Thursday 26 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

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

Ward, Brad (Brantford ND) for Ms Haeck

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Ministry of the Environment:

Blackwell, Drew, assistant deputy minister, waste reduction office

FitzPatrick, Leo B., counsel, legal services branch

Giffen, Alex, assistant director, central region

Jackson, M. B., counsel, legal services branch

Merritt, Jim, acting assistant deputy minister, regional operations

Office for the Greater Toronto Area:

O'Connor, Larry, parliamentary assistant

Rush, Jan, assistant deputy minister

Clerk/ Greffière: Mellor, Lynn

Staff / Personnel: Spakowski, Mark, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1010 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.

Section 14:

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Good morning. We will begin again our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 143 now that the fog and traffic have allowed us all to gather. When we recessed yesterday we were dealing with a Liberal motion on section 14. I believe that at that time, Ms Mathyssen, you had completed your comments.

Mrs Mathyssen: Yes, Mr Chair.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I cannot remember whether I had recognized anyone else at that point. Was it Mr Cousens?

We have a number of motions that relate to section 14. Was there any further discussion on the first Liberal motion? If there is no further discussion, shall the Liberal motion regarding section 14 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed?

Mr Cousens: Could I have a recorded vote on that?

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

Ayes -- 4

Cousens, McClelland, Ramsay, Sola.

Nays -- 6

Lessard, Mathyssen, Martin, O'Connor, Ward, B., Wiseman.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): We will move on to the next amendment, which is a government motion.

Mr Wiseman moves that the French version of subclause 14(1)(a)(i) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(i) la réduction de la quantité de déchets produite dans le secteur de service primaire,"

He further moves that the French version of subclause 14(1)(b)(i) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(i) la réduction de la quantité de déchets produite dans le secteur de service primaire."

Mr Wiseman: This is for the same reasons that we gave for the change in the previous translation.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Any questions? Shall this section carry?

Mr Cousens: I think it falls in line with some comments of yesterday, and I just want to put on the record my concern, and it is a concern which really has to be addressed satisfactorily, even beyond what goes on in this committee. But inasmuch as we have both English and French now being the way in which all statutes and laws of the province of Ontario are being written, and inasmuch as some people like myself are unable to read the French versions, and inasmuch as I am not about to take the immersion program and learn French as was suggested yesterday by Mr Lessard, which would be a good way, it is not the way in which I am going to solve the problem I am talking about.

What has happened now is that there is a concern being raised about the accuracy of the French version matching the English version. It raises the question of the quality that goes into that workmanship. It really is something we cannot take lightly. I am pleased that through the committee process the committee and the public servants have been able to find these issues and make the corrections.

So to that extent, I am pleased that the committee is sitting. The committee would not be sitting had Mrs Grier had her way. On December 19 she would have passed this bill, and there would not have been any opportunity to make the kinds of changes that the government is bringing forward now, because she made every effort to pass this bill on December 19 rather than have public hearings and rather than have a chance to make any refinements or improvements to this bill.

The deeper and fundamental issue that surrounds the subject of French-English is that as one who is elected -- I do not know much about what the New Democrats are doing with regard to their directions, but I bring to their attention that I disagree with the approach they are taking -- I have to have some satisfaction that the services that are being provided by legal counsel are really demonstrating and can prove, at least to my satisfaction now and in the future, that every effort is being made to make the law the same both in English and in French.

I do not relish the problems we could be having here in the province of Ontario if it turns out that we start having legal entanglements because of these differences and people start reading the French version -- maybe it is a good reason to get them to study French -- in order to find a different nuance that is going to help them to get around a particular problem.

Yesterday when we were talking about this I referred the issue further to counsel, and I would appreciate some kind of response from our legislative counsel that would clarify and elaborate on the services they provide that go as far as possible to make sure the English and the French match.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): May I just note that following our discussion yesterday, as your Chair I met with our legal counsel and representatives in the office of legal counsel so that we would be able, I believe, to reassure you in terms of this question. I will now call upon legal counsel to comment.

Mr Spakowski: The opinion of the office of legislative counsel is that subject to the tabled motions, each version of the bill accurately reflects the law as set out in the other version. That is our opinion.

Mr Cousens: You are satisfied that with this amendment everything is copacetic?

Mr Spakowski: Yes.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Nice touch of Latin.

Shall the government motion on subclauses 14(1)(a)(i) and (b)(i) carry?

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr McClelland moves that subclauses 14(1)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b)(iii) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"14(1)(a)(iii) use of other single landfill waste disposal sites, whether publicly or privately owned, in the primary service area; or

"14(1)(b)(iii) use of other single landfill waste disposal sites, whether publicly or privately owned, in the primary service area."


Mr McClelland: The bill, as it now stands, says, "landfill waste disposal sites." The amendment just simply adds "whether publicly or privately owned." That is the operative element of the amendment, to add those five words.

We have heard throughout the course of the day some considerable concern about the intent of the government. The background of it starts, I suppose, well before the 1990 election documents that were issued out of the then NDP campaign office and included the name of the now minister and policy positions stated by the government, which was then running a campaign as the official opposition. They stated that they did not believe there was room for the private sector in the waste management area in the province of Ontario. In fact they went so far as to say they believed that only a totally public-run sector could guarantee environmental integrity and could represent the best interests of the people of Ontario.

We have heard a number of things that qualify that over the course of these hearings. By way of example, the minister came before the committee early on, indeed on the first day of committee hearings on this bill, and said that the private sector was welcome in the province of Ontario and that it should rest assured it was welcome.

