraid, certainly from going to the short list to the preferred site, it would not. What we would be able to produce at that point would probably be exactly the same as what went out as per this timetable, because we would not have enough comprehensive work accomplished to change anything.

I think there is a presumption that sites are perhaps knocked off the list one at a time, and that is not the way the work is done. As you know, it is a comparative exercise. Data are collected throughout the time period that is deemed to be reasonable for that. Then an assessment is made as objectively as possible with all the experts, engineering, hydrogeology, at that time. So at the four-month time period, that process would not be complete, and it would be a bit of apples and oranges. I am not sure we would be able to add any new information at a point that was done by time rather than by work done.

Mr Wiseman: This document, the draft approach and criteria for the various regions and landfill site search, has created a public expectation. If all of a sudden these criteria were to be imposed on it, that would be changing the criteria. Would that not confuse the public and what their expectations were? Have you not spent a lot of time trying to put into place expectations that people could expect and rely on to resolve some of the fears and apprehensions?

Ms Rush: It was certainly our intent to do just that and, as I said, to consult equally on the process as well as the content; so not only how we were going to go about the job, but what we were going to do. This would be an overlay to the process, that the consultations have taken place to date.

Mr Wiseman: Would it be a costly thing to do, to produce one of these documents every four months?

Ms Rush: It would certainly cost additional money. As I said, I think probably it would not add much new information, because work under way would not be completed, but it would be costly to produce and distribute and also to translate.

Mr Wiseman: Thank you very much.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I was remiss at the beginning in noting that we had representatives from the ministry here. I wonder, just before going on to Mr Cousens, if perhaps the others at the table could also introduce themselves so that we and, as they say, the television audience know who is here.

Mr Blackwell: I am Drew Blackwell, the assistant deputy minister for the waste reduction office from the Ministry of the Environment. Without the microphone is Alex Giffen, the assistant director of central region of the Ministry of the Environment.

Mr Jackson: Jim Jackson. I am a solicitor with the legal services branch of the Ministry of the Environment.

Mr FitzPatrick: I am Leo FitzPatrick, also with the legal services branch of the ministry.

Mr Cousens: Just one question, Mr Chairman: I do want to get to the amendment that is before us, but I would like to have some sense of the costs going into the whole process you are involved with in the ministry. Could you give us a review of some of the numbers that come off the top of your head for the jobs you are doing and the number of people involved that you were just describing?

Ms Rush: The Interim Waste Authority has a complement of about 20 people. Most of the work is being done through consulting services. We have three consulting teams, each with a lead consultant, one for each of the three areas. That lead consultant works with a number of subconsultants to get the necessary expertise together to undertake this work.

In the printed estimates for this year, the government has a loan to the authority of about $17 million. It is our expectation that slightly more than that will be required. That has not all been used this year because of the deferment. It is probably around $20 million in terms of the necessary work to get to an EA hearing, and we do not have a budget beyond that at this point.

Mrs Marland: Is it not true that the $17 million that has been lent to the Interim Waste Authority in turn is going to be billed back to those municipalities? Certainly that is what we were told in the region of Peel, not to worry about the $17 million on consultants to come and tell us what we already know in Peel. "Don't worry about it, but you're going to pay for it." Am I correct?

Ms Rush: As the minister indicated yesterday, the long-term management, operation and ownership of these sites has not been worked out, but certainly it is the government's intention that whatever body owns and operates the sites will be responsible for all the liabilities. This debt will be one.

Mrs Marland: I understand that. That is not the question. The question is, the people of this province have loaned $17 million or have assigned $17 million to this government agency called the Interim Waste Authority. We were told, and I stand to be corrected, but -- is it Erv McIntyre who is in charge of the Interim Waste Authority?

Ms Rush: Yes, he is the general manager.

Mrs Marland: I think in some public forum Mr McIntyre did in fact say that the $17 million was going to be billed to the municipalities that were being served by the Interim Waste Authority, so it was going to be at no cost to the government because it was going to bill Peel, that it is looking for a site etc, etc. It is a very critical question on the point that my colleague the member for Markham is raising here.

Ms Rush: I can just reiterate that to my understanding a bill will not be going to a municipality directly, but given the discussion we have had about the desire to negotiate with the regions a form of long-term waste management strategy that has not yet been undertaken what we can say is that whoever will own and operate the sites, and therefore again all the revenue from those sites, will also be responsible for paying the loan down.

Mrs Marland: Paying --

Ms Rush: The loan back.

Mrs Marland: Right, so I am correct.

Ms Rush: You are only correct if you assume it is the regions independently that will do that. I am saying that has not been all worked out. As I said, whatever the result of that negotiation for a long-term strategy, however that results, that region, that body, whatever that configuration turns out to be, will be responsible for all the costs that were created in establishing the sites, because they would also be receiving the revenues from that site.


Mrs Marland: The reason this came up was because the consulting team that was looking at this matter, certainly to the horror of Mayor McCallion and a number of others, held a public meeting in Peel that was totally in French. That was an added cost to this whole Interim Waste Authority process. The mayor was furious, as were a number of people. I actually attended that presentation. The open house was totally in French and there were two people there.

Mayor McCallion was even more concerned because of the fact that she thought this $17 million was the Ontario government's money. Then she learned it was not and that Peel was going to be paying for the service by the Interim Waste Authority to find the site in Peel, and she found it was paying for this kind of process to which they had never been party. They had never been asked what kind of approach the consulting team should take to holding these public meetings as part of the Interim Waste Authority's site selection interviewing and research. It is very important for everybody to understand that.

In Peel it is particularly important because Peel has already spent $8 million looking for a landfill site and going through the site selection process, so we were not happy when we found out the Interim Waste Authority was back in Peel doing this job and that it was going to be billing the region. I just put that on the record.

Mr Cousens: There are different parts to this. As I stay on this theme I will certainly defer to Mr McClelland, but I really want to get --

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr Cousens, if I might just ask at this point, then, if other members' questions relate to that.

Mr Cousens: I think that is fair. I do not see any problem with that.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): All right. I ask Mr Wiseman and Mr McClelland whether their questions are related to this.

Mr McClelland: Yes, mine is.

Mr Wiseman: Yes, mine is.

Mr Cousens: I will stay on that theme, and then before I get to my next one respect their opportunity to participate.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Fine, thank you.

Mr Cousens: On this very important matter of allocation of funds back to the regional municipalities, money that will have been spent by the Interim Waste Authority, what involvement will those regions have in the spending of the money? Are they involved in any way in guiding you or being involved in any of the decisions, or is it in fact not true that most of the decision now will be under the province?

Ms Rush: As I explained, the long-term configuration of who will own and operate the landfill sites is not determined. That will be negotiated with the regions over a period of time. We certainly have some time before the long-term sites will be operating and therefore earning revenues. That will take place. I think I need to make it clear again that it is not necessarily a bill to the regions. It will be as any capital asset: Whoever has the asset will also have the liability.

To the second part of your question, the Interim Waste Authority makes the determination now as to what is required to be a successful proponent, as per the directions we will receive from the Legislature into the nature of our undertaking and what, in the judgement of the professionals on the board of directors, is required to be successful at that.

Mr Cousens: Has your ministry, your group, taken a long-term forecast of the funding that is going to be required to exist? You have indicated that $20 million has been assigned in this forthcoming fiscal year. What is your five-year plan based on what you see happening? Have you a sense there as to how much money will be required? On the basis of that, we will then begin to see how much money is going to be coming back through the regions through yourselves, so I would be interested in knowing that.

Ms Rush: We do not have a five-year projection. As you know, in this region by far the largest single cost will be the cost of the land involved. That is so significant and it is extremely difficult to forecast. We do not know where we will be and we certainly have no idea of what the market will be at the time we are in this, so the projections we have are so enormous as to not really make a budget at this point. What we intend to do is that when we have the preferred site we will have a much better idea of the costs involved.

Mr Cousens: You indicated that the budget forecasts are so enormous. Could you share with us what those are? You have got a worst-case scenario?

Ms Rush: No, there is nothing official, and we could not do it. As I said, if you start to price land in the site-search areas that we are looking at, we could not come up with anything that was meaningful. So I have nothing to share, and nothing has been taken forward.

Mr Cousens: I just want to make a comment. I appreciate that the answer we have just been given really touches on the critical part of this whole bill, and that is that the Minister of the Environment has decided that the greater Toronto area will house the landfill sites for the greater Toronto area waste. When we start asking what the long-term costs are for the waste within this greater Toronto area, we have just heard it said that the costs cannot be determined because of the variables, the cost of the land, and the cost of land is so high the word "enormous" was in the original statement made by Ms Rush. I have to say that is fundamental to the bill because the minister has ruled out the possibility of sending waste to a site outside of the greater Toronto area, such as the Adams mine site if it were approved through an environmental assessment. We have in that site alone a capacity for 20 years of the greater Toronto area's waste, yet on the other hand we are talking about budgets and future costs for which very highly competent and trained public servants are not able to give those numbers.

That indeed gives reason for this committee to rethink what is happening. We do not know how much is going to be spent to find those sites and open them up. The environmental process itself is just huge, and for us to be asking these questions -- I happen to respect the answer. You do not know the answer, and you could not, but the government should have the sense to reopen its thinking to say, "Are there other options?" because if you take the worst-case scenario of what it is we are now talking about -- and I thank the New Democratic member for opening up this whole subject. I do not think he realized the Pandora's box that he was opening, but this is really the fundamental issue that we are all talking about. It comes down to dollars and cents. Where are we going to get the money to pay for it?

We also have not determined that it might well be the regions that pay for it. Wait till you see Hazel McCallion start to jump up on the platform when that happens. You have not seen someone get as angry as she knows how to. But I will tell you, they know how to do it in York region and they know how to do it in Durham, in spite of the fact that some might not think they do.

We are talking about the cost of getting rid of Metro's waste, and it is going to be enormous, and I have taken that word from the statements we have just had. We do not know what they are, yet we could come up with other positions right now where you could determine what the costs are going to be over a five-year plan. What business is there in the province of Ontario that does not have a five-year plan to it? In the survival mode we are in today we are just hoping to get out of the recession that we are in right now and some of the problems. So it is a day-to-day existence, but when you are planning for the long term for the province on an issue as important as this, then there should be a far bigger picture provided to it. That is really the issue at hand.

So as we talk about the money -- I want to come back on the amendment -- to me, I am satisfied that we do not know on this committee what the profit and loss is going to be. It comes out that the profits can go to the regional municipality in which the landfill site is going to be, but who knows what the loss is going to be, what they are going to pay for it. Because there is no one sitting around accounting for the moneys -- there will be the responsibility through estimates to the government, so that we then have an accounting process -- there is not any real way in which those regions that are going to end up paying the bill have any control over the way those moneys are going to be spent.

Who is to say how long it is going to take to go through a full environmental assessment process, or even a minimal one or a shorter-term one? If the government had the sense to come along and start now, by looking at the whole environmental protection process, then we might be able to find an accelerated way of dealing with it. You would not need this whole bill if you had done some of those things. It is true, we do not know what it is going to cost us, we do not know what it is going to cost the regions, and the costs are enormous. Who are the losers? The people of Ontario are the losers on this one.

I will defer to my friend. There are other comments I want to make on this amendment.


The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I have Mr McClelland and then Mr Wiseman on this, and then we will go back to Mr Cousens.

Mr McClelland: I too am very grateful that Mr Wiseman opened up this line of questioning for us because I think it is something that needs to be made very clear to members of this committee and the people of Ontario.

To the line of questioning by Mr Cousens, Ms Rush responded and said it depended on who ended up with the assets and who would assume the liabilities and so on. In the normal course of transactions people often look to the concept of fairness, the sense of reasonable exchange for product and service and so forth. In the situation that we have here it seems to me that municipalities -- I will use the region of Peel by way of example, or the region of Durham -- had in good faith undertaken a process and had incurred tremendous liabilities.

The province came along, through the Interim Waste Authority and through the scheme concocted by the New Democratic Party, to say: "We're going to tell you how to do it. We're going to impose our methodology and our system, because we have a better way. We're going to give you the product whether you want it or not. In fact, we know you don't want the product because you've told us that you," by way of example, in the region of Peel, "feel you can handle it yourselves and want to handle it yourselves," likewise with Durham, "but we're going to tell you how to do it anyway. We're going to take it over for you and we're going to dictate and we're going to run it our way. We're going to have committee hearings and you're going to come and have the opportunity to make your presentations, but we're really not going to listen to you because we're going to move ahead anyway. You've already spent a lot of money," the province is saying to municipalities. "You've spent a lot of money already; you've spent a great deal of money. We're going to come in and we're going to spend more money for you. You don't even want us to do it, but we're going to do it for you because we know best. Then we're going to give you the pleasure of paying for it after the fact."

This is the question I am going to have. Is there going to be any consideration in terms of the basic concept of fairness, of crediting municipalities for the money they have already spent? In terms of liabilities and assets, are they going to be credited? If they are going to be stuck with a bill of goods, a bill for something they did not want in the first place, how about the money they spent in good faith, spent appropriately, pursuant to the laws of this province? Are they going to be given some credit for that?

Does it not seem reasonable and fair, I ask members -- they are in a difficult position. I am not sure that they can answer on behalf of the government. They have a particular mandate and responsibility. I think the question has to be asked. Is it basically fair, a basic concept that we all understand, men and women across this province who may be watching, people who understand, members who would understand the basic concept of fairness? You come in and you say: "This is the way it's going to be and you have no choice. Whether you want it or not, we're doing it and you're going to pay the tab." Are we going to give you credit for what you have already done in the past? Is there any sense that they might get credit for the moneys that have already been expended?

Ms Rush: I cannot comment on that. What I can say is that when the Interim Waste Authority began its work it requested from the regions all technical information they had collected towards site searches. Given that ultimately it is one taxpayer in the area, we would make as much use as possible of the material provided to us. So we have been prudent in our expenditures in trying to locate all existing information so that we would hopefully eliminate duplication of studying anything that had been studied already. We have done that through not only site searches but other publicly available information. So some of the money that had been expended by the taxpayers under one jurisdiction has been useful in terms of the work that we needed to do.

Mr McClelland: I hope it would be useful. There are a lot of taxpayers and a lot of municipal leaders who would go beyond the point of usefulness. I understand and I am not taking any particular issue with any of the individuals who are here. They are here fulfilling their jobs and their responsibilities, as Mr Cousens said, very able, competent people who are put in the position of not having answers because of the framework within which they have to operate.

I find it interesting that the best answer and the honest answer, which is very much appreciated and respected by members, given is that it will be an enormous cost and we do not know what it is. I look in today's paper at, "Legal gambling casinos may be just the right economic shot in the arm to perk up Ontario's lagging economy, Premier Bob Rae says." I guess gambling is becoming a way of life in Ontario. We are gambling with the future of the taxpayers of the greater Toronto area. It is a gamble. We have heard today an honest, forthright admission by people who are representing the Interim Waste Authority that it is a roll of the dice. We do not know how much it is going to cost and we are going to proceed without any handles on that and take away the right of the municipalities to do what they were doing. We are going to tell them how to do it and we will roll the dice and let the property taxpayer pick it up.

I think that is very interesting that today's paper talks about Mr Rae talking about gambling as a shot in the arm. We are gambling all over the place. We are gambling with the future of waste management in this province. I think Mr Cousens has made the point very well. I am not sure that Mr Wiseman understood what he was beginning to open up.

I think it is important that the people of the province understand that the province is saying it is going to pursue a course of action. They do not know how much it is going to cost. It is consistent with the economic planning of this government that it will just roll the dice and see what happens. "We don't know what the deficit will be this year or next year. We'll just take our chances. Times are tough. We're going to have trouble keeping the lid on. We'll have trouble keeping the lid on with the IWA, but that's okay. The people of Ontario, thank you, will pick up the tab and the municipalities will have the pleasure of going to the people for the property taxes to pay it."

It will be really interesting to see how the people at regional council in Durham, colleagues on regional council, I say to the parliamentary assistant, my colleagues at Peel regional council and those at York -- when they have to put the coals or the hot iron to the feet of the taxpayer in and around the province of Ontario, who is going to be there to take the heat then? I ask, somewhat rhetorically, where is the Interim Waste Authority going to be at that time to answer and to be accountable to the people of Ontario and where is the Minister of the Environment going to be at that time? I know where they will be. It will be far afield. It will be the local municipal politicians who will be given the job, not because they want it but because they will be forced, of picking up the tab for this. There is going to be an awful lot of anger, a tremendous amount of anger that will be rightly directed at this NDP government for forcing municipalities into this position.

Mr Wiseman: I cannot believe what I just heard. It demonstrates such a lack of understanding of this issue that it is unbelievable. No wonder we have a mess. Let me start with this. How much garbage does Metropolitan Toronto produce on a yearly basis currently? How many tonnes? Can somebody just give me a rough number?

Ms Rush: The number I have in my head is a little bit dated but it was about two million tonnes.

Mr Wiseman: And in the whole GTA?