We have also heard statements made, whether it be by the parliamentary assistant or by members of the government caucus, saying that those of us on the opposition benches, and particularly myself, are trying to be scaremongers, if you will, and say that the government is anti-business. It is not just myself saying it; businesses have come and said, "We want a level of assurance; we want to know that we have a role to play." All they have had is lipservice.

On one hand the government has said, "We don't believe in the private sector," and has said that in its documentation, has said that leading up to the election in 1990, has said very plainly that it believes only a publicly operated system can provide the service and meet the needs.

We also know that this is a government that does not necessarily respond to the general public, but has responded to very specific interest groups. One of those interest groups certainly is not business. There is ample evidence of that over the course of the last year and a half; that there is something wrong, it seems fundamentally, with profit. The government does not feel that business is welcome in this province, and it has done virtually anything it can to send out the signals that business is not welcome here in a variety of sectors. Indeed, part of the socialist philosophy is that government can always do a better job.

I personally, and my party as well, happen to believe that government has a role to play in some areas. But the government does not have all the answers, and in many cases government in fact cannot do a better job. The government inevitably does a worse job of conducting many things.

Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States at the time, said many, many years ago that governments ought not to be doing in society what individuals and what the private sector can be doing and doing well. I do not think a whole lot has changed over the course of the decades that have intervened since the statement made by President Lincoln to that effect.

In fact it is one of the tenets of our party and one of the things that we believe in, that the private sector is not only welcome in Ontario but is absolutely necessary and needs to have an atmosphere wherein it can work in harmony and cooperation with government, that it has very much to offer in a variety of areas but specifically in the area of waste management. We know that there are literally millions upon millions of dollars of payroll that are carried by the private sector in the province of Ontario with respect to waste management. We know that many private sector organizations conduct themselves with integrity and conduct themselves well.

We have heard from time to time, particularly from one of the members opposite, an epistle about what a terrible job the private sector has done in one or two areas. Many in the private sector would not dispute that. In fact they do not dispute it. We in the Liberal Party believe that the role of government, primarily in terms of waste management and in terms of environmental issues on a broader scale, is to set the framework and set the policy and to monitor that and enforce it. Because one or two operators in the private sector have not fulfilled their mandate according to the laws of the land or the regulations that ought to apply for the operation of waste management sites does not mean that all private operators ought not to be allowed to be in the province of Ontario. It no more follows logically that because an operation is run publicly or privately it will be run well.

The job of the government is to have regulations, to have standards, to have a policy in place and to ensure that those standards are met, whether it be public or private. This is not an issue of one or the other; it is an issue of either/or or both in combination and in harmony.

The government has apparently changed its tune considerably. They now want to have this so-called partnership with business which heretofore they were not interested in, but now they are beginning to shift their position and are saying, "Maybe of necessity we are recognizing we can't solve all the problems and maybe there is a role, reluctantly we'll agree that there is a place for business in the province of Ontario," notwithstanding the fact that they are doing more to drive business out of this province than anybody could have even imagined possible.

Having said that, what this amendment seeks to do is to recognize very clearly the statements by the parliamentary assistant and sort of a passing reference made from time to time by the minister, both in her statement on the first day of the committee hearings and the first day of hearings this week. I noted in the statement she made this week that she said: "We didn't really mention business because we don't want to cloud the issue. Business has been operating and operating reasonably well in many respects in Ontario, and by including reference to business in 143 we kind of carve it out and make it an issue, and it's not an issue."

Let me tell you, Mr Chairman, it is an issue very much in the minds of the private sector operators in this province. We had an association and its counsel come before us in Kingston, and on a quick question to Mr Rohmer, counsel for the association, I said: "What will happen if you aren't given amendments that will secure the future of the private sector? What are the implications of Bill 143 without the amendments you need?" He said, "The implications are disastrous for the private sector's involvement in waste management in Ontario." I did not even push the issue, and the following statement was made, or words to this effect: "If there are not significant changes and a recognition by the government of the day in some concrete form in terms of amendments that recognize the involvement and give that element of certainty to the private sector involved in waste management in the province, they very well may not be operating effectively in this province within three to five years."

I will not mention it, but there is one company and one company alone that has $2.3 billion of capital investment in this province and a payroll of over $3 million that is basically taking a wait and see attitude.

There is another company that just over two years ago had 27 people operating in Ontario. They in fact were a company that is a world-wide international company. They were born, in terms of their corporate birth, in Hamilton, Ontario. They have become an international player in terms of waste management.

I do not for one minute suppose to suggest that it is only because of the government of the day, but it is a significant part -- and I am not saying it, the company is saying it -- a significant reason they now have only three whereas a year and a half ago they had 27 people operating in Ontario in their office. They now have three. Do you know where they operate out of? They operate out of the United States, and they were born in Canada. Their management is now centrally located in the United States. And the reason? There is no certainty. "We can't invest in Ontario in the absence of certainty. We have to be accountable to our shareholders."

I do not want to be flippant or trite about this, but the reality is that the government members have got to understand that business cannot operate on a "what if/may come" basis. Business operates on making plans and rationally thinking through what it is going to do, building five-, 10-, 15-, and 20-year plans in terms of investing literally millions, in some cases billions of dollars.

What is at stake here is not only the involvement of the private sector in terms of waste management in this province; it is also, if you will, the music that is being played through this committee. Other people are watching us. Other sectors are watching what is happening here. We have heard from other sectors. We have heard from sectors that are totally unrelated to waste management. Why do you think the Ontario Chamber of Commerce is worried about Bill 143? Why do you think the Mississauga chamber of commerce is worried about Bill 143?

Mrs Marland: Board of trade.

Mr McClelland: Why do you think the Mississauga Board of Trade -- thank you, Mrs Marland -- or the Brampton Board of Trade is worried about Bill 143, and other businesses that one would say are not related in any way, shape or form to waste management?

The reason they are concerned about it is because the signals that are being sent, the music that is being played in Bill 143, very plainly is: "We'll say that you're welcome, business, in Ontario, but we're not going to give you any assurances. Trust us. We're the government. Trust us."

In spite of everything we have done, in spite of our initiatives in terms of day care that says the private sector is not welcome, in spite of our initiatives in terms of the outrageous budget that says, "Business, you really can't feel secure in this province," in spite of the absurd labour law package that has been brought forth that is in many respects anti-business and anti-investment and at this point in time in our economy sends messages that say, "Don't invest in Ontario," in addition to that you have something like Bill 143. The government says: "Trust us. You're welcome here." Is it any wonder that business says: "We're not so sure that we can be here. We're accountable to shareholders."


The government members surely recognize that. We all come from different backgrounds. Many of us on this side were not necessarily involved in business and private sector involvement, but we have at least a rudimentary understanding of the fact that corporations have responsibilities, ultimately to the people who invest in them. In some cases, it is many people; it is individuals who have bought shares in companies. In some cases, they are private entrepreneurs who have established in Ontario and make a valuable contribution to the economy and to creating jobs in this province.

Men and women who start business sometimes put their life savings, their homes and everything they have on the line to take a shot at it and maybe they will make it. That has been one of the dreams of the private sector and that dirty word "capitalism" in the private sector that the government seems to have such difficulty understanding. It has driven this province and made it a place of envy around the world, and what the government is now saying is: "We don't really welcome you here. We'll tell you that you are welcome here, but we won't give you those assurances you're asking for. Trust us. We're the government. Notwithstanding all the other signals we're giving you, trust us."

The government on one hand says: "We're prepared to recognize the viability of the private sector. We're prepared to recognize the fact that government isn't the answer to all the problems. We're prepared to recognize the fact, and not only say it but demonstrate, that business is welcome in Ontario, not only in waste management" -- albeit that is what we are talking about here today -- "but across the board and across the spectrum of business and business opportunities that may obtain in the province." Here is an opportunity for the government to not only say it but to send a positive signal.

The government says it wants to be cooperative. They want to welcome business. The Premier not too, too long ago was on television. There was a great deal of ballyhoo about his presentation. He said: "Hey, look, we're in this together. We've got to solve our problems together. Not everybody has the answers." Yet they come back into committee the very next day and start playing word games with the private sector and say, "Well, you know, we're not really sure where you sit in Ontario."

Business people, men and women who are putting in their life savings, in some cases, in an attempt to start a business and make it operative, need to know what the future holds. People who are responsible as directors of corporations, who are responsible to shareholders, need to know what is going to happen.

We have heard it said and we all pay lipservice to this, but let's understand what we are saying. We live in an economy that has global implications, and many of the companies that operate in Ontario are now international. As I said, one of the sad facts is that many companies that started in Ontario are international, literally around the world, and they are pulling out of Ontario. They started here, and they are pulling out.

Some of them have said that in terms of Bill 143, it will have a direct impact on what they are going to do in the future, that there is an unwillingness for them to commit capital expenditure, that there is an unwillingness in some cases for them to even bid on contracts that are coming up for renewal. They are saying: "We're just not going to put any money into the maintenance of our equipment and we'll just let it run out in terms of its capital life. We're not going to reinvest, because there's no point in reinvesting if the government is going to shut the door on us. That would be totally foolish." They are asking for assurance.

This amendment does not go very far at all in giving them that assurance. There are a good number of other amendments we have as a Liberal caucus that have been brought to our attention with the help of many people in the private sector who have said that: "This will give us a level of assurance. It will begin to move us there."

There have been tremendous concerns expressed about 143, and we have been through them all again, about how it is a patchwork, it does not make sense, it is not rational, it has a different set of rules for different waste streams for different locales at different times, and who knows what rules are applying at any given time, including the rules for the private sector. The private sector surely ought to have the same rules as the public sector. The private sector ought to have the same rules in the greater Toronto area as it has elsewhere in the province. But they do not have those assurances now.

What this amendment seeks to do is to begin, and it is only the first of many amendments, but it says, "We recognize the importance of the private sector in waste management in Ontario."

But I say again to the government members, recognize that people are watching this who are not necessarily involved only in waste management. They are saying, "What kind of signals is the government prepared to send?" This is one of the first pieces of legislation that has come forward where the private sector has said: "Tell us very plainly whether you want us or not. What is your answer going to be?" The government has said: "Yes, you're welcome here. But don't worry about it. We're not going to give you those assurances."

The test for the government in terms of this motion is in the eyes of -- not the opposition members sitting here. It is in the eyes of people from business who are watching the vote here.

The words added here in this amendment are "privately owned," the only addition. I repeat this for you and for those people who will be watching and those who will read this in Hansard. The only addition is the words "or privately owned" -- privately owned, the private sector, the business community. It is a recognition that there is a role for public or private in this province. Again -- I am going to repeat this three times -- the addition is "privately owned" -- Mr O'Connor, you are listening -- "privately owned." That is the addition in this amendment. That is all. That is all it says: "or privately owned." It adds into the mix of the socialist ideology the recognition that the private sector has a role in this province.

Can you accept that? Can you live with that? Will you begin to not just pay lipservice but to accept the addition of three words "or privately owned," to send a message in very concrete terms to men and women in this province that yes, the private sector is welcome in Ontario, not just in waste management but in any other areas.