Ms Rush: About four million. Those numbers are over a year old. I am afraid I do not have the recent ones with me.

Mr Wiseman: We will keep the math real simple for the opposition members, so that they can follow this. If we produce four million tonnes, how much is Metro charging to tip at Brock West and Keele Valley?

Ms Rush: At the moment $150 a tonne.

Mr Wiseman: If I calculate four million times $150 a tonne, I get something like $600 million per year in revenue. If I multiply that times 20 over a 20-year period, I get $12 billion in potential revenue. Is this not the case?

Ms Rush: Yes.

Mr Wiseman: While I will tell you that I abhor the wastage of money as much as anybody and I do not accept that money spent frivolously can be rationalized no matter what, I would say that $12 billion in tipping fees or forgone tipping fees, depending on who runs the landfill site at the end of the day, is a considerable amount of money and that money will be available to offset any costs incurred by the IWA finding a landfill site. Is that a correct assumption?

Ms Rush: Yes.


Mr Wiseman: Let me ask you another question. Why did you hold bilingual meetings in Mississauga?

Ms Rush: It is our policy to follow the government policy of providing services in both languages in areas that are so designated.

Mr Wiseman: And Mississauga is designated as a bilingual area?

Ms Rush: Yes, it is.

Mr Wiseman: How long has it been designated? Do you know?

Ms Rush: Since the policy.

Mrs Marland: Since the passing of the French Language Services Act. You know the answer to that.

Mr Wiseman: Of course I know the answer to that.

Mrs Marland: Do not insult our staff by asking them stupid questions.

Mr Wiseman: I am not insulting them, but I am just amazed that you did not know it, or you insulted them by asking the question, because you knew they had an obligation to do it in the first place and you came in here and you made accusations about them, saying that they were wasting money, and they were not.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr Wiseman, direct your questions, please.

Mr Wiseman: They were following the law passed by the Liberals, so do not come in here and put them on the spot like that. You know as well as I do that it was your line of questioning that led to this.

Mrs Marland: You are asking stupid questions.

Mr Wiseman: And you were making very foolish comments about knowing better.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Order, please. If we could focus on the motion, the amendment before us, Mr Wiseman, you may wish to continue your questioning.

Mr Wiseman: I do not know, I think I have gotten pretty far down the road where I wanted to go, and that is that there is a huge amount of money, and that is part of the problem, is it not, in terms of $12 billion of absolute dollars over the next 20 years, and the real debate, as far as Metropolitan Toronto is concerned, is who is going to control it and where it is going to go.

They have clearly indicated in the past, through the running of Brock West and other landfill sites, that they want to control the tipping fees, because in fact what happens -- and this is what my constituents know. My constituents know that they have been subsidizing Metropolitan Toronto and that they do not want to do that any more.

I know you cannot comment on that and I am not asking you a question, but I am just making that as a comment here. But when the Durham Board of Education has to pay to tip into Brock West, which is in Pickering, and the Metropolitan Toronto boards of education do not have to pay any tipping fee to put into Brock West, then you can see who is making the money and who is supporting the landfill site.

It only costs Metropolitan Toronto between $29 and $30 per tonne to run landfill sites. The rest is profit. As we go down the road, I have no problem about bringing up the whole question of financing in landfill sites and who runs it and who gets the money, because as we go farther down the road, you will find, as we talk about long-distance transportation and that, it would cost the taxpayers of the various regions huge amounts of moneys per household if we were to follow the plans of the Liberals and the Tories.

Mr Cousens: Going back to the number of elements that are coming out, and it has to do with the costs of garbage, Mr Wiseman has reviewed in his estimate the cost over the next 20 years. There will be $20 billion in the coffers of somebody for tipping fees, if his scenario is correct. If the tipping fees cost more, and with inflation, it could be more than the $12 billion he referred to, or it could be less because someone decides to make some changes, but the figure he is dealing with has just been put on the record as $12 billion over 20 years, which is a huge amount of money.

That is part of what we are talking about with this bill. We will pass a bill over the next month or so that is going to take away from the people of Ontario, is going to move from a pocket of money they have right now which they pay in their own local taxes, and then it will end up they are going to be paying more because of the garbage pickup. We realize the 3Rs and other things will hopefully reduce the amount of garbage, but notwithstanding that, the honourable member for Durham is talking about a $12-billion pricetag.

Is there any reason why Ontario is ceasing to be competitive? We are ceasing to be competitive because of the high cost of doing everything, and here this honourable member is saying, "We're just now going to be in a position that we'll have $12 billion, and what are we going to do with it?" That is just exactly where the New Democrat socialist thinking leads us down the road of despair where there is no hope at all for Ontario to be a competitive place in North America or the world. Here he is bragging about the fact there is going to be $12 billion in the pot because of tipping fees.

If there is anything we can do to reduce the costs of garbage and of tipping fees and to somehow bring it under control, we have to do that. These people do not have any sense -- you cannot separate in your mind the environmental principle of saying, "Hey, here we are at Kirkland Lake," and then there is the economic reality of what it takes to get a railroad going and jobs going.

If you have a willing host and it passes the environmental assessment, then you begin to have an option worth considering. What this government has done is exclude that and then you start looking at the total dollars that are going to be spent in the greater Toronto area for the next 20 years. If it is $12 billion, I guarantee that it will be far less if we were to look at another option like the Adams mine site in Kirkland Lake. What I am hearing from the New Democrats is that they do not care what it is going to cost as long as they have a huge well, a bank account loaded with money, because people are paying those amounts --

Mr Wiseman: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I would like to correct the record. You have just said that we do not care what it is going to cost. That is totally incorrect. I said in my statement that I did not like --

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Excuse me, Mr Wiseman, that is not a point of order.

Mr Wiseman: -- the misuse of funds and therefore I do care.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Excuse me, Mr Wiseman, you have an opportunity to speak on this if you wish. That is not a point of order. Mr Cousens, I wonder if the Chair might observe, as it is a little past 11:40, that we are still on the second article of the bill. I simply state that by way of fact, hoping to guide honourable members in their comments.

Mr Cousens: I thank you, and I think we are touching on important matters that pertain to the bill. If we spend some time understanding the economy and the economic reality of what Bill 143 means and if out of this discussion at least comes a better understanding of what is going on -- because we sure did not get it in the answers provided through the minister. The answers that have since been given by staff begin to make the case even stronger that we cannot afford this bill. We cannot afford the approach that is being taken by the New Democrats that says, "We are going to use Ontario's wealthiest land, the most expensive land around, in the greater Toronto area, as our landfill sites." That land is so costly that the government is not even able to come up with a forecast on how much money is going to be needed to buy those landfill sites, and we are still not able to determine how much it is going to take to just go through the environmental assessment process.

We are talking about huge dollars. Then the honourable member for Durham is talking in the order of $12 billion to be gained on the income side for tippage. He seems to be very good with the numbers and he can put that across very easily. I happen to believe that the crisis is one of credibility. How in the Sam Hill are businesses going to want or be able to establish themselves in Ontario when we end up having that kind of overhead for things we are doing?

If we could look at some economic ways of solving our problems, we have to do it. We cannot isolate ourselves from the economic reality and what is environmentally achievable and something we want to do. Somehow the two thoughts and ideologies should come together.

I want to touch further on the motion made earlier, and it has to do with four months after the coming into force of the act that there would be a written report coming out with a description of sites. The problem is that we do not know where the sites are going to be right now. That whole process was stopped when we did not pass the bill by December 19, and so we do not know where the interim sites are going to be. I wonder if the honourable staff would be so kind as to give us some idea of the sites we will be looking at for possible consideration for landfill within the greater Toronto area.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Although that question was directed to honourable staff in general, perhaps one honourable staff member would like to respond.

Mr Cousens: Maybe the parliamentary assistant, so he can then refer it to whoever he wishes.

Mr O'Connor: I think Mr Cousens knows full well that there is no list. We have talked about this issue many times in this committee through the process. If he needs to hear it one more time, then I would ask the chair of the Interim Waste Authority, Jan Rush, to explain to Mr Cousens for the second time today the process you have been going through.


Ms Rush: Work was suspended on developing the long list of sites, as has been indicated earlier. We will not recommence that work until we have a legislative mandate that is clear. After that time -- we expect a number of weeks -- we obviously will proceed as rapidly as we can after that point.

Mr Cousens: Have you had consultants working on that whole issue over the last several months even while these discussions have been going on?

Ms Rush: What the consultants have been working on is responding to the public consultation that was held to date and refining the criteria contained in steps 1 through 4. They have been preparing a refinement of step 5 criteria, which take from the long list to the short list. They have begun to think about the step 6 criteria that go from the short list to the preferred site. They have also been working on the weighting and rankings that will be applied to each of those criteria for the comparative parts.

Mr Cousens: So in fact they are indeed at the present time looking at the potential sites that will be tabled.

Ms Rush: No, they are not. They are looking at criteria and criteria only. That was communicated to all those people who have been at the consultations in a letter from the authority in December: that we had suspended work towards the long list and, given that we had time available, this is how we were going to spend it in terms of looking at the criteria, steps, consultation and weights and ranks. That is all they have been doing.

Mr Cousens: Whose decision was it to stop further consideration of those sites?

Ms Rush: It was the authority's and certainly also the government's. It was concurrent. We could not proceed for reasons that have been explained. One, the timetable that had been derived for the Interim Waste Authority was based on the assumption that the legislative mandate would be in place in the fall session. So when it was clear that that was not going to happen, we had two issues of great concern.

As I have explained before in the committee, one was that certainly we wanted confirmation of the legislative mandate because the entire undertakings are described for us in this legislation, and two, our timetable, which is a very rapid and we hope extremely efficient timetable of moving as quickly as we can from the long list through the short to the preferred, is based upon a very clear decision on the powers of entry and our ability to negotiate with all land owners very quickly, all knowing their rights in a procedure that would allow us to have those negotiations in place early. Hopefully we can successfully negotiate with all, but if not, the power so that we can do the testing that is necessary for us to gain the data that we need to complete our assessments.

Mr Cousens: I can see the job you will have to do. It will be one that implements the government policy of choosing a site, wherever it might be, and then proceeding with that site. What we are doing in this Bill 143 is removing the rights that have heretofore been enshrined in the Municipal Act, in the regional acts and in the conservation acts. All the rights of a property owner that have heretofore been part of Ontario's history are about to be removed by this bill in order to go with a timetable that the government is going to have. To me it is just one of those tragic things that we had hoped and thought that we would obtain a list of those possible sites, which would have assisted us greatly through these deliberations.

Part of the motion that is before us here is that will allow us in the future to have an ongoing sense of knowing where the government is going. You see, there is not much confidence in government, and I have even less in the Ministry of the Environment. Part of that comes with the failure of the ministry to even share with critics of the official opposition and myself matters that are going on within the ministry.

Therefore it would make sense that we begin to put into legislation the formal reporting structure, without establishing a charge to it, that would allow members of the opposition parties to find out what is going on within the government, because as a fact, last week when the tire recycling report came out, I, as the official representative of the Ontario PC Party, did not receive a copy of that report.

Mr McClelland: We did not receive it either.

Mr Cousens: You did not receive it either. The Liberals did not receive it either. How can it be that the media are circulated on reports that are coming through to the ministry that become public documents and the opposition parties are not being given them?

I had a previous experience of that with the Ministry of the Environment last year. When I raised it in the House and said that I had been bypassed and had not received the information, I was almost ejected from the Legislature, but left rather than being removed. I was angry and had reason to be, and I was told after that by the Minister of the Environment: "It won't happen again. I'll see that my staff send you the information as it is made public and available." It is one thing to say that, but now a second time within six months I have been not given the information I needed to have to do my job as a critic of the government.

So the honourable motion -- it is not an honourable motion -- the honourable member's motion really is saying --

Mr McClelland: It is an honourable motion.

Mr Cousens: No, it is not. I would not want to give you that much credit.

The motion is saying there would be some way in which those reports are made public on an ongoing basis.

Last week, to get information on the Ministry of the Environment through freedom of information, I personally had to write a cheque for $263 in order to get that information. I might or might not get reimbursed through my legislative funding mechanisms. There is no mechanism through our caucus that I could get it and I personally had to write a cheque for over $250 -- $263 I think it was -- for information. That is also why this motion says copies of the report will be made available to the members at no charge.

People say, "Oh, isn't government costing a lot." I will tell you, it is costing me a lot to be a member of the opposition because I could not get the information unless I was prepared to write a cheque for it. That is indeed another example of where the government not only has the information, not only keeps the information, but then when you want to get it you cannot get it without paying for it.

So this motion says that on a regular basis, this government will be in a position that it has to report. Then there can be some sleuth from the local newspaper who can go in say, "Aha, we've got this one opening up in Durham West in Mr Wiseman's riding," and then he or she can report to his riding that they are going to have Whitevale opened or some other site in his backyard. Probably it would be a big shock to him but at least then he will find out what it is, because that is the way his public is going to find out about it.

The motion puts into words a number of concerns that would be addressed so I am supporting this motion.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to go back to some of this.

Mrs Marland: Does nobody else over there want to speak?

Mr Wiseman: Sure they can, if they want to. It is not up to me.

On the revenue side, I would like to clear up some points. To say that I am not concerned about the spending of money is pretty farfetched. I think that one of the things I have shown some considerable concern over is how money is spent and how it is being used. I guess that is one of the reasons I really do support this bill, because I figured out that every single one of my taxpayers, every household in my constituency of Ajax and Pickering, would pay an $88 increase in their taxes just to ship waste to Kirkland Lake -- an $88 tax increase for 20 years -- and that half of that amount of money would go into the coffers of Metropolitan Toronto.

I have the exact figures somewhere -- I did all the calculations -- but that is roughly what it would be. It would cost them about $20 to $25 to pick the waste up at the curb and to move it to a landfill site; that is what they are paying now. But on top of that, they would then have to pay for its transfer to Vaughan, put it on a railway that is going to cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $600 million and ship to Kirkland Lake and then tip it at $1.10 a tonne.


Mr Wiseman: Maybe it is $50 million for a transfer station, maybe it is not, but that was the number Durham government gave us. Looking at $50 million for a transfer station, that is almost $48 per household for everybody in Durham. To say that I am not aware of the numbers is taking it a little far. Currently Metro is charging $150 a tonne for Durham and for the other municipalities of Durham to tip in Brock West. It is costing them $30 a tonne to run the site. They are making $120 a tonne. That is how Metropolitan Toronto achieves its surplus in its waste management system. I am very cognizant of costs and I am very protective of my taxpayers when it comes to cost. The cheapest way for them to go is to have a Durham-only landfill site.

There was some accusation made here --

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Excuse me, Mr Wiseman. It is 12 o'clock. I sense that you are moving on to another point. This might be a useful opportunity to break for lunch. We will begin again at 2 o'clock and you can pick up on your comments. We stand adjourned until 2 o'clock.

The committee recessed at 1201.


The committee resumed at 1402.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Good afternoon. We will return. Just before we begin, I would like to get into my second remiss. I do not know whether we allowed three, but there was one other member of the Ministry of the Environment whom I forgot to introduce. Jim, I wonder if you would introduce yourself.

Mr Merritt: I am Jim Merritt, acting assistant deputy minister for regional operations with the Ministry of the Environment.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Thanks very much. I think we now have identified and accounted for everyone who is with us and helping us through this bill. When we stopped for lunch, Mr Wiseman had the floor. I would ask him to continue his remarks. I just remind those who are watching that we are dealing with the proposed new section 2.1, an amendment proposed by the Liberal Party to that section.

Mr Wiseman: I was going to go down this road about the Environmental Assessment Act, because I think there was some confusion created when it was implied that there might not be a full Environmental Assessment Act process on the sites that would be outlined by the Interim Waste Authority, so I would like to ask Jan Rush if she would describe the process again with respect to when the final site is selected: what will happen, how that process will continue and under what criteria it will continue.

Ms Rush: Once the Interim Waste Authority has moved from the long list to the short list to the preferred site for each of the three site search areas, we would then proceed to assemble all the necessary documents and materials for the environmental assessment under the assumption that there will be a hearing. We would proceed on that basis and continue to produce information, as I indicated, about the design of the site and all the relevant information that would be necessary for us as a proponent to obtain environmental assessment approval for the preferred site. So the site is not actually the site until we are out at the other end of the hearing, and a certificate of approval would be granted for each of the three sites. That is a successful outcome from our point of view.

Mr Wiseman: What would happen at a full Environmental Assessement Board hearing on the site? How would it proceed?

Ms Rush: That really depends upon who wants to be heard, but it would certainly be a debate and discussion and questions and probing on the size of the site that has been determined through the analysis of the authority, so that the 3Rs were fully taken into account, that this is a reasonable case to put forward and that the EPA component of that goes through all the technical points about the merits of the site itself. It would presumably deal with the comparison of why all the other opportunities that were available in terms of other potential landfill sites were excluded, whether the process was reasonable and logical, and whether someone who went through the same process would come up with a similar outcome. Presumably all of those things will be tested at the EA hearing.