Doubtless after our friends comment, because I am sure they will, I will respond to those. The very nature of this amendment adds "privately owned." What is the government afraid of? Do they believe in the private sector? Do they believe there is a role for the private sector in waste management and in other areas in this province, yes or no? It comes to a pretty basic question in this regard, and I will be very, very interested to see how the government votes on this, and so will literally thousands upon thousands of other people.

Mr Lessard: Millions.

Mr McClelland: Probably millions, Mr Lessard says, and I think he is quite right.

Mr Lessard: Billions.

Mr McClelland: Then he throws out billions and sort of makes light of what I am saying. Mr Lessard, let me say this: There are people in Windsor who are out of jobs who would be very glad to have private sector investment, who would be pleased if the private sector would consider investing in Windsor. How many dollars have been invested in Windsor, I ask Mr Lessard, since your government has come into power? How many companies have chosen not to locate in Ontario or chosen not to locate in Windsor because of the messages your government is sending? Those are the kinds of questions that revolve around these kinds of amendments. Mr Lessard can make a statement and kind of laugh it off when I say there are possibly thousands of people who will be interested in what happens here and kind of play with it and say millions and billions of people. The reality is that there literally are thousands of people who are concerned, and there are people who are concerned about layoffs. There are people who are concerned about layoffs in Brantford and what is happening in health care and people getting their pink slips at hospitals. They want to know what this government is going to do in terms of management -- it will be interesting to watch how they vote -- if they are afraid of the words "privately owned." My sense is that they are afraid of those words, and we will soon find out.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to visit this from a different angle, because I think what the honourable member has done has really thrown some interesting curves in there that are really not relevant to this section or to what this amendment could do, so I would like to visit this to Mr Leo Fitzgerald? FitzPatrick? You see, he did it, and I followed it. I apologize. I would like to follow a course of thinking on this thing. The first question I would like to ask is, is there anything in this bill that precludes the private sector?


Mr FitzPatrick: No, there is not.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Because we have started another day, when we are directing questions to a representative of the ministry, would you mind identifying yourself for the purpose of those watching.

Mr FitzPatrick: My name is Leo FitzPatrick. I am a lawyer with the Ministry of the Environment.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): We now have that on record, Mr FitzPatrick, so there will not be any more confusion.

Mr Wiseman: I have spent a great deal of time studying the British parliamentary system of government. As you go through the history of the evolution of the British parliamentary system from 1215, which I think Mr Harris would find interesting -- that is the date of Magna Carta -- the tradition has been that if the government -- this is through the evolution of Parliament and so on -- deemed to want to change something, it specifically put it in legislation and those things that were not deemed to change were not included in legislation. Is that a correct assumption?

Mr FitzPatrick: I think you have me at a disadvantage on the history of the matter, but it is indeed a correct assumption. The courts are not going to find a restriction unless one is stated, and stated quite clearly.

Mr Wiseman: It is not necessary to include in this document that the private sector is included because by virtue of the fact that it is not mentioned in this, it is not excluded.

Mr FitzPatrick: That is correct.

Mr Wiseman: So silence gives consent to continue the traditional practices that have existed in the past.

Mr FitzPatrick: That is my opinion, yes.

Mr Wiseman: What is the philosophy behind writing legislation in terms of succinctness, verbiage and the use of language?

Mr FitzPatrick: In drafting legislation there is an attempt to be as succinct as possible and not introduce unnecessary words. One of the reasons is that if unnecessary words are used in one place as a qualifier or an explanation, people often try to distinguish that usage from some other place in similar legislation where the qualifying words are not used. Very often there is no intended difference in the choice of words, but because some sort of qualification or explanation has been put in people try to make a distinction that is not there or was not intended.

Mr Wiseman: If I read what you are saying correctly, if it is included in here and we pass this amendment, what we are in effect doing is altering the legislative writing tradition that has existed to this time.

Mr FitzPatrick: That is correct.

Mr Wiseman: Do you know of any other legislation in the past that has had this kind of qualifier put into it? For example, did any Liberal or Progressive Conservative legislation in the past deem to have this kind of reference put in it?

Mr FitzPatrick: Not that I can think of offhand.

Mr Wiseman: If this kind of language were put in the bill, would it in fact open up this legislation to potential challenges that would not exist if it were not in there?

Mr FitzPatrick: For the reasons I mentioned a minute ago, it could invite challenges in some areas.

Mr Wiseman: That raises an interesting point, again, about the need to be succinct and to be as clear as possible about what you are writing. Could this use of putting the private sector into legislation then preclude in the future legislation that would exclude it? Would it make it more difficult, for example, if any government wanted to put -- let's say, hypothetically, it wanted to take over complete control of landfill sites. If this is in there, would that not make a whole body of law difficult and the whole scenario difficult?

Mr FitzPatrick: I do not think that would be a significant problem. Perhaps a little more care might be necessary in framing the new legislation because of differing wording in different places.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to now turn to -- actually to anybody, but I think Mr Drew Blackwell will have more of an idea of the kinds of negotiations that are going on with the private sector around the issues of waste reduction. Could you give us a brief synopsis of what the waste reduction office is doing with regard to the private sector and how it is being included or, as Mr McClelland has indicated, excluded? Could you give us an update as to what the waste reduction office is in fact doing with respect to including the private sector in negotiations and the position papers?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Would you first identify yourself.

Mr Blackwell: My name is Drew Blackwell. I am the assistant deputy minister in charge of the waste reduction office in the Ministry of the Environment.

I will try to describe this briefly. In the first place, we are working on waste reduction strategies and strategies to identify the development of secondary markets for the different materials that compose the waste stream. In each one of these groups we try to include representatives of the producers, users, collectors and processors of the materials involved. We do not deal exclusively with those of the private sector in each of these areas. We also include municipalities and non-profit sector parties involved with each of these sectors.

The purpose of these groups is to help us devise strategies and give direction to the development of government policy as well as to the use of and targetting of specifically available stimulation programs that can be there to try to make sure we get the maximum effect of waste reduction for the limited resources available.

A second area in which we work with different representative bodies from the private sector is when formal policy has already reached the stage of a position paper or, as we are choosing to call them in many cases, initiatives papers. At that point we try to make sure that those parties most affected or that could be affected by any measures that are contemplated have some significant involvement in the actual consideration of the drafts of the papers prior to full public consultation.

Following that there is a practice of making sure everything is out for extensive consultation to all parties who are interested, and certainly at that point the private sector can choose anyone who was not included or did not feel represented through the various business associations with which we work and have the opportunity to participate.

A third area is when activities that will affect a particular sector have already been decided or are in the process of being fully decided and work on implementation needs to take place. A specific example I could give in this case is the area of the development of waste audits and waste reduction action plans for waste generators throughout the province, as contemplated in one of the measures discussed in Initiatives Paper No 1 which was discussed widely last fall.

In this area we are making an effort, and I am happy to say the effort has been quite successful, to involve the associations that represent the different sectors in the development of the guidelines, the documents and the the forms that will be used to assist businesses in the development of these audits. This is partially because there is a real need for businesses to understand, through their own associations, that in most cases these audits will be good for their bottom line and should not be seen simply as something that is an imposition. It is easier for them to realize this if their own business association is making that suggestion to them.


Most important, it is because there are details and idiosyncrasies to the development of working documents for doing audits in particular sectors which are really known in detail only to the persons who are actively involved in that sector. It is quite different to do a waste audit in a hardware store than a dry cleaning plant. The people who are involved in these different sectors are the best advisers on how to do this. We go a little further than that in that we are also working with and trying to assist in making sure the associations can have additional staff available to work with them in assisting their members in developing the audits.

Beyond that, I suggest that there is another range of what I would call informal consultation. There are a number of specific organizations. I would perhaps mention the Ontario Waste Management Association, the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada, the Retail Council of Canada, the environment council of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and of course the various boards of trade -- I should not have started on the list, perhaps, because it is off the top of my head and I am sure I am leaving out some rather major ones -- the Society of the Plastics Industry of Canada and the Packaging Association of Canada, with whom we have a quite constant and regular, ongoing, informal conversation process, both with the staffs of the associations as well as with representatives of their executive committees and their presidents. We try to make a real effort to make sure there is an opportunity just to think through the general process of where we are going together with these individuals.

Within this I would like to mention just one other point, which is that we have found that there is such a significant new interest over the last few years in the business community in understanding what opportunities are available for business development in the environmental sector, a number of new associations and organizations have sprung up precisely in order to assist and develop business development in these areas. They usually come to us and try to help out with the work and suggest.

I would like to mention, just as examples of this, a long-standing organization, the Canadian Association of Recycling Industries. The best known of them, in many ways, would be the Recycling Council of Ontario, which of course is not really a business association as such but it has many business members. Another example would be the Paperboard Packaging Environmental Council, which is most concerned about the development of recycling opportunities for all of the paper sector, and perhaps the Canadian Association of Environmental Industries, which has formed an Ontario chapter, as has the Canadian Association of Recycling Industries.

These are working with us in a special relationship in the sense that it is precisely because of public concern and government initiatives in this area that the kinds of businesses in which their members are engaged have found that they have new business opportunities, so we work with them, in a sense, to try to help give some development for that.

To go beyond this, we would have to start talking specifics of what happens with plastics, what happens with tires, what happens with wood, what happens with each one of the different sectors. There we would be down to the level of what is going on with individual companies, the kinds of grants and the kinds of support for development that take place and our review process for those considerations. I think that would be into a level of detail that would be quite beyond what you would be anticipating or expecting at this point.

Mr Wiseman: Is there anything in this bill that would exclude the private sector from recycling and getting into the business of recycling and taking business opportunities from recycling?

Mr Blackwell: No.

Mr Wiseman: In fact, is it not true that within this bill there are enhanced opportunities for the private sector to get involved in recycling in ways that are not currently available to it?

Mr Blackwell: I think we could say that. There is certainly one area, which is the development -- I guess the catchall phrase for it is the streamlining of the approvals process for recycling facilities, which is made possible through one of the measures in part IV of the bill. That certainly is a great relief to those who are interested in setting up recycling industries. It is something they have been asking for for some time and have been quite supportive of.

Mr Wiseman: With respect to that, in the Hamilton Spectator of January 27, 1992, it was reported that a Mr Horn of Resource Plastics Corp, which is North America's largest recycler of post-consumer plastics, has said, "Resource imports about 1,000 tonnes a month of discarded plastic from the United States." I will quote from the paper what he said: "Mr Horn also said Ontario's Ministry of the Environment must make recycling mandatory. `They've tried to do it on a voluntary basis, but with all the best intentions in the world, a voluntary system won't work.'"

Here is a private sector entrepreneur who is prepared to expand his business but cannot because he cannot get enough plastics. He has also said: "Plastics have a bad image. But all plastics can be recycled. That's a fact." So here is somebody who is just waiting to go. From reading this article, this company seems ready to move ahead in the recycling of plastics and says government regulations are necessary.