Mr Wiseman: The general public would have full opportunity to monitor these hearings and to hear what was being said?

Ms Rush: Yes, that is my understanding. I am not an expert on the Environmental Assessment Act itself. Perhaps some others from the Ministry of the Environment could help on the details of the process itself.

Mr Wiseman: The next question I would like to ask has to do with the draft document we have all been hearing about this morning. My understanding, having read that document, is that the Interim Waste Authority will be accountable for every decision it makes publicly and that any site that is selected or any site that is chosen to go on to the next stage and any site that has been dropped off would have to be accountable and compared to the criteria that are set forth in this document. Is that correct?

Ms Rush: Yes, that would be our presumption, that people would want to know that we not only consulted on how we went about doing it, but we did exactly what we said we were doing and a proper evaluation did take place.

Mr Wiseman: So at every stage of the selection process the IWA is going to have to rationalize every decision it makes against the criteria one way or the other.

Ms Rush: Yes, that will be the bulk of the documents, and again that will be reviewed fully at an EA hearing.

Mr Wiseman: If I remember correctly, you said that over the next little while there are going to be more documents coming out clearly defining what the criteria of the hydrogeological makeup is going to be. Is that correct?

Ms Rush: Yes. We intend to respond to all the comments through the public consultation on steps 1 through 4, which are the steps that take us from the site search area to the long list, add some more detail to the step 5 criteria, which take us from the long list to the short list, and for the first time put the first draft idea out for consideration of the step 6 criteria. Also, as I indicated, we have been working on weights and ranks of those criteria, so when the assessment is at the comparison, as opposed to the exclusionary process, the weights and ranks will be there.

Mr Cousens: I think the real mistake that is being made by the government members is when they say the Interim Waste Authority is going to be publicly accountable for what goes on. We, the politicians of this province, are the ones who have to be publicly accountable. The problem we have is that with the changes in this legislation, we are not beginning to be accountable. We are not beginning to take into consideration the rights of the citizens of Ontario.

We have had presentations from people -- oh, he makes a funny-looking face. I will tell you, the faces I saw coming in here were the faces of the mayor of Vaughan and representatives from around Keele Valley. I saw representatives from York region and King City. I saw them from Mississauga. Two hundred representations came in here making statements. We are the ones who have to be publicly accountable. What we are getting to be publicly accountable with is giving the power to the Interim Waste Authority. I do not like it. It is not an interim waste authority; it is a long-term authority. They are going to be running it for ages. We do not even know what it is going to cost. It is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars before we are finished because no one has even said what it is.


The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Order, please.

Mr Cousens: I resent the way in which you are saying that the Interim Waste Authority will be publicly accountable. That is not who is accountable.


The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Order. If I might, I want to remind honourable members that everyone will have an opportunity to speak. I think one can set forward one's own arguments. If you wish to respond on either side, there is plenty of time. Remember, every member can speak. Mr Cousens.


Mr Cousens: The point I am trying to make is that we are the ones who are accountable. We are accountable to our electorate and we are accountable to the traditions and history of the province of Ontario. The kind of documentation I am receiving and we are receiving from this government on the justification of this bill, on why we need to proceed with it, is just unacceptable. Then I come along and we have the honourable member pontificating, saying the Interim Waste Authority will be publicly accountable and that is really the hope we have for the province. I do not want to see the rights taken away from the people around this province who want to be defended and protected.

Those rights at this point in time are protected through the Municipal Act, through the Regional Municipality of York Act, and Durham and Peel and wherever, and what is happening is that they are all being taken away, as if bureaucrats, public servants of the province, are going to be the ones who are going to be publicly accountable. That is not the way the system works. We are the ones who have to be publicly accountable. I want to be accountable to my electors, because I believe their rights are more important than anyone's rights. They have a right to be able to say, "You can't come on my property," or, "You can't take away those rights that are enshrined." That is the kind of thing we have been saying on this side of the House, and I sit here and hear the honourable member saying, "Well, they're accountable."

The process we have been following for the last three weeks through public hearings is one where we have had presentations that have given us a chance to know that the public does not like this bill.

I do not think there is any hope this amendment is going to carry. I do not think there is any hope the government is going to change its mind. There they are with 38% of the popular vote on September 6, 1990, and they are jamming through this bill without consideration for what the large majority of people want and need.

We come along and we have seen it all happen. We have the ecoterrorists sitting over there with the New Democrats. We have them with their technopeasant approach, and there is not a thing we can do about it over here except scream and shout and shake our hands. The fact of the matter is that at the end of the week it is all going to be carried. You are going to carry your own way, but when you justify it, Mr Wiseman, with the sense that the Interim Waste Authority will be publicly accountable, that is not where I stand.

I want the politicians to be accountable. I want the minister to be accountable, because what is happening is that we are shoving it off to them. They will make the decisions. They will spend the money and then they will send the bill back to York region or Peel or Durham or somewhere else and they do not have any involvement in it. I want the politicians to have their finger in this, and then we rise or fall based on what we do, but now what has happened, as far as I am concerned, is that we are just giving the ship away. You said earlier this morning $12 billion over 20 years for tipping fees. No sense is being taken of the kinds of dollars that are being thrown out the window on this bill. We are taking away guarantees of civil rights with this legislation, and I just continue to get upset every time you open your mouth.

Mr O'Connor: I am glad to have an opportunity to speak at this time, because during the period just before lunch we heard an awful lot of rhetoric, and I think if we have anyone watching today, you can see some people viewing politicians and you have seen the rhetoric flying. I think it comes to the point where they do not want to see that any more.

If we want to deal with exactly what the task is before us, we are going through clause-by-clause of this bill and the amendment that has been put forward by the Liberal caucus is calling for a reporting to take place every four months. I think we have heard from the Interim Waste Authority that the reporting process it has been going through is a very commendable process. It is a process that perhaps you see some flaws in. I would suggest that if you have seen some flaws in it, then perhaps you have attended or somebody you know has attended some of the meetings the Interim Waste Authority has conducted all throughout the GTA.

I know that when I go out in my community and talk to some people -- for example, the York Federation of Agriculture raised the issue and talked to me a little bit about the process the Interim Waste Authority is going through. There are an awful lot of people who have been covered through the consultation that has been taking place so far, and they are glad to see they have had an opportunity to take a look at the criteria long before sites are going to be named. This is a very good process, and it is a process we have heard people who have come to this committee saying is a process perhaps they should be following themselves.

We get an awful lot of coverage. When people watching this committee hear us saying that perhaps our municipal politicians are not spending their money wisely by going through the process of having consultants do a lot of work, as they have in the past, I do not think that is appropriate. I do not think it is appropriate for anyone from this level of government to be pointing a finger at another level of government.

All the studies that have taken place so far and the information gathered by them have been put to good use by the Interim Waste Authority. When somebody says we cannot trust our bureaucrats, I think we are in a very shady situation, and we have reason to fear, perhaps, if we do not trust them. But I think we have to trust some of the work done by our bureaucrats, and it comes to a point in time when we should be able to trust the valued input of people who are working for the bureaucracy and people who are doing some consulting work for some of the bureaucracy. That is money well spent.

If it is going to come to the point that at the end of the day we are going to have a landfill site that has gone through an environmental assessment and been approved, and it has had room for public comment throughout the whole process long before it gets to the environmental assessment, I think it is something we should be proud of. I do not think that we should be wasting an awful lot of time on it.

The honourable member here has brought forth an area of concern because he wants to make sure the public has as much room for reports coming to it so it can comment as often as possible. The IWA has set up a process, and we have heard from the IWA this morning. The process is good; it has worked. They have explained some of the technical areas around it, and I do not think there is any reason we should be wasting an awful lot of time on this.

We have an awful lot of the bill to go through, and if we want to have a meaningful debate on all of the bill, then I would suggest we continue going through clause-by-clause and hearing amendments from all sides. I appreciate the amendments as they come forward because they point out that we have an area where we have to be accountable and there is an accountability process that has been built into it, and we have heard from people from the IWA that it is good.

You are right that at the end of the day the government of the day will be judged upon that, and that is what is going to happen. But as far as the rhetoric is concerned, maybe we can tone that down a little bit and get down to the business we are here for. Of course that comes from all sides of this committee room as well. Anyway, sorry; I did go on a little bit.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Perhaps we should exclude that side.

Mr Wiseman: I think this little interchange has been rather interesting in terms of what it demonstrates. I think that process is absolutely crucial. I think what we as politicians are elected to do is to set up and put into place processes and systems that are fair and that will allow for public involvement, will allow people to put their opinions forward and be heard, and then for decisions to be made against the criteria within the process.

I have been a champion of this process all the way back to when I first described it before Metropolitan Toronto council back in 1988, about having criteria available so that everybody will know what the criteria are, so that when they come before whatever authority is using the criteria they will be able to hold the information up on the site and say, "Hey, this doesn't meet the criteria," or, "It does meet the criteria," but they will be able to judge it against the criteria.

I will tell you quite frankly that I am sick to death of politicians who think it is their role to stick their fingers into the process and meddle with the process. All that does is give you site P1 or site 6B. It does not give you any criteria that will stand alone against the valuation.

Mr Cousens: How about Keele Valley, Jim? Where was the process there?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Order, please.

Mr Wiseman: I am going to go on with what I was going to say. When it comes to the long-term sites they are looking for, no one I have been associated with in this battle over the last four years has ever said, "Not in my backyard." All they have said is that there must be a process that is equitable, fair and will allow decisions to be made against the judgements of those processes, against what is in the document and not by an Alan Tonks, a David Peterson or a Gary Herrema sitting behind closed doors and pointing to P1 and saying, "We'll put a landfill site here because the province happens to own the property." When you talk about politicians being involved in it, that is what comes to my mind. What we are establishing here is a process which will allow the individual taxpayer, the ratepayer, to come before the committee and judge something on the basis of criteria they have helped to produce.

For me to say I want to meddle in the system to the extent that I will choose where the landfill site goes, or use the political power I have or political influence to say --

Mr Cousens: No one has said that. What we're talking about is a full environmental assessment.

Mr Wiseman: That is what you are going to get.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Order, please.

Mr Wiseman: To say that politicians should come and meddle in the process to the point that P1 was is not acceptable.


Mr Cousens: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: That is not the kind of statement I was making and I think he is misunderstanding --

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Thank you, Mr Cousens. That is not a point of order. Members have an opportunity to comment on the matters at hand, including what other members say, and I am quite happy to put people on the list. Mr Wiseman.

Mr Wiseman: I have completed my comments, Mr Chairman, and look forward to --

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Thank you. Mr McClelland.

Mr McClelland: Just for the record and for what it is worth, I think Mr Cousens was talking about accountability. Meddling, I think, is a far cry from accountability. It seems to me that for Mr Wiseman to try and stretch the assertion of Mr Cousens that those of us elected to office to serve our constituents, in the entire province of Ontario, ought to be accountable and to say that implies meddling is one of the greatest leaps of semantic meandering I have ever seen.

Mr Wiseman: Probably second only to the one you are making now.

Mr McClelland: The fact of the matter is that Mr Cousens has said something pursuant to my amendment. We have a responsibility as members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make information available to the public dealing with spending thousands upon thousands, indeed millions of taxpayers' dollars. The parliamentary assistant says he is satisfied that there is ample opportunity for a reporting process.

My question, then, is to the parliamentary assistant. Bring forward your own amendment. Let's have it right now, and tell us what kind of reporting process you are going to have. If you do not like the one I have put forward, and presumably you will not like the one my colleague is going to put forward after you defeat my amendment, tell us what your amendment is going to be that will enshrine in the legislation the opportunity for the public of Ontario to be informed of what is taking place with their tax dollars. The Interim Waste Authority has said it is going to spend enormous amounts of money; it is not exactly sure how much. It knows millions, perhaps billions, of dollars will be involved ultimately.

We are saying people have a right to know what is happening with that money. We know up front that $17 million has been allocated and that may not be enough; it may be $20 million for the first year of operation. That is not small change, Mr O'Connor, and the people of Ontario ought to know what is happening with that money. It is part of your responsibility. It is not meddling; it is your responsibility as a member. It is the responsibility of the government of Ontario, of the Ministry of the Environment, to tell people where that money is going.

You do not like the reporting process we have suggested. You say you are prepared to report. If you are not afraid of it, enshrine it in the legislation. Tell us how you are going to do it and give us your amendment that will have some sort of reporting process. You have said you have no problems with it, that you have confidence in the IWA. So be it. Put it down on paper, then. Put your money where your mouth is. Write your amendment so that you are prepared to live by what you have just said you are prepared to do. If you are prepared to accept what the IWA is going to do, put it on paper. Put it in the act. Make them report. As Mr Cousens said, make them accountable.

You and I, sir, have the responsibility to let the people of our ridings and indeed in the entire province know what is happening with their money. It is not your money; it is not the IWA's money. It is the money of the people of Ontario. They have a right to know. Put it in writing. Give us your amendment.

I am prepared to give you a few minutes right now in a recess, if you want, so you can draft it with the assistance of your colleagues. Give us your amendment, but let the people of Ontario know what you are doing with their money.

Mr Cousens: Well said.

Mr O'Connor: Mr McClelland, thank you for the opportunity for a brief recess to talk about this, but I think that if we, all the committee members around this room, were realistically listening this morning when we heard the chairman of the Interim Waste Authority talk about the reporting process it is going through, there is no need for us to put in cumbersome roadblocks that are not going to allow it to do some of the work.

I do not know whether you have been through this or taken a look at this document. Let's take a look at it. There are many steps set out in it. There has been an awful lot of room for reporting, and each step goes through slowly. It talks about agriculture, the biological, the geological, the land use, the social, and each area that is going to be taken a look at has a process for them to go back to the people they originally consulted with.

Maybe what we should hear from the Interim Waste Authority is the number of meetings it has held throughout the GTA and perhaps the people who have responded, because I notice right in the first page of this book it has a 1-800 number put out to make sure we can get a fair comment by all the individuals who are concerned about this.

You are right that we should be accountable for it. We are about as accountable as we possibly can be without making things any more cumbersome. I do not think we need to dwell on that, but maybe we can hear from the Interim Waste Authority one more time about the process, step by step, it is going through in accounting.

Ms Rush: As I indicated before, section 5 of the document outlines the public consultation component. In that, it talks about the publications and documents that will be released through the process. The first one is EA document 1, which is the document we have that talked about the process and the criteria we were to use, the criteria for steps 1 through 4, which allowed us to go from the site search area to the long list of sites. It also indicated the process we intended to use.

In consulting with the public we had 28 open houses. We had 12 workshops. To date, including this document and a newsletter we have produced, there have been over 15,000 documents or newsletters sent out to various people. We also have a 1-800 line, as you mentioned. We have advertised in the local press for each of the meetings we were going to hold.

I can repeat that the next document will be EA document 2, and that will contain the response to all the comments we have heard in terms of the process and the criteria. EA document 2 as well will apply those criteria and identify what is known as the long list.

The next document will be the same sort of thing, the response to all the public consultations which will have occurred in that period and a further review and refinement of criteria to get to the short list. The document after that will do the same thing, go through the same process to come to the preferred sites. The final documents will be the conceptual design for the preferred site and the preparation of the environmental assessment overview. Those are outlined in some detail in the first document I described, and we will continue the process.

Also, as we get further in the process, our availability as an authority to the public will be increased. We will be opening local offices as the process gets more and more refined.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr McClelland has a brief supplementary that he wants to ask and I thought we could cover that. Mr Wiseman wishes to speak, and so does Mr Cousens. I am conscious again, just as a matter of fact for the committee members, that Mr Cousens also has an amendment somewhat similar in nature, and possibly after he has spoken it may be the will of the members that we vote on this particular amendment and move on. I of course leave that to the good judgement of the members of the committee.


Mr McClelland: I simply want to say the following for the record. I do not see a reporting mechanism involving the importance of the issue before us as a cumbersome roadblock of any sort whatsoever. I think the least we can expect is for the government to be forthcoming and open. If it has the confidence in the process that it claims to have, surely it would have no fear of putting that forward in some sort of prescribed format available to the public and tabled with members of the Legislative Assembly.

If there is something they are not sure about and there are some uncertainties, I can understand the parliamentary assistant trying to hedge his bets by saying, "Well, we'll depend on the process and talk to you about how many people we've talked to." That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about a report that among other things sets out moneys received and moneys expended on behalf of the people of Ontario. That to me is not a cumbersome roadblock. It is simply something that admits very plainly. "We are a government that believes in our process. We have nothing to fear, we have nothing to hide and we are going to make it available to the people of Ontario in a very plain and forthright manner." If that is not the case, then I understand why the parliamentary assistant is saying, "Yes, but we'll hedge our bets and we'll handle it the way we're handling it."

I say again to the parliamentary assistant, if you have nothing to fear, then come forward with your own amendment. Put forward how you are going to make some factual information, including financial reporting data, available to the people of Ontario. Quit playing games with the people of Ontario. Let them know where you stand and let them know what you want to do.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to make a little comment about the process for the viewers, because they are probably the only ones listening.