We have heard about government regulations from a number of groups, saying, "If you can regulate this, then we're ready to go with the recycling, but we're not going to do it on our own because we don't want to be caught outside the market," as it were. Are you hearing this as well or are these isolated?

Mr Blackwell: I believe the committee heard a similar presentation from the polystyrene recyclers. They were suggesting that one of the problems with Initiatives Paper No 1 was that in the designation of recyclables that would be required for source separation, plastics were not included.

I would like to put in a word of caution, however. When these kinds of requests come forward, one has to consider as well the full state of the infrastructure across the province; the capability and the cost for collection by municipalities. You do not just go ahead and declare something as a designated recyclable because there are one or two plants that are quite interested in having a guaranteed feed stock. That is an important factor and it certainly does stimulate private initiative in that area, but there are a number of considerations. That is why our strategy groups in each of these areas include municipalities as well as the private sector producers.

Mr Wiseman: I have one last question, not to Mr Blackwell but to Mr FitzPatrick; but Mrs Marland would like a supplementary, so I would be willing to allow Mrs Marland a supplementary.

Mrs Marland: Thank you, Mr Wiseman. The supplementary is on this matter of the availability of plastics that are recyclable, and the demand, as the example that you have just given in your letter.

Is it not interesting that -- and I do not know whether Mr Blackwell is the person to comment -- the city of Mississauga, which has been collecting all forms of plastic, including opaque, hard, film, everything, now has a problem with disposing of the plastic. I am just asking how it is that a municipality of 500,000 people which has been a pioneer in the collection of plastics -- unfortunately, Laidlaw Waste Systems Ltd, which has been collecting it, has barns full of it and no way of disposing of it, let alone selling it, yet you have an example of somebody who is looking for it. How does that happen?

Mr Blackwell: I believe that example brings us down to the kinds of specifics that begin to get a little bit complicated, but they are also illustrative of some of the basic principles here.

The city of Mississauga as well as the city of Markham are the two places in Ontario that began a complete collection of all plastics with the purpose of providing these plastics to a specific company that produced one kind of product out of mixed plastic resins. That company was supported by another company which was quite interested in making sure this product was on the market so that its product, which by itself is quite difficult to recycle, could be incorporated into this end use.


That particular style of recycling, in which one does not go for maximum source separation but rather takes quite a number of different materials and mixes them together, has a very limited capability to deal with the large number of materials. To put it rather bluntly, there are just so many park benches that can be consumed in the country and the full capability of buying such products would be completely supplied by the two cities that were supplying. This would not be extendable across the board.

What happens is that when you enter into that kind of very specific relationship, the municipality becomes quite vulnerable to the specific end use that is involved there.

There is a dispute that has taken place. I do not know if the two companies are still in court with each other, but they are in a dispute over the management of the process of the company that was set up to process and produce the substitute for the wood product they were producing, and because of that the market was not available.

At the same time, the example also illustrates the advantage of working on a broad scale, because unless there is new information that I am not aware of, I would have to disagree slightly. I do not believe Laidlaw at this time has the stockpiles. The latest information I had was that the plastics industry as a whole --

Mrs Marland: But my question is in relation to the example Mr Wiseman gave.

Mr Blackwell: I just wanted to point out, though, that it was through the support of the plastics industry as a whole that large amounts of the plastics were then being picked up, and I understand Laidlaw found offshore markets for what was left. The cost of this, however, did go up. My point is that we feel it is very important to do a broad strategy involving as many different players in the industry as possible in order to develop the markets and not hang our hats on individual companies with one product at one point and say this would be the solution.

In that regard -- and again, the example of plastics is a good one because it is illustrative of this -- it is important to understand that it is something that involves relationships with the government as a whole. In this sense, it is quite important that there has been a memorandum of understanding signed between the Society of the Plastics Industries of Canada and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. It is within and under the umbrella of that general memorandum of understanding for the development of the plastics industry as a whole, including training and technology, that we are able to target specifically the area of getting secondary materials in use.

Mrs Marland: But you did not answer the question.

Mr Blackwell: I am sorry, I thought I had.

Mrs Marland: I know what has happened in Mississauga. I was at the opening of the plant that was going to use all these plastics to make the park benches and rulers and everything else. The question was, how is it that with that problem and the ministry knowing of its existence, Mr Wiseman brings an example of a letter to this meeting today saying here is a company that is crying out for plastic? How can that happen? They are not even 20 miles apart.

Mr Blackwell: Resource Plastics is not crying out for plastics which have film, high-density polyethylene, low-density polyethylene, PET all mixed together.

Mrs Marland: That is the company Mr Wiseman is talking about.

Mr Blackwell: Yes. Resource Plastics does separation of the different resins and produces plastic pellets for each of the different resin types, and that is what they then market. Some of the examples of what they import are film coming from Massachusetts, the wraps around soft drink cases and that sort of thing. Under some laws in Massachusetts, it is a requirement that they be recycled, and there is no capability outside of Brantford, Ontario, to do that specific kind of recycling in a cost-effective way.

That is quite a different supply and quite a different stock than what is being collected in Mississauga. Although I would not swear to it, I would predict that a certain percentage of the plastics collected in Mississauga are now going to Resource Plastics, but they could not take the whole stream. They would be taking the portions that are for their particular processes for particular resins. That requires sorting, and that kind of sorting was not included in the initial Mississauga program.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr Wiseman, I believe you had one further question.