The process for reporting will be included in Bill 143. It is included in Bill 143 when the Interim Waste Authority is set up as a crown corporation, because when the authority is set up as a crown corporation, it gives it the legislative right to exist. That means what it is doing, including this document on the draft report, becomes legitimized through law and allows it to continue its work. Then within this document, as Jan Rush has already indicated a couple of times, section 5 indicates what the process is.

For my constituents who may be interested, the 1-800 number is 1-800-661-9294. It will allow them to phone where they can receive information updates and leave messages or speak to the members of the Dillon team that is doing the work. They will also be allowed to come to public consultation meetings -- in fact I have already attended three, one in Durham-York and two in Durham -- which allow them to ask questions rather freely, without any kind of structured format. The members of the team are freely available to discuss any issue for almost any length of time, if they feel the need to, and to have input. These meetings have been taking place.

At the end of all this, the information will be put into public libraries. People can access the information there and continue in the public consultation process. Newsletters will be sent out, and these will inform the public what stage the Interim Waste Authority is at. There will be workshops. There are liaison committees and a whole host of other ways the public can be involved in the criteria site selection search.

Now, they say to be accountable. In the long run, whether this process of finding a landfill site is successful or not, we as elected members are going to be accountable. We as a government have decided this is the process we want to use to find the long-term sites and we have decided we are not going to use previous processes or previous ways of doing it. So we have put our political reputations on the line, because if this process does not work, to be quite blunt, there will be no landfill sites. There will be a huge crisis, a huge problem which would come back to haunt us at election time.

I can tell you that in terms of what I would like to defend in front of my constituents, I am much more prepared to defend a process that has the criteria clearly defined, clearly set out and has allowed the maximum amount of consultation and public participation than I am to try to defend the previous process, which my constituents found indefensible and which is why they voted for me.

Hey, let's be really up front. If you want political accountability, ultimately the process is going to be politically accountable. We will be held up as to whether or not we put into place a process that was fair, equitable and honest and led to a reasonable determination of a landfill site.

The last thing I would want to do is to go out into my community and tell them I had stuck my finger in the pot and started to stir it to find the landfill site because of the fact that I was just elected. That is not what I deem to be the role of a politician, to meddle in that kind of micro way in terms of determining the fates of people.

For me the process has to have criteria against which everything can be judged, and that is what the Interim Waste Authority document does. When I first read this document, I guess it must be pretty close to eight or nine months ago, I was extremely pleased because it contains within it a great deal of the philosophy and a great deal of the approach that I said must be followed if we are going to be successful in finding a landfill site.

I am going to say that I think it is accountable. I think the people, the electorate, have a wonderful opportunity to be involved in the process of decision-making as they have never been involved before. I look forward to working with my constituents when the long list of sites comes out in Durham and to helping them come to an equitable and fair resolution of the landfill crisis, which is too long overdue in terms of being solved.

Mr Cousens: The new rights of process that Mr Wiseman is so proud of are going to be reduced rights from what you have under the laws of today. You have to look at section 18. This act will take away all rights as they now exist under the Municipal Act, the Planning Act and the regional municipality acts. It will override any conditions applicable to any system or site. It will impose any condition that a regional, metropolitan or area municipality might have imposed under an act referred to earlier.

I have never heard of a system where so many rights are being removed. You can talk all you want. People will be able to go and have all the conversations they want with government or with these consultations that my friend, Mr O'Connor, talks about. You can talk and talk and talk; the power of what you are talking about is taken away. It all now resides with another group, the Interim Waste Authority, or appointees of the ministry. It is removing those rights. For that reason I will fight this bill. There are only a few days left to fight it. I disagree so strongly with what Mr Wiseman has said because that is the fundamental human right that is being taken away from the people of Ontario with Bill 143.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): If I might then call the amendment, shall the amendment carry?


The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Under the circumstances, there is a 5-5 vote and it falls upon the Chair. The tradition is that the Chair sides with the status quo, and being 5-5, that amendment would not carry, so the amendment fails.

Motion negatived.


The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr Cousens moves that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Waste management strategy

"2.1(1) The corporation shall within four months after this act comes into force, complete a waste management strategy for the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the regional municipality of Durham, the regional municipality of Peel and the regional municipality of York.

"Environmental assessment

"(2) Before the end of April, 1993, the corporation shall submit an environmental assessment for the strategy referred to in subsection (1) in according with subsection 5(1) of the Environmental Assessment Act."

Mr Cousens: The first part of my amendment is very similar to the one that was just defeated and so I will not repeat it for the sake of the time of the committee, to allow us to move quickly along to other amendments. On the other hand, the second part of our amendment is that within a year the Interim Waste Authority shall have selected one or more landfill sites within the greater Toronto area for consideration that would be brought before the Environmental Assessment Board.

The environmental assessment shall consider all alternatives to landfill sites within the greater Toronto area, including the possibility of transportation of waste, which is subsection 5(1) of the Environmental Assessment Act. That would mean there would be some room for Metropolitan Toronto to look at other ways of disposing of its waste rather than just having to have it for Keele Valley or Britannia or Whitevale or Rouge Valley or some of the other sites that will probably be named by this government.

What I am really doing is allowing the government to have the option to open up other places for consideration for a landfill site outside the greater Toronto area -- a very subtle way of doing it. Unfortunately I have to explain it so that the New Democrats will now understand what it is all about, and then probably vote against it. It is one way of handling the disposal of waste so that whenever we are looking at a landfill site within the greater Toronto area, we then have an option if there is a better site outside it that we can look at. Rather than have walls on our thinking and blinkers on our eyes, we would be in a position to look beyond that.

I see it as an amendment with good intent and hope there is some support for it.

Mr McClelland: I too share, interestingly enough, Mr Cousens's sentiment with respect to this amendment, considering the first part is in some ways similar to the motion I moved that was defeated, although I think it does something a little bit different. It goes beyond what I suggested in one respect, in terms of reporting mechanism, but also puts upon the Interim Waste Authority a responsibility to come up with a waste management strategy for the greater Toronto area within a four-month time frame.

I think that bears some comment inasmuch as one of the criticisms we have heard about this legislation, from municipalities particularly, is that they are going to be left with the responsibility, in all probability, of carrying out the operation of a system put in place by another body, that system being the Interim Waste Authority.

That being the case, the municipalities would also like to know what other items will come to bear on their waste management policy and their funding, their tax base, their personnel requirements -- any myriad of things the municipalities want to know to be able to conduct their responsibilities in a businesslike manner.

Accordingly, I think this particular section that requires the cooperation, the involvement, in fact lays the responsibility at the feet of the IWA to have that strategy brought forward, is very commendable. I congratulate Mr Cousens for coming up with this idea.

I think what it does is it ties in what is essentially one of the basic principles the minister referred to yesterday. I do not happen to share it, but the principle basically is saying, "We're going to take over and we're going to dictate how you shall operate." But what it does is take it a step further. It says: "Having presumed that you're going to dictate to municipalities how to operate the waste management, we'll also accept the responsibility of providing a comprehensive waste management strategy. In other words, we're not going to leave some pieces with you and we'll pick up the pieces that we want and we'll send you the bill."

What Mr Cousens's motion is saying is that if you want to run with the ball, you take the whole ball of wax and deal with it. I think that is commendable.

The second part of Mr Cousens's amendment says basically what has been a point of contention throughout this whole process. The question remains, does this government believe in environmental assessment or does it not? If it does, it will have no difficulty with subsection (2) of this amendment. If they do have some difficulty with proceeding with a full environmental assessment, they are not going to support this.

It will be interesting to see the outcome and see how the government votes on this particular amendment. We have heard much lipservice paid to commitment to principles of environmental integrity in terms of site selection. Here is the proof right here. Prepare to come forward with a site and refer it under subsection 5(1) of the Environmental Assessment Act. Let it stand or fall on its own merits. If you believe in the Environmental Assessment Act, there will be no problem with this amendment. I will be curious to see how the government responds to Mr Cousens's motion.

Mr Wiseman: I totally disagree with the assumptions the member has made. There are a number of things about this section. I was not really going to speak on this until Mr McClelland provoked it.

What this amendment appears to be trying to do is to broaden the mandate of the Interim Waste Authority to that of master planning for waste management and to have it do it in four months. That is an impossibility. That simply is beyond what we envisage the Interim Waste Authority doing and therefore this is not acceptable. The other thing is that it also appears they want the IWA to be responsible for the 3Rs planning as well. That is not what the IWA is there for; that is what the waste reduction office is there for. They are separate for very good reasons and we heard the reasons. That is because you cannot have one doing the job of the other or doing both jobs because they are not mutually exclusive.

I am going to leave it at that. We will not be supporting this amendment.

Mr Cousens: Is it not funny, four months? I remember the days. Margaret Marland yesterday made some comments about how Ruth Grier, who was then critic for Environment, had answers for things and could quickly come up with solutions. Now that she is minister -- she has been there for well over a year and a half -- we still do not have much of a solution. We are saying four months to try to do something and put it together. When she has the resources she has and the kind of skilled people, either on staff or on consulting, and the millions of dollars that are being spent, four months is really very possible.

Mr McClelland: Change it to six.

Mr Cousens: If we want to just argue the time, I like your suggestion, Carman. If six months is what you need, I would have that as a friendly amendment. We could change it to six months if that is the agreement Mr Wiseman would like to have.

Mr Wiseman: This amendment goes in the entirely wrong direction.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Are you formally amending your amendment?

Mr Cousens: I thought there might be some hope there but I sense there is not.

Mr O'Connor: I think four months to come up with a complete waste management strategy is pretty optimistic. I would like you to go down and speak to the mayor of Kingston and suggest that she could possibly come up with it for the problems they have within four months. The process is much more involved than that.

Mr Ramsay: They don't have a problem.

Mr O'Connor: They have a problem. The whole purpose behind this is to talk about local responsibility. If we are ever going to change the mindset that we have on responsibility, it has to be treated as close to the source as possible. That is something that is stated in the principles of this. The minister spoke about that in her opening statement.

One other area that kind of intrigues me is when you suggest that the IWA would be given authority to go beyond the GTA. You sound like you are referring to how they might have powers over municipalities far beyond what is even suggested.

Mr Wiseman has touched on an awful lot of important areas around this. We have to make sure that the defined powers as they are in the bill are a credible process. To make it more cumbersome by what you have put here in this amendment I do not think is supportable at all.


Mr McClelland: That is a very curious statement by the parliamentary assistant. We had of course an amendment that would have recognized the reality that the implications of this act are for the entire province, and now he is saying: "Mr Cousens' amendment would yet again recognize that reality. It would override some of the powers of municipalities and that would be a problem for them."

Just looking to make sure I have the right act here, section 17 of the act talks about the Planning Act, and that will not apply. An act or regulation or anything designated under this act and the Ontario Municipal Board Act will not apply. The statement by the parliamentary assistant that municipalities would be concerned about overriding their legislative authority is beyond curious; it is almost absurd in light of what this act does. What this act says to municipalities is: "I'm sorry. You don't have any authority left. We're going to tell you how to do it and when to do it and the only thing you're going to get to do is pay the tab." I find that statement remarkable, to say the least.

The four-month statement, as Mr Cousens said -- I just hasten to add, it was not too, too long ago, less than two years ago, that the now government had all the answers almost immediately. It was absolutely no problem to come up with the solution for every problem, whether it be environmental or whatever, just basically at the drop of a hat.

I think Mr Cousens is being very generous. To hear the rhetoric of the now minister from two years ago, the problems could have all been solved. In fact, I remember her saying, "Give me the ministry and I'll have the problem solved within a year." I do not have Hansard in front of me, but I assure you, Mr Chairman, that I sat in the House and listened during an emergency debate where the minister said that if she were minister, she would have the problem solved and dealt with in its entirety within a year. I think we heard something about the food banks that similarly said, "Give us a year and we'll sort that one out too."

We do not understand why four months is not enough, but I would be prepared to go with six months or whatever they think they need to come up with all the answers that were so readily available not too, too long ago.

Mrs Mathyssen: I would like to say that I am fascinated by the opposition's belief that it can turn that four- to six-year waste management master planning process into six months. I would suggest that they have a future with Mr Doug Henning and the maharishi, because it is magic.

I would like to ask the opposition members if they have really given this proposal some consideration, because it seems to me they are proposing taking even more power away from the municipalities. It is the municipalities that are responsible for waste management master plans. Have they consulted with municipalities about this? Are they prepared to answer that?

Mr Cousens: I am pleased to answer that and I appreciate it. In fact, if you read the next amendment I have, it leads it forward, which would mean that over the long term we would seek to remove certain powers this government will give to the Interim Waste Authority, and that is, "The corporation shall not operate or manage any landfill waste disposal sites," which will be putting far more power back on the municipality.

Certainly in the planning process, when I saw what Mr Ferguson and Metro Toronto came and talked about and I saw what Eldred King from the region of York had to say, I saw all those areas as having gone a long way through the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee and the other agencies that have been established over the five years. They had a good head start on how they were going to solve the long-term landfill problems. In fact, on the one in particular, Ruth Grier, when she was minister, in January, just a year ago, was suggesting to Metro, "Go ahead and keep looking at the rail haul option for looking after disposal." So those were options that were really well under way until the minister, during the course of the year, changed her mind on it. That really was an example where she was moving towards the municipality having control over it and then she withdrew on it.

My desire is that this whole process will involve each of these municipalities and that we all begin to become part of the solution rather than part of the problem. In spite of the fact that other parts of this bill preclude consideration of other parts outside the greater Toronto area, my desire in this bill is that this strategy that would be developed would be in the spirit of the earlier developments where we had the municipalities coming together under the greater Toronto area trying to find a solution together on it.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Can I put the question then? Shall the amendment carry? Those in favour?

Motion negatived.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr Cousens moves that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Limitation on the corporation

"2.2. The corporation shall not operate or manage any landfill waste disposal sites."

Mr Cousens: I am referring to the Interim Waste Authority being the organization that is going to be responsible for the development, the finding, the research, the environmental assessment that goes into obtaining a landfill site. What I would like to do is just confirm the general intent Ms Rush referred to this morning on earlier questions, that in fact it is not the intent of the Interim Waste Authority to manage and run these sites. Therefore, what this amendment very simply does is put into writing, into fact and into law that it would limit the powers of the Interim Waste Authority to the very objective of searching for and establishing waste sites in the greater Toronto area, but the Interim Waste Authority shall not manage or operate these sites as that would intrude on the area of municipal responsibility. I really appreciate the way Ms Mathyssen earlier raised that question about municipal responsibility. This would be a way in which the municipalities would be able to have some control over their destiny.

I think that the ambiguous role of the Interim Waste Authority is further justification for the release of the ministry discussion papers before third reading of Bill 143. If we had the municipal affairs discussion paper on statutory authority, it would give some directives on the future role of the Interim Waste Authority. Since that is not available right now, we are in a position instead to at least carry forward on the intent that government members and staff had indicated was really the future direction of the Interim Waste Authority. This amendment would mean that the Interim Waste Authority is not going to operate or manage any landfill waste disposal sites. It makes it very clear then that the money that comes from those sites does not go back to the government coffers, this $12 billion that the member for Durham West was talking about earlier, that in fact this is going to stay at the local municipal level.

Otherwise what is going to happen is that there is a high probability that the government will just not get around to following through on those kind intentions of letting the municipalities run their own disposal sites. Then the moneys will not go back to those local municipalities. It is a cash cow. Mr Wiseman said $12 billion will be coming into the coffers over the next number of years. Are those moneys going to go to the province or to the municipalities that are really paying the bill? I think this amendment should be a very simple one for the New Democrats to accept. It is certainly the way they have been talking and I look forward to their support on this.

Mr O'Connor: I think the member for Markham has raised an interesting point again, as he always seems to be able to in the committee process. I believe when we heard this morning from the chairman of the IWA, Jan Rush, she was talking about the process of negotiations that has to take place between the IWA and the region. I think we have to be realistic about the process through negotiations. No one knows exactly what is going to happen until the negotiations are complete. That is why, the way the legislation is laid out, I do not think we could support something like this, because it would preclude any sort of negotiations. I think there was to be a negotiation point and a process that have to be followed through. I cannot support this amendment, but I do appreciate the interesting points he has raised.

Mr McClelland: May I ask the parliamentary assistant then if it is reasonable to expect and if the possibility exists that the Interim Waste Authority may then in fact operate or manage landfill sites, in which case it would no longer, I presume, be an interim waste authority, but rather be a permanent waste authority for the province, or at least interim for 20 years. Is that a fair assumption? Based on the fact that you are not prepared to support Mr Cousens's amendment, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Interim Waste Authority may in fact operate and manage landfill sites. Is that true? Let's take this a step at a time.

Mr O'Connor: You are trying to change it around such that you are assuming the government plans on taking over all waste management. That is not the case at all.