Mr Wiseman: Mr Chair, this may come as a bit of a surprise to everybody: It happens to deal with the amendment.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I think all of this has been useful information in terms of just how the system will function, so I think it has all been helpful. I am sure this question will be equally helpful.

Mr Wiseman: In the tradition of legislative writing, if it is changed, would it not mean that the writing of legislation in the future would have to have a long list of those sectors, groups and references that are included from now on, as opposed to what we deem now, that silence gives consent, and omitting them in the future would mean that if they are not in the legislation they are deemed to be excluded?

Mr FitzPatrick: If this were viewed as a change in the provincial approach to drafting legislation, certainly.

Mrs Marland: I think I have a concern. I am not sure whether this bill has enough emphasis on some of the solutions when we are looking at other than landfill sites. Obviously I am going to support the amendment of Mr McClelland, because it has never been proven to me or anybody I know that anything government does, it does more expediently or with less cost than the private sector. Whether or not our ideology supports the private sector and private enterprise in anything, I think every one of us has to admit that government is never more efficient and therefore never less costly.

I think no matter what subject we are looking at as legislators, we should be supporting the use of private sector enterprise, if possible, because it creates and drives the economy. It certainly is not the government that is responsible for the building and development of our country; it is the private sector. It is a well-known fact that the largest employers in Ontario in terms of numbers of jobs are small businesses. So whether that small business is in the waste management area or not, it just rates as common sense to include the option of privately owned operations to be part of the waste management opportunity in Ontario.

Although we know there are already too many areas which this Bob Rae socialist government supports going into as a totally government operation rather than the private sector, I think it would be really regrettable if this bill went through.


Mrs Marland: I am sorry Mrs Mathyssen does not understand my reference to her government, but everybody else in Ontario does.

I think it would be regrettable if any section of this bill went through where it was to the exclusion of something being done by the government. It would be a total mistake. Interestingly enough, I might tell the members opposite, none of whom were in the House at the time, that I introduced a private member's bill supported by their party and, of course, by my own caucus, but not supported by the Liberal government at the time. I am sorry, but I do not think you were in the House at the time either, Mr Beer. I brought forward a private bill requiring municipalities to have mandatory recycling, not mandatory that every single property owner took part in it, but mandatory that every municipality at least offered that opportunity to its residents and generators of waste.


I am of the opinion that recycling should be mandatory, but I also know that now we can appreciate the real end cost of recycling, that the more realistic road for a government to be working along, as far as I am concerned, is reduction. I really hope this government will work towards reducing the amount of garbage or waste generated -- whatever word you want to use -- by the people who live in this province, because although recycling is great -- recycling is certainly 100% better than burying it or burning -- it is much better not to create it in the first place.

I hope this government will bring in regulations that indicate they are committed to the reduction so we do not get into the requirement for recycling. I did not hear that, however, yesterday from the minister. I gave her an opportunity to encourage the people of this province by saying -- I mean those of us who are concerned about volumes of waste in this province. I gave her an opportunity yesterday to say that she was considering increasing the percentage required for refillable containers and her answer was very clear that she was quite happy with the present percentage. They were talking about it with her staff and with industry, I think she said. I do not have Hansard in front of me, but I was hoping her answer would be, "No, we are planning to increase the percentage of required refillable containers."

When we are talking about this amendment, I think we have to leave that door open for private enterprise to help the government solve this problem. I can assure you that any aspect or proposal brought forward by the private sector, whether dealing with landfill waste disposal sites as addressed in this amendment or other means of dealing with waste through reduction, reuse and recycling, to ignore the opportunity through private sector would be the most regressive aspect of legislation dealing with waste management this province could possibly have.

Mr Cousens: Having listened to Mrs Marland, she has taken the point I was going to discuss and has said it very eloquently. I would like to ask a question of the parliamentary assistant whether there is a policy within the Ministry of the Environment that has to do with the way the ministry will work with business. Is there a written policy in the Ministry of the Environment on how it will deal with business?

Mr O'Connor: Thank you for that question. That is something even I am curious about. I do not believe there will be anything excluding them. We have seen, through Mr Blackwell's response to some of the questions this morning, how very well they work with a number of initiatives. There is nothing excluding any industry from applying for anything through, for example, the EA process, but maybe I can ask the assistant deputy, Jim Merritt, if he could respond a little better than I could to that specific question.

Mr Merritt: Jim Merritt, acting assistant deputy minister for regional operations. There is no specific policy labelled for the purpose of dealing directly with the private sector, but there is a large number of policies within the ministry that talk about the ministry activities and ways of dealing with people in the province in general, and they include the private sector. There is nothing exclusionary about our activities. We are broadly based in working with the private sector and indeed the people of Ontario.

We have a number of programs to help encourage private sector activities. In addition to the items Mr Blackwell talked about, we have grant programs targeted to private sector groups specifically to help them in the business enterprises, to help them crack into new markets. We also have efforts in an advocacy sense to help the private sector get through government processes and advise them in terms of environmental questions, interest and opportunities for markets.

Indeed, the Ministry of the Environment several years ago occasionally produced a document about private sector opportunities in the area of the environment and I could try and make that available to you. I do not have a copy right now. We have expanded that effort to include other ministries in the Ontario government and I think that has now culminated in the so-called green industry initiatives being announced, more broadly based.

Mr Cousens: There are a number of excellent illustrations where there has been good working relationships established with the private sector. I think part of the concern I heard from other speakers on the subject this morning has to do with the need for erasing some of the concerns and doubts that others who have not had the privilege to work with the ministry have. Not everybody has the level of confidence in the Ministry of the Environment that the parliamentary assistant or the government has.