Mr McClelland: No, I am asking the question. I am not trying to prove anything, Mr O'Connor.

Mr O'Connor: Okay. The Interim Waste Authority has been given the mandate to search for long-term landfill sites in the regional municipality of Durham and York, Metro and Peel regions. There are going to be negotiations taking place with the regional municipalities to allow them then to assume responsibility for waste management. In fact, there is a great deal of cooperation that takes place between the government and the regional municipalities around waste management. Part of the problem we had in getting to the point where we would come up with that long-term solution was the need for transfer stations and studies to take place, and we saw an awful lot of cooperation from the municipalities. There is no reason for us to believe at this point in time that the IWA would be taking over any sort of waste management from the regional municipalities. The regional municipalities will go through a process with the IWA.

If you again want to get some clarification from the chair of the Interim Waste Authority on that point, I am more than willing to sit through and listen to it one more time. The process has to be negotiated through. Until negotiations are complete, I am not willing to say whether the municipalities are willing to accept that responsibility. It is a process that has to be negotiated. It could very well be that the province does end up -- but it is not at all the intention at this time.

Mr McClelland: All right, I appreciate that. It is fairly forthcoming, all things considered, that you are saying on the record there is a possibility the province may end up in fact operating and managing landfill sites. That could be the outcome of Bill 143, that the Interim Waste Authority, the corporation, would then ultimately become the arm. That could fall out of this process then.

Mr O'Connor: Of course, it has to go through the negotiation process as well.

Mr McClelland: That negotiation process, I presume, would be similar to the negotiation process up to this point in time where the province has said, "This is how it is going to happen."

Mr O'Connor: We talked pretty extensively, I thought, about the process and involvement. If you want me to talk about some of the involvement municipalities have had in coming up with even the draft criteria, there have been briefings to municipal councils around the issue. All information that it has been possible to make available on what the IWA has been doing for the municipalities has been readily accessible for them. I have no reason to believe the negotiations are not going to be a reasonable process, as all the processes up to this point have been.

Mr McClelland: I find that interesting. Mr O'Connor, you were sitting here when people from AMO and municipal politicians were here who said that the only reason they found out about Bill 143 was by accident. The president of AMO said it was because of somebody on the Liberal research staff who sent them a copy of the bill. That is how they found out about it. So it would be that same kind of consultation you are talking about.

Mr O'Connor: Would you like to read the name of the act?

Mr McClelland: That is fine. I appreciate that point being very clear on the record, that the municipalities can expect the same kind of communication and the same kind of negotiation. I am sure they look forward to that.

Ms Haeck: I really think there has been some very purposeful obfuscation on the part of Mr McClelland.

Mrs Marland: What is the word you used?

Ms Haeck: "Obfuscation," clouding of the issue. In fact, what Mr O'Connor was saying was that negotiations will be going on with the municipalities, and the choice was made to read into this that somehow the IWA would now be running all the landfill sites in Ontario. I would like to turn to Ms Rush and ask her to explain. Possibly Mr McClelland would be interested in actually listening to her explanation about how the negotiations have proceeded so far and how they will proceed in the future.

Ms Rush: It is my understanding the government's intention will be to proceed with negotiations. I am not sure exactly who the agents will be. We have not been involved in negotiations to date, partly because of the issues surrounding this bill. I believe negotiations will begin as many of the other items that are necessary pieces of this puzzle come forward from the Ministry of the Environment, as has been indicated to the committee. So I cannot add too much at this point.

Ms Haeck: But it is a negotiating process with the municipalities as far as who will ultimately operate and manage the various -- the IWA is not the --

Ms Rush: That is right. The IWA is the agent of the government to undertake the mandate as described in this bill.

Ms Haeck: So it is not as Mr McClelland -- I must admit I am putting words in your mouth. Mr McClelland indicated the IWA is going to be the permanent runner, the permanent manager of all these landfill sites, and I suspect that is not really your personal intention or the IWA's.

Ms Rush: In the incorporation, under the Business Corporations Act, our objects do not use the word "operate." Our objects talk about "search for, select and establish." As has been indicated, that was a deliberate statement so the field would be as open as possible for negotiations between the government and the regional municipalities.

Mrs Marland: I think when we get to have the privilege of reading today's Hansard, we will probably find one of the more pertinent statements on record by the parliamentary assistant when he very accurately stated that there had been consultations with municipalities around this bill and the proposals in this bill. I think that is absolutely right. There have been consultations around the issue and the subject matter of this bill, and that is the concern the municipalities and everyone else who is impacted by this bill have been stating.

As we all know, as we sit here, we would not even be in this forum if it had been the government's will that had been followed. It was not the government's wish that we sit here on television and go through this bill clause by clause. It was not the government's wish that we have open public hearings at which we could invite the public to participate and state their questions or their concerns or their support. How interesting that the major concerns with this legislation are from those very municipalities that are going to have to work within this legislation. So obviously, when you say there had been consultations around, you are absolutely right, Mr O'Connor, they were around the issue.

I think it is pathetic when we look at the power this bill gives to the authority and, obviously, logically to the government. Even to "search for, select and establish," which were the words Ms Rush just used, is pretty scary, is it not, because the government is going to search for, select and establish. It is going to do everything except pay for it. It is going to search for, select and establish. It is going to decide arbitrarily what kind of waste management every municipality will have in this province, whether or not it can afford it, whether or not it is a high enough standard for the wishes of the people who live within that municipality, or whether or not it is totally 180 degrees in the opposite direction, which is what we know is the case in one municipality in northern Ontario.

What we are dealing with here is a typical example of Big Brother having the power and saying: "This is how it will be. Never mind, folks, that the lowly taxpayer is going to have to pay for the policies and direction of this government under this bill." That is the real scary part: all the power, but no cost; all the direction, but only the taxpayer pays the bill.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall the amendment carry? Those in favour please raise your hand. Those opposed?

Motion negatived.


Section 3:

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I believe there are several government amendments.

Mr O'Connor moves that subsection 3(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "For the purpose of establishing landfill waste disposal sites" in the first and second lines and substituting "For the purpose of establishing, operating, managing, altering or improving landfill waste disposal sites referred to in subsection 12(1)."

Mr O'Connor: The purpose of this is for the expropriation necessary when establishing the disposal sites as we get to that part in the process.

Mr McClelland: I note for the record again that we are using the words "operating" and "managing," words that the Conservative amendment just defeated sought to exclude. That motion, I remind you, said that the corporation would not operate or manage. We have here the power, in terms of expropriation, "For the purpose of...operating, managing." I do not want to presume anything, but I think it is fairly evident that we are moving from a possibility that might be remote to one that has actually been set out here.

It should not go unnoticed, for the record, that this is the case. This government motion, at least potentially -- and in fairness I say "potentially" -- contemplates the operation and management of landfill sites whether they are existing or new ones. I want to make that point clear. We are moving from a sort of reluctant admission to a possibility, something a little bit more concrete that actually uses the very words my colleague Mr Cousens tried to exclude in the amendment just defeated.

Mrs Marland: I would be happy to accept this motion if it had one more word in the sentence, "For the purpose of establishing, operating, managing, altering or improving landfill waste disposal sites referred to in subsection," etc. If we had another word in there such as "staffing" and "financing," I think that would be fine.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): One word or two words?

Mrs Marland: Actually, two, Mr Chairman. Is it in order for me to move a verbal amendment to this government motion?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): If you could put pen to paper very quickly after setting it out verbally, it could be considered.

Mrs Marland: Yes. It is simply inserting two words or actually --

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Could you again just tell us where you want to insert?

Mrs Marland: I could do without staffing and just insert the word "financing": "For the purpose of establishing, operating, managing, altering or improving." I guess maybe after "managing," the word "financing" would be the amendment I would make.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Just to make sure the Chair understands, it is, "For the purpose of establishing, operating, managing, financing, altering or improving landfill waste disposal sites referred to in subsection 12(1)".

Mrs Marland: Right.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Okay. Perhaps you could just write that down and pass it up. I know we have it but the --


The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Okay. We will do it. Could you then sign it?

Mrs Marland: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Is there any discussion on the amendment to the amendment? I know there are some others who wish to speak but --

Mrs Marland: Could I explain my amendment? Obviously the purpose of my amendment is to address the concern we have been talking about here today, that Bill 143 is giving all the power to the government and all the bills to the taxpayers. I think it makes imminent good sense and logic that if the government is going to establish, operate, manage, alter or improve landfill waste disposal sites, with all that power and all that clout, it should be willing to finance it. Otherwise, there are no options left for the municipalities and there certainly are no options left for the taxpayers.

If the government wants to take over waste management in this province, let it do so, but let it pay for it. It just does not make sense for them to decide that they are going to have all this control and then turn around to the 843 municipalities in this province and say: "This is what thou shalt do, but we no pay. You shall pay." It is just totally unacceptable. I think the amendment would make it at least fair. If they are going to cut the cloth, let them buy the cloth as well.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Ms Mathyssen, would you care to comment on the amendment to the amendment or do you wish to wait?

Mrs Mathyssen: I was going to speak to the original motion.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I will keep you on the list and come back to you when we get there.

Mr O'Connor: What I was going to do at this point in time was get someone from legal services of the Ministry of the Environment to comment on the amendment to the amendment. Maybe we should wait until Mr McClelland has had an opportunity to speak a little bit about it. Jim Jackson is from legal services.

Mr Jackson: The section deals with the power to expropriate. The amendment to the amendment does appear to be a little bit out of context. I do not think the corporation would be acquiring land for the purpose of financing.

Mr McClelland: I appreciate the explanation in terms of how the wording fits in the context of the section. There may be a need to change the language appropriately, but the intent of Mrs Marland's amendment is to ensure that those initiatives taken by the Interim Waste Authority are in fact paid for by the Interim Waste Authority, which at the end of the day is the province rather than the municipalities, which as we have said countless times are being told what to do and will only have the opportunity of paying the bill.

I think I know what the answer is going to be from the parliamentary assistant. The parliamentary assistant will say, "Well, it will be negotiated." The operative word of the day, this week's word for the New Democrats, in fact the word oft-times repeated, is "negotiate," that the whole world and everything that transpires is subject to negotiation.

I guess that is how everything operates. As part and parcel of that is consistency, and if the intent of the specific language of the amendment does not meet the intent, I think we can work on that. The intent is to have the government say that it is accepting responsibility in dictating to municipalities, that the government of Ontario will pay the bill rather than having it simply dictate and let the municipalities pay the bill. To the extent that the sentiment or the intent of the amendment is brought forward by Mrs Marland, I support that sentiment.

Mrs Marland: Maybe I could ask Mr Jackson, the solicitor, this: You said that this section, subsection 12(1), is pertaining to expropriation. Was that your answer?

Mr Jackson: I am sorry; subsection 3(1)?

Mrs Marland: You said my amendment would not be in order because the subsection 3(1) we are dealing with here, in terms of the change the government is making to its own bill, deals with expropriation.

Mr Jackson: Subsection 3(1) of the bill does deal with expropriation.

Mrs Marland: Yes.

Mr Jackson: The amendment the government is moving makes it clear that in connection with the acquisition of land for the sites that will be operated by municipalities or whoever it is -- the negotiations end up with the sites being operated -- that can include the acquisition of land that is needed for the purposes of operating and managing the sites. Your motion indicated that it would also cover the acquisition of land for the purposes of financing the waste disposal sites. That just did not seem to fit into the context of subsection 3(1) of the bill, with or without the amendment.


Mrs Marland: The subject of acquisition, either through expropriation or direct purchase, still involves a financial responsibility on the part of one party or the other. I am wondering how you would suggest that for the purposes of this amendment we can address the concern, if land is expropriated or if land has to be acquired through direct purchase or expropriation, of who pays for it.

Mr Jackson: The Expropriations Act already deals with that. The expropriating authority is required by the Expropriations Act to pay, so if the new corporation expropriates or enters into an agreement of purchase and sale, the corporation is the one that pays the price.

I think you are possibly dealing with a subject that may or may not be in order in the context of this particular subsection; that is, if the corporation enters into an agreement with a municipality or somebody else for that person to operate or subsequently own and operate the landfill sites, whether that agreement can provide for recovering costs incurred by the corporation and obtaining approval for the sites. That appears to be something that is different than what subsection 3(1) of the bill is dealing about.

Mrs Marland: From your answer, then, if we are dealing with expropriation, we do not need to worry about financing, because as you have explained, the act states who provides the money.

Mr Jackson: That is right.

Mrs Marland: But in the same argument that you are giving, if we deal just with straight acquisition, we are not talking about who pays for it.

Mr Jackson: Yes. Under the common law, if you enter into an agreement that is just a matter of contract law with somebody to buy his land, it is a normal part of the agreement that the purchaser pays the vendor.

Mrs Marland: Yes, I understand that. But in this case what we are dealing with is a level of government, through the Interim Waste Authority, is it not? Is this not pertaining to the corporation?

Mr Jackson: Yes, the purchaser would be the corporation, if the corporation purchased land, the Interim Waste Authority.

Mrs Marland: So are you saying that in this case we would not have to worry about it being a financial burden to the municipalities?

Mr Jackson: No, I was talking about the bill.

Mrs Marland: Right.

Mr Jackson: It has already been discussed earlier today that the issue of who pays the costs is being debated at great length, but if you are talking about who pays the price for the land under the agreement of purchase and sale, it is the person who enters into the agreement of purchase and sale as purchaser. Not very many vendors would enter into an agreement of purchase and sale that did not provide they got paid.

Mrs Marland: I think I understand that, but I would like to give you an example because it would be great to have this cleared up. In the case of the region of Peel, where the Interim Waste Authority is out looking to "establish" and all these other words a new site in Peel, are you saying that because the Interim Waste Authority has the mandate to do that, it also has to be the purchaser of the site?

Mr Jackson: If they do not purchase the site, then the land is still going to belong to whoever happens to be the owner of it.

Mrs Marland: That is right.

Mr Jackson: They likely will not have an approval to establish and operate a site. The corporation will have an approval to establish the site. I expect, by that time, the negotiations would have been completed because we are talking about some interval of time some years off, and there would have been an agreement establishing who was going to actually carry out the operation of the site.

Mrs Marland: This becomes very interesting because now we have the Interim Waste Authority with this mandate to establish a site in the region of Peel, for example. In order to establish the site, they may have to acquire the land. I would like to know how the Interim Waste Authority is going to acquire the land -- I am just talking about one site -- if it has only $17 million with which to do all the consulting and the research and everything else leading up to the acquisition. Suddenly, when they decide this will be the site, is that the point at which they are going to turn around to the region of Peel and say, "Look, this is going to be the site, and we want to acquire it, but you have to give us the money"? How are they going to acquire these sites? Where are they going to get the money from?

Mr Jackson: The $17 million, as was mentioned earlier, is the line item in the current year's budget.

Mrs Marland: Right.

Mr Jackson: Not all of it will be expended during the current fiscal year because of the delay in the corporation's work.

Mrs Marland: Right.

Mr Jackson: Whatever line item is in next year's budget and the year after next year's budget, the two or three or four years it takes to get to having an approval, that will cover whatever the corporation's expenditures are.

Mrs Marland: Right, but the thing is, at the same time that the Interim Waste Authority is looking for a site in Peel, it is looking for other sites, as within its mandate. My question is very straightforward: When they find the site, who is going to pay for it? Is the Interim Waste Authority going to buy those sites, or is it going to say, under this bill, "We say this is where the site will be, but we have X number of dollars left in our line budget designation," which you have just referred to? Are they going to go to the provincial Treasurer and say, "We need more money to buy this site," or are they going to turn around to the taxpayers in the region and say, if it is the region of Peel, "Regional council, we need the money to buy this site"?

Mr Jackson: The corporation does not have any power to levy on the residents of the region or the regional municipality or the local municipalities. Its only source of money is loans from the Treasurer of Ontario, from the consolidated revenue fund.

Mrs Marland: So is the answer that those sites will be acquired by the provincial treasury?

Mr Jackson: Yes, by the treasury advancing money to the corporation by way of loan.

Mrs Marland: That is great. That is good news, because what is really going to be interesting will be, after they acquire those sites, when they then have to pass another piece of legislation in order to get the money back from the area municipality. But anyway, your answer is fair, and that is interesting. So now we do have the province establishing the future of landfill sites and paying for them. Things are getting a little bit better than they were. Mr Ramsay, you wanted a supplementary, did you?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I also have Mr Wiseman. Mr Wiseman, was your question on the same subject?

Mr Wiseman: My question might clarify things really quickly, if I understood what you were saying. If we were to put financing in this section of the bill, and it would say, "For the purpose of establishing a landfill waste disposal site etc and financing it," would that not then allow the Interim Waste Authority to expropriate land wherever it wanted, take it, flip it and then sell it to finance the landfill site?

Mr Jackson: Yes, I assume it was not the intention of the motion that the corporation speculate in land in order to make money.


Mr Wiseman: That would certainly go against the other section of the bill later on that says you cannot expropriate land until you have a certificate of approval.

Mr Jackson: It would be a very short period of time in which to speculate.

Mr Ramsay: Just getting back to the discussion Mrs Marland had with counsel, we are really talking about the short-term financing of the purchase of the land, but of course it is the intention of the corporation to pass on all costs to the region.

Mr Jackson: The government has made numerous policy announcements to the effect that the people who produce waste should pay the full costs of disposing of the waste.

Mrs Marland: With the explanation from Mr Jackson -- please correct me if I am wrong -- the power given to the Interim Waste Authority is not only, under this section, to establish, operate, manage etc but, under other sections of the bill, the power given to the Interim Waste Authority to establish future landfill sites also includes the financial acquisition of those sites.

Mr Jackson: That is right, yes.

Mrs Marland: If that is the case and it is now very clear that the Interim Waste Authority is going to pay for these sites, then I am happy to withdraw this amendment.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): That amendment to the amendment is then withdrawn after an interesting discussion and we return to the amendment. Just so we do not get too confused, that means we are back to the original government amendment.

Mrs Mathyssen: I will be brief. I think there is some misunderstanding on the other side regarding this amendment. Specifically, this amendment does not give the IWA the right to operate; it gives the IWA the power to expropriate the land that will be operated as a landfill site. So any fears that the opposition may have had should be laid to rest. Clearly the IWA is merely given power to expropriate land and not to operate a landfill site.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): To complete this, having amended subsection 3(1), shall subsection 3(1) now carry as amended? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall subsection 3(2) carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Subsection 3(2) carries.

Mr O'Connor moves that subsection 3(3) of the bill be amended by striking out the word "approve" in the first line and substituting "give approval under the Expropriations Act for."

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Do you wish to explain the purpose of that?

Mr O'Connor: The purpose of this is clarification, because it is useful. It defines approval. It is more or less housekeeping. As Mr McClelland stated earlier, there is a bit of housekeeping to be done.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall subsection 3(3), as amended, carry? Those in favour? Those opposed? Carried.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I have a government motion, section 3.1.

Mr O'Connor moves that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Closing of roads

"3.1(1) For the purposes set out in subsection 3(1), the Ontario Municipal Board may, upon application, close any road.


"(2) The Ontario Municipal Board may direct that notice of an application for approval of the closing of a road under this section shall be given at such time, in such manner and to such persons, including municipalities and local boards of municipalities, as the Ontario Municipal Board determines, and may further direct that particulars of objections to the closing shall be filed with it within such time as it directs.

"Powers of OMB

"(3) Upon the hearing of the application, the Ontario Municipal Board may make an order closing the road upon such terms and conditions as it considers proper.

"Effect of physical closing

"(4) Any road closed under this section in accordance with an order of the Ontario Municipal Board by the placing or erecting of a fence, barricade or other work shall be deemed to have been, by that action, legally closed.

"Definition of `road'

"(5) In this section, `road' means a road within the meaning of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act and includes an unopened road allowance."

Mr O'Connor: This is just another step that is needed, a legal step, to add some distinction to the expropriation, which could cause some encumbrances if the site has a separation of land in between portions of the site found.

Motion agreed to.

Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.


Section 7:

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr O'Connor moves that subsection 7(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Power of entry

"(1) For the purpose of obtaining information that an inspector considers necessary to meet the requirements of or obtain an approval under an act relating to the planning, establishment, operation, management, alteration or improvement of a landfill waste disposal site, an inspector may enter on and inspect any land.


"(1.1) Subsection (1) does not allow an inspector to enter any building."

Mr O'Connor: Just by way of comment on this, we heard during the committee hearings process that there are concerns that the inspectors may be entering upon dwellings, dog kennels, all sorts of different things. That is the purpose of this.

Motion agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8:

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall paragraph 1 carry? Carried.

Shall paragraph 2 carry?

Mr McClelland: A little bit of discussion there, Mr Chairman. Throughout the course of the hearings a number of people raised concerns with respect to this whole section. We have already been through parts of it and I just want to take the opportunity again to raise an issue that was raised by many people. In particular, my colleague Mrs Fawcett raised it frequently.

Perhaps the parliamentary assistant will give me some assistance. I recall reading that there were some amendments with respect to the powers of entry and so on, and we are in that area right now. There are some expanded response mechanisms, if you will, for owners of land that are incorporated by the government motions, for which I want to say I am grateful. I appreciate the government's response to those concerns to at least the extent that the government has responded. But I do want to say with respect to this section, section 8, that we feel the notice provisions as per paragraph 1 are totally inadequate. There are all kinds of scenarios that could develop where people are away from their land. A date is specified, and entry on the land follows subsequently.

I just want to raise again the concerns raised by so many people through the course of the hearings about the right of government authorities to enter upon people's property. I recognize the parliamentary assistant will speak to some expanded rights of response, if you will, for citizens. I think the government was cognizant of the fact that a lot of people are very unhappy about the power it was seeking to hold unto itself with the inspectors. I hope the government will be open to considering, as we move through these portions of the bill, particularly as we get into section 9, greater rights for individuals, to respect, if you will, the sanctity of individual property.

I look forward to hearing the parliamentary assistant's explanation and rationale for the amendments the government is bringing forward. I just wanted to make the point, as we move into this section, that there are a lot of concerns out there by a lot of people and I trust they will be if not fully at least partially addressed by the amendments of the government.

Mr O'Connor: Just on a couple of points you have raised, one area that has been addressed we will address a little bit further as we get into this area, but paragraph 1, where it talks about the seven days, seems to have been of concern to some people. Where this portion of the act comes from was from the EPA, section 142. It follows along the same lines. Anyway, your concerns are noted and we did hear from individuals with concerns around some of that.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): We will be moving on to paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2, but I need first to ask, shall section 8, paragraph 2, carry? All in favour? All opposed? Carried.

Mr O'Connor moves that section 8 of the bill be amended by adding the following paragraphs:

"2.1. If the inspector intends to enter on the land more than once during a period of time, the notice shall specify that period.

"2.2. If the inspector intends to leave equipment on the land for a period of time, the notice shall set out a description of the equipment and the period of time during which the inspector intends to leave it on the land."

Mr O'Connor: In the way of comment, Mr McClelland just raised some of the concerns and this is designed to address some of those concerns.

Mrs Marland: Could the parliamentary assistant explain paragraph 2.2 where it says, "If the inspector intends to leave equipment on the land for a period of time, notice shall set out a description of the equipment and the period of time during which the inspector intends to leave it on the land"? What are we talking about here, who is liable and who is going to supervise this equipment? For goodness sake, are we talking about major construction equipment that is going to be digging or are we talking about very expensive equipment that does borehole drilling? Who is liable for that equipment? The land owner? If a person is hurt because the equipment is on private land or if the equipment is damaged and is on private land -- I mean, this is fine. The inspector is going to say: "Hi, folks, I'm here. Is it okay if I leave my drill here or my digger here or my backhoe? Keep your kids away from it because they might get hurt, you know. Worse than that, my equipment might get damaged." I would like to know a little bit more about this amendment before we support it.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr O'Connor.

Mr O'Connor: There are a couple of other people who would like to make comments.

Mr McClelland: It may save repetition.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): If we can be useful to one another, I am all in favour of that.

Mr McClelland: My concerns are similar inasmuch as what we have here is equipment being placed on the land. I would be pleased to have an opinion from legal counsel. I would not presume to comment on it without hearing from them.

Subsection 7(5) sets out a legislative scheme in terms of the corporation for damages caused by inspection. That particular section is with respect to the land that potentially may be damaged and the corporation is accepting responsibility for that. Following from Mrs Marland's line of questioning and all the potential scenarios that could be attached thereto, my question for legal counsel is, would the provisions of subsection 7(5) be sufficient to render a land owner harmless for any damages that were caused to third parties who may enter on their lands? Would they be saved harmless from any claim for liability for entry of persons on to their lands?

Let me lay out a scenario to counsel: Equipment is brought on to, say, my land -- that is a safe hypothetical inasmuch as I do not have any, so it does not really matter -- but the equipment is sitting on my land and a third party comes on to my land and does something with that equipment or is involved somehow and suffers considerable physical damage. Without pretending any kind of expertise or specific knowledge, it is clear that there is a great deal of case law that says as a land owner I have a certain responsibility in terms of due diligence and so forth.


To the extent that that was beyond my power of control and the Interim Waste Authority, the corporation, had come on to the land and put that equipment there, what if any assurance can you give us with respect to the provisions of this legislative scheme or others that the land owner in such a scenario would be saved harmless from any claim or claims that may be brought against him or her for damages suffered by a third party?

I am wondering, to the extent that subsection 7(5) does not specifically speak to equipment and harm that might happen to third parties, if it would be appropriate to have a further amendment that would assure property owners, in the event something like that happened, that the corporation would assume full liability and full responsibility for any damages that may result, however remote that possibility is.

I think it is only fair and reasonable to expect that land owners would be saved harmless from any potential damages that may result from equipment being placed on their land. I wondered if you could speak to that, counsel. Would that be helpful, parliamentary assistant?

Mr O'Connor: I think that would be quite appropriate.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): We are in your hands, Mr Jackson.

Mr Jackson: Under subsection 7(5) the corporation is responsible to provide compensation for damages caused by the inspection. If you look back at subsection (2), the various scenarios that you were developing, Mr McClelland, are part of the inspection. Therefore, the corporation would be required to provide compensation, probably even without subsection (5). If somebody lawfully goes on somebody else's land and creates a situation of danger on the other person's land, that is the person who would be primarily liable to respond to any claims for damages, but subsection (5) I think makes clear that if the corporation creates a problem on the land it is responsible to deal with it. They have to deal with the third party who is injured. If a third party comes on the land and if there are damages caused to the property owner or the property occupant himself, the corporation is responsible for those. If you invited somebody to climb on the drill rig or something like that, we could imagine situations where the corporation might say it was not the corporation's fault, but I think those would be unusual.

Mr McClelland: They would be unusual but the possibility exists. My point is that, given some of the quirks of the law inasmuch as subsection 7(5) is in terms of inspection and in the absence of a definition of inspection, I think it is a reasonable path you have taken us down that any equipment placed on land would be part and parcel of an inspection and therefore one would expect that a land owner would not be in a position of potential liability.

I suppose the concern I have is that you raise a point that could happen. Almost anything can happen. Some of the things that have happened in the courts of law are more bizarre than soap operas and defy belief from time to time. I think of a scenario, for example, where a minor --

Mr Jackson: I do not think we will be digging very deep holes for purposes of the test.

Mr McClelland: I am talking about a person under the age of majority. You are on somebody's land and he or she is a minor --


Mr McClelland: It is a long day and we are all getting tired.


Mr McClelland: No, I did not know if I was going to comment on it. I actually was not going to comment at all and then I saw Drew Blackwell could not contain himself, so I figured, well, if he is enjoying it, everybody else may as well enjoy it as well.

Interjection: I do not think Margaret Marland got it.

Mr McClelland: It is okay. I will explain it later.

If a minor, for example, invited a playmate on or something, one could make the argument, "The corporation isn't responsible because the parents" -- there are any number of scenarios.

I guess what I am looking for is some more specific assurance that under all circumstances there will be, if you will, absolute liability attached to the Interim Waste Authority, and again without pretending any particular expertise in that area, that there are provisions in law where absolute liability is attached to parties and corporations for their conduct from time to time. I wonder if I am wrong in suggesting that there are any number of scenarios left open here to creative litigators, who would in turn look to property owners for some redress in the event of a mishap. I think that possibility exists and I am asking, perhaps unfairly, for you as representatives of the ministry to say that under all circumstances that would not happen.

I think the land owners have got to know that if you are going to come on their land, contrary to their wishes, and the IWA, the corporation, leaves equipment there and something, God forbid, should happen to somebody, they are in a position where they need not worry, regardless of the creativity of litigators who are out there. I say that with no disrespect to the profession, because you know that will happen on a boilerplate claim. Everybody will be thrown into the mix including the land owner and his second cousin and so forth. I think we need to have something here legislatively that spells out very clearly and specifically that absolute liability attaches to IWA without fear and with absolute assurance that property owners not be subject or vulnerable to liability for something beyond their control.

Mr Jackson: I think that is what subsection (5) does. If some third party sued the land owner as a result of something that happened as a result of the corporation's activities on the land owner's land, from the point of view of the land owner, that would be damages caused by the inspection.

I agree with you. I undoubtedly have colleagues in the profession who if the occasion arose would sue everybody in sight, but they would be rather peculiar colleagues if they did not sue the person with the deepest pocket. That is likely to be the person backed by the consolidated revenue fund, so undoubtedly the government would be there and any other defendants would be bringing third-party actions within that action against the government. The land owner would be relying, among other things, on subsection 7(5), I think quite successfully.

Mr McClelland: I appreciate what you are saying, sir, and I also respect the fact that you are saying you think that is the case. I would simply say that, with no disrespect to you or any other lawyer who may appear before this committee or render an opinion elsewhere, that would not give a lot of people a great deal of comfort, to say that they think they would be protected, given all the possibilities.

Mr Jackson: I can use another word. It is my opinion that is the case.

Mr McClelland: I understand that. I am not trying to put too fine a point on it, simply to say that even to make the point that he was not liable, a land owner could potentially spend an awful lot of money just, as you say, to have the claim redirected back to the deeper pockets. You are quite right. In the probable scenario that would be the focus of damages, but notwithstanding that, inasmuch as the land owner could be joined to an action, he could go through an awful lot of aggravation, if not cost, probably both, before he saw satisfaction resulting from subsection 7(5).

I simply say, with no disrespect to your opinion or anything else, that I am not sure that is sufficient comfort to a lot of people out there who may be having inspectors enter on their land and leave equipment there for extended periods of time. I am not sure, and I do not presume to have the language here right now, but something that would perhaps be more encompassing that would take it a step further to give assurances, not in the normal course of action but some sort of legislative protection to land owners, would be appropriate. I would ask the government to consider that very seriously in light of the potential implications that could exist, however remote they might be. I think the fact that they are remote even makes it, I suppose, more appealing for the government to say, "Okay, we recognize they are remote but we're prepared to cover off the interest of the men and women, the land owners, in and around the province of Ontario who may, albeit remotely, be subject to some harm down the road."


Mr Jackson: In the normal course of events, there will be an agreement between the corporation and the land owner under which the land owner will be directly protected by contract. In the event that it is necessary for the corporation to rely on its powers of entry, I think subsection (5) does exactly what we are talking about.

Mrs Marland: I guess I have an advantage because I am not a lawyer. I am just common ordinary folk and I have to say that I am not satisfied that subsection (5), in its present wording, gives the protection to private land owners that is required.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): This is subsection 7(5) you are referring to?

Mrs Marland: Yes.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I just want to be clear.

Mrs Marland: Yes, where it says, "The corporation shall provide compensation for any damages caused by the inspection." That is just a wonderful floodgate of opportunity because in order to get your compensation you are going to have to prove that it was caused by the inspection. If the dormant equipment is on somebody's private land and maybe that poor soul does not even know it is there, because in paragraph 1 of section 8 they can have "At least seven days before entering to carry out an inspection" -- did you have something you wanted to say, Mr Parliamentary Assistant?

Mr O'Connor: I can add it at the end of your comments, if you want.

Mrs Marland: No, go ahead.

Mr O'Connor: I was going to just make a general comment about this section, because it seems we have been discussing perhaps what is not the intent of this amendment. The intent is the fact that for the land owner there will be, on occasion, equipment left behind. Some of that equipment could be delicate in nature; for example, hydrogeological equipment that could require people to come back and take readings from some of the equipment. That is the purpose of it, to respect people whose land they will be doing some of the testing on, to respect some of their property rights, to be as accommodating as possible.

Mrs Marland: I understand but I say, with due respect, Mr Parliamentary Assistant, none of these sections talks about what type of equipment. Nor can they; you cannot get into that kind of detail. It may well be the kind of equipment you are talking about, it may well be the kind of equipment I am talking about, but one thing for sure we are talking about is private property and an element of risk that is very real in certain circumstances. We are also talking about what can be a very suit-conscious society and about giving people seven days' notice that we might come on their land to do some testing. It is too bad, is it not, if their property is up for sale and they have got beautiful acres of magnificent rolling pastures and it is on the market for sale and the day that the prime buyer shows up there is all this equipment there? "Oh, what are they testing for?" "We may be putting a landfill site somewhere, either on this property or adjacent to it."

I can see all kinds of possibilities with this section and I think it is very critical that we do not pass a piece of legislation that would have in the past been referred to, I suppose, as Russia with love. Thank goodness, that is not the situation any more in Russia, but my goodness, we are doing a great job of it here in Ontario. We are going to give people seven days' notice. It does not matter, does it, I suppose, if they are out of town? They might be overseas for a month and when they come back an inspection might have commenced on their private property, there might be equipment on their private property and there might be an incident where a neighbour, quite innocently, or a visitor or a salesperson -- it could be anyone -- might come on to that property and be caused some kind of injury.

Mr Jackson is saying they are protected under subsection 7(5) because the corporation shall provide compensation for any damages caused by the inspection. I just think that leaves open a tremendous avenue of opportunity for some brilliant litigators who, for any number of reasons, may want to represent a claimant. Surely -- and I say this because I am not a lawyer -- there is language that it is possible at this point to write into the bill to protect. Surely you want to protect your ministry and the province in terms of the government, but also surely you want to protect the land owner.

In spite of the fact that we have a rather different ideology from the current Bob Rae socialist government, land owners still have some rights in this province. Mind you, we see it being eroded more and more by some of the legislation coming through but, frankly, I do not accept that seven days is enough notice, so I am not happy with that.

I do not know what my colleague the member for Markham feels about this section -- I have not discussed it with him -- but as I read it, I am not happy with the seven days' notice. When I read the government amendment, it is so weak. It just says that the inspector is going to let the land owner know what kind of equipment is going to be on his property and for how long. I would think that would not even require an amendment, for goodness' sake. Surely if you are going to be on somebody's private property, you are going to let him know what you are doing.

Where this whole section breaks down is the fact that we know very well that the people who are going to be executing these inspections are most likely not going to be employees of the provincial government; they are going to be firms that are subcontracted to do this work. It may well be that the provincial government will turn around and say to those contractors: "Hope you've got the insurance, folks, because we don't have the money to buy the insurance and we don't want the liability. It's your job. You're contracted to dig these holes, you're contracted to have this equipment, and in your contract you must protect your own liability."

I do not know that, but I am saying it is quite a possibility because we know how work contracted from government works. The government does not turn around and carry all kinds of liability insurance for work that is contracted to firms. They expect those firms to carry their own liability insurance. When we are writing a section that is as significant as this may well be, especially to private property owners in this province, we had better make sure everybody is protected, and this section does not do that. This section is just an open invitation to have proven in court what damage is caused by the inspection. If that kind of challenge goes to court, the taxpayers pay for it through the nose both ways. They are paying for it on both sides, and why should they, because it is poorly drafted, have to open the door to that possibility?

I really think we should have some answers here. With all respect to Mr Jackson and, as a matter of fact, with respect to Mr McClelland, as two lawyers in this room -- there may be another one here -- I do not know what their experience is in litigation, but is not law all about opinions? It is very fair for Mr Jackson to say, "In my opinion, subsection 7(5) covers it," because Mr Jackson, in all likelihood, is not going to be the person who, at taxpayer expense, may have to end up in court saying the damage was not caused by the inspection.

That is what law is all about. That is from just a little common sense, but the fact is that law is a matter of opinion. I am simply saying, can we not at least have some wording in this section that protects the public from being at risk of some legal opinion?


Ms Haeck: I am going to ask Mr Jackson a question in relation to the sections to which Mrs Marland has been referring and the object of some other long discussion, specifically, that law is a matter of not only opinion but I do believe also some precedent. I think that in drafting this legislation, other legislation was researched, canvassed and opinions sought. I am making an assumption, and I know that is sometimes a bad thing to do, that there has been some consultation to make sure these clauses are consistent with other legislation that is consistent.

Mr Jackson: Yes, there was consultation, and I think all I can say about subsection 7(5) is that it is certainly not consistent. It is very unusual to put a provision that gives that kind of protection directly into the legislation. Usually just the ordinary experience of people is relied on, and that is that when you do something on somebody else's land you are responsible for the consequences.

We wanted to ensure in this provision and the other provisions relating to the entry on to property that it was not the old traditional provisions that just gave a power of entry and nothing else. We thought it was fair to the people whose land was being entered on to to describe the rules in some detail, and that is the reason for the two amendments, or paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of section 8, and that is the reason why subsection (5) was put in section 7, to make it clear that it was the corporation's responsibility and not land owners' to bear the costs, damages, whatever arising out of an inspection.

Ms Haeck: To be totally repetitious, this gives even broader protection to the land owner than exists in many other pieces of legislation that currently exist?

Mr Jackson: Yes.

Mr McClelland: Notwithstanding Ms Haeck's last statement and the affirmative response, I think the point remains that it does not give absolute protection to land owners. I am going to ask the following and I am going to see if counsel and the parliamentary assistant would be disposed to the following, that we stand down this matter and ask for two subsequent amendments, one that would ensure, not simply with respect to the entry on to land -- for which I think a good argument could be made and I will not get into it now -- that section 7 would only apply in terms of the entry on to the land and may be severed apart from section 8. You know better than I do, and I do not presume to try to make a point here, but I think I am correct in saying that oft-times a subsection can be interpreted to apply only to a particular section of an act; it may or may not stand on its own, but would only follow with respect to a section.

I ask that we stand down the section and ask for two things: an amendment that would ensure, with respect to section 8, that a like provision be written in as in subsection (5), notwithstanding what Ms Haeck said that it maybe goes further than some other clause, but it does not give assurance -- there is no absolute assurance there -- and that the second provision of such a clause would also ensure that a land owner would not be responsible for any damage against the equipment, no matter how incurred. In other words, the land owner would not, by virtue of the fact that the equipment was left on his or her property, somehow pick up responsibility for that equipment.

Mr Jackson and I would be more aware than others because we are reading a lot of case law that says "knew or ought to have known" and deals with responsibility in terms of omission and commission and so forth. I think there needs to be some legislative assurance -- not probabilities; we are not going beyond -- that land owners would not be held responsible, first, for any damages that would occur to a third party, and second, to any equipment that would be left on their property. I would ask that that be considered by the parliamentary assistant, to stand it down until I have a chance at least to go back and discuss the matter a little bit further.

Mr O'Connor: By way of response, I think at this time, because time is important -- we are going through the process of clause-by-clause right now -- it would perhaps be more appropriate that the member bring this forward when we get into committee of the whole House. Maybe that is a point that can be discussed and brought forward at that time. You have certainly raised the level of awareness today among legal counsel and all committee members around the needs here, but I think in order to continue with the process we are going through, we leave that for later on when we do get into committee of the whole.

Mrs Marland: As the person who brought this concern up, I am all in favour of proceeding to other sections, but with the resources that are available to the ministry to try to address the concerns I have raised with this question, which Mr McClelland has supported, surely it makes more sense that we could have some suggested redrafting. Today is Tuesday. If there is any intention at all to address our concerns, surely that could be done by Thursday morning.

I can just see us getting into committee of the whole House, raising it and then being told: "There isn't any time. We've got to get this bill passed. We've got to get it through." The question has been raised here now and surely it is possible, if there is any intent on the part of the ministry to address our concerns, to do it in the next two days.

Heavens above, with the people who are on staff, it is not a big deal for them if the wish of the minister is to address the rights. I am quite confident our ministry staff have the resources to draft the necessary wording. It is just a matter of whether the minister cares for the rights of individuals. You are going to get your briefing note now from the minister's staff. I noticed the minister's staff now are doing it verbally instead of writing notes, so that is at least a refreshing change.

I think if there is an intention here to protect individual property owner's rights and also to protect the risk of suit and consequential financial settlements paid out by the ministry, namely, the taxpayers of this province, surely it is worthwhile looking at it.

We are still on section 8, paragraph 2.1, I guess. I wanted to ask if the 6 am to 9 pm is Monday to Friday or seven days a week in section 8, paragraph 5, if we might get an answer to that. I think the intention of the minister should be to be responsible to private property owners and we are simply saying, "Please don't make this legislation like Big Brother."

The fact that it is better than what we have had, Christel, is really like saying, "What we have had has not been good and this is better." I am not satisfied with that. I do not defend the fact that the present EPA says seven days' notice, because I do not think that is adequate. If you have an opportunity to make something better, to do it better and represent the interests of the people who own property in Ontario, if you care about them, why would you not do it? Now is the time to do it and make it work and protect everybody.

In Mr McClelland's municipality there is a property that was posted with all kinds of warnings about what was permitted in that property. The property was owned by the Ministry of Government Services. A little boy, I think he was six or eight, went in that property, with all the signs, all the waivers of responsibility: "Thou shalt not be in here. You mustn't do this, you mustn't do the other." This little boy went into that property and it resulted in a $6-million settlement, even though, "You've been warned."

I can see the same situation here. It is fine to say you are not responsible. In that case, with all the signs and it being publicly owned property, the owners of publicly owned property, namely, the taxpayers in this province, were responsible. So, my goodness, why would we not just clean this up?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr O'Connor will respond to your question and then I have Mr Wiseman.


Mr O'Connor: In response to the last comment and the comment before, I suggested that for us to go through the clause-by-clause process we started, we continue on. As I said before, legal counsel is going to take the concerns you have raised under advisement and I am sure, because they have heard the concerns raised around this room, that they are going to take a look at this.

I would certainly advise them to take a look and if changes need to be made, then that take place. In order for us to continue the clause-by-clause process, though, I hope we can continue on. I suggest legal counsel takes a look at this because concern has been raised by the committee members here.

Mr Wiseman: I want to remind everyone that all amendments have to be in by 5 o'clock tomorrow evening, so Thursday morning is not a possibility for amendments.

Ms Haeck: Just a quick comment. I guess the legislation as it has been put forward and definitely under subsection 7(5) -- having taken someone else to Small Claims Court over trespass of my property some years ago, I understand a little bit of the joy of going to court to do these kinds of things. It was private industry, not government; someone trying to tear down a shed on their property and using my property as a thoroughfare to get there.

Most land owners and most property owners have some obligation to keep themselves informed, which is also partly a requirement of any legislation. This legislation goes so much further than anything I have seen, even looking at some of the kinds of cases coming into my office regarding -- of all things -- some federal actions taking place in my riding.

I will point out, under section 8, paragraph 5, the very last sentence, "by posting the notice on the land in a conspicuous place." There is an awful lot in this legislation that really makes it obvious to any land owner that he or she has options. They are part of the whole process and if in fact damage has been done --

Mrs Marland: They do not have the option of saying, "Don't come on my property."

Ms Haeck: That is part of the whole expropriations process which has been in existence long before today; part and parcel of the whole process of doing public works. Back in the 1930s when the Queen Elizabeth Way was built, people had concerns about expropriation and where the highway was going to go. This is not an argument that is particularly new.

Mrs Marland: You are arguing in favour of what I am saying.

Ms Haeck: No, I am not actually. What I am suggesting is that this piece of legislation as presently constructed, along with some of the amendments to make it clear to the land owners involved what their rights are, goes a long way to satisfy the concerns we heard about for four weeks and I personally do not feel --

Mrs Marland: You are happy with this section?

Ms Haeck: I am happy with this section. I think it is quite clear and actually written in language most people I know can fully understand and appreciate.

Mrs Marland: I am amazed. I really gave this member, who has just commented and is on the record with her comments, more credit. The section of this bill I am discussing deals directly with liability. She was talking about the improvements after four weeks of hearings to the overall bill. I am dealing purely with this section and if she is talking about the example of what happened to the people when the Queen Elizabeth Way was being built, that is very much in support of the argument I am giving.

I am simply saying that if you want to protect the public and if you do not care about private land owners -- that may not be your ideology; I do not know what you feel about private land owners. Maybe you do not believe in private property rights. I happen to believe in private property rights.

I happen to think that seven days' notice is insufficient if you are going to come on my property and start doing any kind of excavation or bore drilling or whatever. Even if you do not think that way, would you not want to protect your own government from being sued? We are spending half an hour here arguing because we simply want to get some better wording in a piece of legislation of your government.

If your socialist ideology does not permit any interest in protecting property rights, surely to goodness you are interested in protecting the liability of your government. I am simply saying that in this whole section where we are talking about inspections on private land, we are not talking about somebody walking around with a Geiger counter, for goodness' sake; we are talking about equipment. That is why we have the government amendment saying that if the equipment is coming on they are going to say how long it is going to be there and what kind of equipment it is, how nice, and they are going to say if they are going to come back more than once.

Surely we do not need an amendment to say something that is a common courtesy. Surely if you are going to contract people to do this work it would be within their guideline of courtesy of how to do the business and if you are going to go on somebody's land surely you are going to tell them how long you expect to be there and, "If the sampling isn't successful I may have to come back." That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about everything that surrounds this, which is the risk to that property owner and to the larger public. The larger public may be at risk in such a circumstance, as in the example I gave you with the $6-million settlement in Brampton.

If you think the wording in subsection 7(5), "The corporation shall provide compensation for any damages caused by the inspection," is the road you want to go down, it is on your head. It sure as heck is not on mine, because I do not support not protecting the public. If I were the government, I would not support not protecting the government. It is only a matter of drafting a few words. If I were a lawyer I would be able to do it and place it as an amendment now, but I do not see that as my job. I see it as the job of the government and the ministry staff who are here or elsewhere. The ministry staff are absolutely competent about doing this. All we need is the sincerity of this minister and this government that they want it done. If it does not happen today or in the next two days, there is not a chance in Hades of it happening in committee of the whole. Just forget it. Either you are interested or you are not. The point has been made. If you are not interested, it will be a recorded vote and you can defend that position with your electorate around this province.

Mr Wiseman: I have been listening. This is a really fascinating convolution of logic. Let's just think for a moment. Somebody goes on to somebody's property and there is this equipment there from the IWA. He plays around on the equipment and falls off and breaks his leg or neck. Somebody wants to be sued. They look in this act and the lawyer picks it up. I am not a lawyer, but I would think that if I were --

Mrs Marland: A little boy who was just riding his bicycle has sustained a major head injury. He was not even on any equipment.


Mr Wiseman: Margaret, that person was riding a motor bicycle and he flipped out in this land quarry. The result was that he won a $6.5-million lawsuit but within three years it was overturned and he received a heck of a lot less because the judge came back and said that there is some amount of responsibility that individuals have to take when they are conducting themselves in public and that not everybody can be liable. I heard the case too.

If I were the judge, I would have to stretch my imagination pretty far to say that subsection 7(5) would not apply in terms of people being injured. "The corporation shall provide compensation for any damages caused by the inspection." I know -- I guess I cannot really say that. Let's just put it this way: No one can determine what a judge is going to say; the judiciary is completely separate. So it does not matter how you write it --

Mrs Marland: That is exactly what we have been saying for half an hour.

Mr Wiseman: If you put more words into this, you are going to convolute it, you are going to prevaricate it and you are going to leave it wide-open to interpretation. The simpler the better. "The corporation shall provide compensation for any damages caused by the inspection." Is that broad enough to include somebody falling off a piece of machinery they were playing on?

Mrs Marland: "Any damages."

Mr Wiseman: I am asking --

Mr Jackson: Yes.

Mrs Marland: In Mr Jackson's opinion. He would be the first to say.

Mr Wiseman: Hey, Margaret, when you go before a judge, it is going to be the judge's final decision, ultimately, and then it is appealable, and that is appealable, and that is appealable.

Mrs Marland: And that costs the taxpayers money.

Mr Wiseman: This is not unclear.

Mr Ramsay: I wanted to ask legal counsel here if subsection 7(5) should say that "The corporation shall provide compensation for any and all damages caused by the inspection."

Mr Jackson: I think "any damages" includes all damages.

Mr Ramsay: Okay.

Ms Haeck: Just a point of information, or clarification might be even better. If my memory serves me correctly, we have carried subsection (7)5 and we have carried paragraphs 1 and 2 of section 8. Is that not correct?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): That is correct. We are at the amendment to section 8, paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2.

Ms Haeck: Just checking to make sure where we are in the agenda.

Mrs Marland: Don't let's look at something in case it might turn out to be something important.

Mr McClelland: I simply want to say again that I think it would be wise to give legal counsel an opportunity to review the placement of subsection 7(5), to look at it and consider whether because of it sitting as a subsection of a particular section, there is any possibility that it would be restrictive in its application, and whether upon further reflection, legal counsel would feel, pursuant to the amendments of section 8, paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2, that further clarification or more inclusive language may be necessary.

In the absence of that, if the committee as a whole is not prepared to allow legislative counsel to go and reflect on that and consider it and bring it back tomorrow for consideration, I am going to ask that we have a recorded vote on this matter. I quite frankly feel that notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 7(5), it does not give assurance in terms of protecting land owners from potential third-party liability or from responsibility for damages to equipment left on their property. In the absence of that assent, if you will, by the parliamentary assistant or the committee as a whole to allow legal counsel the opportunity to review that, I ask for a recorded vote on this section.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Can I ask, then, are you requesting that section 8, paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2, be stood down until tomorrow? It would need unanimous consent, and I just want to be clear on what your request is.

Mr McClelland: That is what I am asking. I am asking, through the parliamentary assistant, that there be an opportunity to reflect on those two issues in terms of third-party liability and responsibility for equipment left on the property of others.

Mr O'Connor: Just on that, I believe earlier I did make a recommendation to legal counsel to undertake to review this situation and make sure that the government is not placed in a situation members have raised some concerns or fears around. It was my hope that we could continue going through the clause-by-clause process. We have heard from the Chair that amendments have to be placed before 5 tomorrow. If legal counsel from the ministry does not have an amendment brought forward and in looking through the process feels that it does need some change and some clarification, some protection added to it, there is still a possibility that those changes take place in committee of the whole House. So I hope we can continue with the process of clause-by-clause.

Mrs Marland: I think in fairness I would like to point out to the member for St Catharines-Brock that it was the legal counsel, Mr Jackson, who, in my questions on the government motion that is before us now, paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 under section 8, actually referred us back to subsection 7(5). That is why that was part of this discussion as it pertains to the motion before us now, so it was absolutely in order.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): If we then could move to vote on section 8, paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2, I have had a request from both Mrs Marland and Mr McClelland that this be a recorded vote.

The committee divided on Mr O'Connor's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 6

Haeck, Lessard, Martin, Mathyssen, O'Connor, Wiseman.

Nays -- 4

Cousens, Marland, McClelland, Sola.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): We now move on --

Mrs Marland: Just on a point of procedure then: How will we get a response to our request to the minister for an amendment to address our concerns?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): As you know, you have made the request. It is part of the record of our hearings. It will be up to the minister to respond or not. I will leave it to the government members to determine whether anything further will happen to that.

Mrs Marland: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): We now have three more paragraphs we will need to deal with. I believe Mrs Marland indicated she may wish to speak to the last one, section 8, paragraph 5, but I will begin then with paragraph 3. Shall paragraph 3 carry? Opposed? Carried.

Mrs Marland: Prepaid mail does not require registered mail. Is that right?

Mr O'Connor: Just maybe for clarification: It has been the practice that by using prepaid mail the service is quicker than by using another service, the problem being that when you take a look in rural areas the post office may not be readily accessible to residents. Prepaid delivery services actually are more expedient. So that is the purpose behind that.

Mrs Marland: What you are dealing with here is not a guaranteed delivery. You are quite satisfied to give people seven days' notice. You do not care if they get it because you are not going to send it by courier or registered mail; you are just going to put it in the regular mail. Is that right?

Mr O'Connor: You know the process itself is not set for trying to leave it up to mail alone. Perhaps we should get Ms Rush to speak on it because the process itself is trying to get people notified as properly as can be. Maybe we can hear from Ms Rush.


The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): As Chair, I may just indicate I will allow an answer to that. I should indicate that I have called and voted on this, but I would allow for an answer to that. But perhaps as I call these different sections, members could just pounce on the discussion at that point. I will allow this to continue.

Ms Rush: Perhaps I could provide some background and Mr Jackson could answer your question more specifically. I would like the committee to understand that the property owners involved throughout the process will have had a number of contacts from the Interim Waste Authority prior to this section coming into place. They are not in the legislation, but they are in our enunciated policies and they are in the documents and discussions. At the time of the long list, all property owners will be notified. They will be notified, hopefully, before the press. It is very difficult to promise that, but it is our intention that they will know before they read it somewhere else.

Second, we have stated that we intend to negotiate with every property owner. We are going to do that obviously as quickly as we can, but we are not going to rush that process. It is very much in our self-interest to have the most cooperative circumstances we can find, so that section 8 comes into play only when we are going to use the powers. I do understand that is not your specific question, but that background might help put this section in context. I think Mr Jackson can help with the mail situation.

Mr Jackson: It has been our experience that ordinary prepaid mail gets through more frequently than registered mail does. With registered mail you have to be home at the right time of day when the post office makes its attempt or you have to be available to go to the local post office or postal agency to pick it up during its business hours. Prepaid mail gets left at the address and delivered. For several years when we have been dealing with service-by-mail provisions in our statutes, we have been switching them from registered mail to ordinary prepaid mail, just because it works better.

Mrs Marland: Is the answer, Mr Jackson, that there is no legal requirement to use registered mail to serve notice under this act?

Mr Jackson: That is correct.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall section 8, paragraph 4, carry? Opposed? Carried.

Section 8, paragraph 5.

Mrs Marland: I had the great joy and pleasure of three months on the act revising rent control in this province. Where there was a section pertaining to hours that inspections could take place, it also stated the days of the week. I am just wondering if this 6 am to 9 pm in this section pertains to every day of the week, or would we like to define it a little more clearly for the sake of the poor property owner who is going to have this intrusion?

Mr O'Connor: Maybe we can get some clarification, but I believe that in the process of undergoing the studies and what not, it would be necessary in some instances that it be seven days a week for the process of reading different machines and meters and everything. Perhaps we can get some clarification on that.

Mr Jackson: The statute is drafted so the inspections can be done seven days a week. That would only happen, of course, if it were necessary, because the corporation has to pay premium rates for people to work on weekends. However, in some cases it is necessary to record water levels or take samples during the weekend. That is why it is not restricted to Monday to Friday.

Mrs Marland: Since you have gone to the trouble of putting the hours in here, do you not think it would be fair to also say "any weekday between the hours of"?

Mr Jackson: No, because we intend to include Saturday and Sunday. If we said "weekday," that would imply the working week. It is not necessary to say "seven days a week." If we had a restriction, we would have to restrict it, but it is just not legally necessary to say "seven days a week."

Mrs Marland: It is your legislation.

Mr Cousens: I wonder how this is consistent with Mr Rae's policy on working on Sunday.

You sort of have to ask the question, and Mrs Marland, who has seen it dealt with in other bills and has seen some ways in which it has been addressed -- you know, it is just going to be a big gamble, whoever is going to be chosen to have his site chosen, but I do not think it is being fair to anyone. Here, on the one hand, the New Democrats have said, "We want to start making it possible for people to have five days, six days," whatever. Is there any way in which you could recognize that this is not going to happen on Saturday or Sunday?

Mr O'Connor: I think that by not stating any days in the week, it states the hours of the day which are the restrictions that need to be placed in there. We have to recognize that in performance of studying taking place, some recording may have to take place on Sunday.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall section 8, paragraph 5, carry? Carried. We then move to government motion, subsections 8(2) and 8(3).

Mr O'Connor moves that section 8 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Waiver of requirements

"(2) The owners and occupants may waive any requirements relating to the notice described in paragraph 1 of subsection (1).


"(3) The occupants may waive any requirements relating to entries described in paragraph 5 of subsection (1).

Mr O'Connor: That just allows some flexibility from the occupants.

Mr Cousens: I wish you would do something to protect the rights of the occupants when it has to do with other parts of this bill, which take away so many of their rights. We have mentioned them enough times before, but with the number of different acts that are now removed, they are overridden. The rights of the individual are overridden.

This is what you call a sop, and the New Democrats say: "Oh, isn't this something? We're doing something for the owners and occupants." The owners and occupants have lost so much of their property rights through the other sections of this bill that to come along and put this in and call that one of your big motions I think is just an insult to the process. In all the hearings we had for people coming in, this is not one I heard about. It is just as if you are trying to throw some weight for a number of motions. It is just meaningless compared to what this bill does in taking away the rights of people. I am surprised you do not blush a little bit when you read it, Larry.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to make a comment on this section, because I think it is an excellent addition. In fact, this increases the rights of occupants to have their rights considered within the whole context.

With the site selection search for P1, the occupants of that land were not informed. They had big machinery put on the land and were not told at any time. They did the drilling and they left the holes and they went away. It was only after considerable pressure was put on the people doing the work and the region that in fact those concerns were addressed.

This bill says, first, you are going to tell them you are coming, you are going to tell them what it is you are going to put there and you are going to give them redress and compensation if you do not leave it the way you are supposed to. Not only that, you have an option to negotiate. None of that was done in P1.

I say that if you want to talk about the rights of occupants, this bill goes a long way in returning the rights of occupants on some lands. If you want to talk about draconian on expropriation, let me tell you that the two parties on the other side have shown what draconian is when the federal Liberals expropriated 18,000 acres of land and the provincial Tories expropriated 23,000 acres of land in north Pickering. So it strikes me as a little odd that you would be making that argument when we are putting more rights into this bill than they have had in the past with either of your two governments.


Mr O'Connor: Perhaps I did not clarify it quite well enough. Whenever possible the IWA is going to try to work out an agreeable procedure that will allow the inspections to take place. So this more or less allows them to sign the waiver, which is kind of a legal agreement. Perhaps somebody from the IWA could comment on that.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Would somebody from the IWA care to comment?

Ms Rush: As someone from the IWA, perhaps I could answer that. Yes, it is as the parliamentary assistant explained. This allows for us not to kick in to other parts of the bill if the land owner or the occupant does not wish it. So notice would not have to be provided it they did not want. I think it is very important that this allow flexibility in the negotiations, but the control is entirely with the land owner or the occupant. If they do not wish to sign this waiver, that is fine, and the notice provisions will prevail.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall subsections 8(2) and 8(3) carry? Opposed? Carried.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

Section 9:

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr O'Connor moves that section 9 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Inspection warrant

"9(1) The corporation may apply to a judge or justice of the peace for a warrant authorizing an inspector to inspect land.

"Notice of application for warrant

"(2) The corporation shall give the owners and occupiers of the land seven days' written notice of,

"(a) the time when and the place where the application for the issuance or extension of a warrant is to be considered;

"(b) the purpose of the application and the effect of the application being granted;

"(c) the length of time the corporation is asking for a warrant to be issued or extended;

"(d) the right of an owner or occupant or an agent of an owner or occupant to appear and make representations; and

"(e) the fact that if the owner, occupant or agent fails to appear, the judge or justice of the peace may issue or extend the warrant in their absence.

"Right to be heard

"(3) A person who is served with a notice under subsection (2) or an agent of that person has the right to appear and make representations when the application is being considered.

"Issue of warrant

"(4) The judge or justice of the peace shall issue a warrant authorizing an inspector to inspect land if the judge or justice of the peace is satisfied by evidence under oath that,

"(a) inspection of the land is reasonably necessary for the purposes set out in subsection 7(1);

"(b) a notice has been served upon the owners and occupants of the land in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2, 2.1, 2.2 and 3 of subsection 8(1); and

"(c) the inspector has been prevented or is likely to be prevented from entering on the land or exercising any of his or her other powers or the entrance to the land is locked or the land is otherwise inaccessible.


"(5) A warrant shall specify the hours and days during which it may be executed and name a date on which it expires and may specify a period of time during which equipment may be left on the land."

I am in the hands of the committee here. It is drawing nigh to 5 o'clock. I have a sense there may be some discussion of this item. Perhaps I am making an assumption. Is there going to be discussion of this item? If there is a possibility that in the minutes left we can deal with it, I would proceed, but otherwise I would suggest that we leave it over. I am looking somewhat furtively at Mr Cousens and Mr McClelland to see whether --

Mr O'Connor: Perhaps I could just lay out the purpose. The purpose of this section is so that the warrant will allow the owner or occupant the chance to appear when the warrant is being applied for. It is an opportunity for the owner or occupant to appear while the application for any warrant is being processed. It is another move to try to make sure that if a warrant is necessary the owner or occupant has an opportunity to be available at the same time for commenting.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall section 9 as in the government motion carry? Any opposed? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Fearing to tread but none the less going to tread, there are no further amendments to this part.

Mr McClelland: I think we might even be able to finish part I today, which would be considerable.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Would you repeat that?

Mr McClelland: I think we might. It would be a considerable achievement.

Section 10:

Mr McClelland: I want to indicate again for the record for those who might be tuning in what paragraph 2 of section 10 says: "The inspector may use such force as is reasonably necessary to execute the warrant and call on police officers to assist in the execution of the warrant."

There may be some people who feel fairly sorely aggrieved by inspectors entering on their land. I will be very interested in seeing how this government responds when people express that concern and express the objection to people entering on their land.

In light of the examples of civil disobedience displayed by the leader of the government of the day and other members of the caucus who felt that they were doing something that in their view was morally right -- I need not expand on that other than to say that certainly the Premier and other members of the caucus felt it was appropriate in terms of civil disobedience -- I would be interested to see how the government responds and reacts when farmers in Durham or in Peel or wherever they may be say, "I object to you coming on my land."

I will be very curious to see this government proceed with the powers under section 10, paragraph 2, where it has the police to enforce the entry on to people's land, people who, as Mrs Marland has said, feel very passionately about the right to their private property and the rights that they feel have been taken away from them. For the record I raise that again. That was raised by many people who came before this committee, the concerns they had. I think it is fair to say that it is a fairly flagrant use of police powers. It is interesting that all over the world people are moving away from that kind of use of police powers, but here we are. This government is moving in that direction.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall section 10 carry?

Interjection: No.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Those opposed? The section carries.

Section 10 agreed to.

Section 11:

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall section 11 carry?

Mr Cousens: With section 11, what you end up having is someone who owns a property, coming back from a holiday and finding someone on there. They are going to be irate, and why should they not be? It is their property and now they are back from their lovely holiday south and they are faced with seeing --

Mr Ramsay: Or north to Timiskaming.

Mr Cousens: You could go north, could you not? I would love to see where the potential Adams mine site could go.

They come back from a holiday. It could have been Niagara-on-the-Lake they were visiting. What is stopping some legalistic inspector from saying, "Hey, you're obstructing us?" Could you give us some satisfaction that you are not just going to be exercising this section of obstruction the way you are pushing through this legislation?


Mr O'Connor: We have had many explanations today of a process that is going to involve people, and part of the process is to get people as involved as possible. So I am sure that when somebody has been notified, somewhere along the process they could end up being put on a list, and when the long list comes out they will know when it comes to the point where testing is going to take place. The likelihood of something like that happening is very remote. I think if you were a land owner and owned a substantial site of land that could potentially be a site, you would be aware of that possibility long before it would become necessary.

Mr Cousens: A long time ago I was --

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Excuse me, Mr Cousens. Mr Wiseman had the floor. If you wish to relate your story, I will come back to you.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to point out about this section and to concur with the parliamentary assistant that it would be somewhat remote for the land to be encroached on in the way you are describing. I think if you go back and review the draft document of the Interim Waste Authority, you will find that the criteria for the land that will be inspected are very clearly defined and that certain lands are excluded. Private landholders who have already indicated that their land will be welcomed within the urban shadow are the people who are primarily concerned with site selection. Those who are outside the urban shadow and are actively pursuing agricultural interests will not be included in the site selection. So you have to understand that perhaps you are talking about, in this sense, a group of people who have already allowed their land to be committed for uses other than agricultural uses and therefore they may already be within official plans for industrial or commercial development or have been designated under new official plans to be included in that area.

Given that it is 5 of the clock, I will stop there.

Mr Ramsay: Mr Chairman, just a point of clarification. Mr Wiseman, are you saying that under this legislation, farm land is excluded from consideration?

Mr Wiseman: Under the draft site selection criteria of the document, the draft approach, it is clear under section 4.1 and again later on, and I am quoting from the document: "Specialty crop areas, screening criteria: Screen out areas of specialty production of minimum size of 200 contiguous acres"; "Other areas: Screen out all classes 1 through 3 agricultural lands with the following exceptions: land within the urban shadow" -- that means land that has already been designated under official plans -- "and lands that are federally, provincially or municipally owned," because it is deemed that those lands have already been designated for some other use unless they have been clearly indicated to be agricultural use, "and non-agricultural land." It goes on to say that some specialty crop areas will be excluded as well unless they are within those guidelines.

Mr Ramsay: Would you entertain an amendment to this legislation that would incorporate that, if I brought that in tomorrow?

Mr Wiseman: It is there. We have already passed this.

Mr Ramsay: It is in the legislation?

Mr Wiseman: Because we have passed sections 1, 2 and 3 on setting up the IWA as a crown agency, that those are the criteria. This is circulated to everyone. If this was to change arbitrarily or somebody was to pick it, I would not want to be around to hear the battle, because those are very clearly the criteria that will be used.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): It is now 5 o'clock. Mr Cousens, do you wish to speak or shall I put this particular --

Mr Cousens: I have a question on it.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Then I will have to wait until tomorrow, because of the agreement that we would rise at 5 o'clock.

Mr Cousens: We could have gotten through this if --

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): If the committee is agreeable to deal with this, but there was prior agreement that we would conclude at 5 o'clock during these sessions.

Mr Cousens: I am prepared to stay the length of time. It would be nice to finish part I of the bill.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Do you have a question? I will allow the question to go ahead if we could try to deal with this as expeditiously as possible. I will not define which day of the week or whether it is 9 to 6, but at some point, if it continues to go on, I will adjourn the proceedings.

Mr Cousens: What is the offence a person is guilty of under subsection (4)? It indicates that anyone who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence. What kind of an offence are they guilty of?

Mr Jackson: It is an offence that is prosecutable under the Provincial Offences Act. You appear before a JP or a provincial offences court judge, get prosecuted and are subject to a fine if convicted.

Mr Cousens: Only a fine?

Mr Jackson: Only a fine.

Mr Cousens: Maximum?

Mr Jackson: Maximum $5,000, but that is the range that covers everything for which penalties are not specifically provided for in statutes. A judge or a JP would pick an appropriate range.

Section 11 agreed to.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): We will reconvene tomorrow at 10 o'clock to begin part II. The meeting is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1706.