I would like to see that out of this motion there might well be great benefit for the ministry to develop a policy statement that becomes a series of guiding principles on how the ministry will deal with the private sector. My question asked for a specific document that would then become a guideline. If such a policy was defined and then shared, it might go to some extent to relieve the concerns being raised by the motivation behind this motion we are dealing with now.

It is not the kind of thing we are in a position to have you do from opposition, but I think it is a suggestion that maybe the parliamentary assistant could consider and take forward. I believe the motion before us today is very well intended. If there is any way we can have government establish a better working relationship with business and try not to do things in exclusion to business, we will have taken a step in the right direction.

The policy initiative papers and other things that have gone on are of themselves of great worth and have to be encouraged, advanced and promoted. But as well, behind all those deeds, if there is such a clearly defined statement of intentions by the government as to how it is going to work with the private sector, it would begin to alleviate the kinds of concerns floating to the top right now.

It is going to be difficult for the New Democrats to do that kind of thing because of their own philosophy, but maybe now that they are looking at some of the intensity of the reaction people have to government initiatives, special efforts have to be taken by the government to show good faith. That kind of good faith would come -- at this point, we are saying, "Let's look at private examples where others can be involved in the development of landfill sites so that it is not just a government project"; not just symbolic gestures that talk about ways the government is going to try to work with business. Let's take steps forward that build relationships with other sectors.

I often look at the triangle that exists. The triangle itself is a very strong symbol of working together. I see at the top of that triangle government, at one corner business and at the other corner labour, manpower, womenpower -- all the people who help make it happen. What is happening now is that if we give undue attention to the top part of the triangle, which is government, without including the other areas of business and the private sector and the people who really implement things, it cannot be as good; it cannot be as successful; it cannot lead us into some of the possible successes we are capable of.


I am one of those who do not believe government does it best of everyone. It is a philosophy. In fact, probably one of the best lines yesterday came from Margaret Marland. We were talking about it and she said, "You know, we would be doing the province a favour if we didn't pass any laws for a while and let people just get better control of what we have in place now." We are becoming so law-heavy. It is all government-imposed regulations, government-imposed new rules. I thought you said it, because it was a very wise approach.

Mrs Marland: No, it must have been somebody else.

Mr Cousens: Any good ideas lately have been coming from Mississauga South.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): One could suggest that wisdom from any source is worthy.

Mr Cousens: Even from the Chair.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Thank you.

Mr Cousens: The motion before us begins to build those relationships, so I thank the honourable member for presenting it. I suspect we will have strong support from everybody in this committee for that motion when it comes to a vote shortly.

Mr McClelland: Mr Chairman, I put forward the amendment and the rationale for it. I am going to try and be very brief. Mr Wiseman responded and kind of walked through with counsel about the pros and cons and why he wanted to craft a rationale for why it was not advisable. With no disrespect to anybody, I am going to put my money with a lot of people. It was not me who said the private sector was not welcome here; the private sector said it. Person after person and association after association came here and said it. I will mention their names: people like Mr Jeffery, the former chairman of the Environmental Assessment Board, and Mr Rohmer. No disrespect to anybody here, but I am going to stack up his résumé against anybody's, including yours, Mr Wiseman, in terms of trying to make an evaluation of good law. I will take his opinion over yours any day with respect to what is good law.

Mr Wiseman: This amendment clearly indicates that you take your marching orders from him.

Mr McClelland: Those people have suggested that one of the ways the private sector can get a level of assurance and some level of recognition is to begin to recognize it in the legislative format.

Mr Wiseman interjected. For the record, since it probably was not picked up, he said that I take my marching orders from him, referring to Mr Rohmer representing the private sector. None of us takes marching orders from anybody. We take their advice and counsel. On balance, I take his counsel over yours, Mr Wiseman, very clearly.


The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Order, please. I think we have all had an opportunity to comment on this section. Mr McClelland has the floor.

Mr McClelland: Mr Chairman, the question --

Mr Wiseman: It is interesting how you insult personalities when you have no argument.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Order, please, Mr McClelland has the floor.

Mr McClelland: The question was put to the parliamentary assistant whether or not there was any policy statement articulated by the ministry. The answer was forthcoming that there was not. It was suggested by Mr Cousens that maybe I would not want to develop that. We are not talking about the ministry necessarily, Mr Chairman; we are also talking about the government.

On August 24, 1990, the NDP issued a policy paper and a press release that said, "Only a publicly run system can ensure that the best interests of Ontario are maintained and protected." "Only a publicly run system can ensure." It is in that background. We are not talking about the theoretical law. We are talking about the realities of Ontario today, the realities where businesses are leaving, where they are hearing a Premier call them "bloated capitalists." Then you say you want to get into some nice argument about legislative drafting.

We are talking about the private sector that has come here over and over again and has been represented by capable people, learned people, who have said, "You've got to change the law to make it work for the private sector." They are the ones who have said it. They are the ones who are asking that this government not only pay lipservice to them but recognize in reality that they have a place in this province.

You can trot out all the theoretical arguments you want about legislative drafting to try and avoid the issue. The issue is this: Do you believe in the private sector or do you not? Do you think they are bloated capitalists, as your Premier says, or do they have a role to play in the province of Ontario? They have said they want to be here. They say they want to maintain their presence in Ontario and are prepared to continue here, but they need to have a framework within which they can operate. That is the fundamental issue. We can get into a debate and we can continue this as long as Mr Wiseman wants, but the bottom line is this: You accept the reality that business is unsure -- not stated by me, but stated by business.

Businesses have stated they do not feel comfortable. Private sector waste management said, "We are not comfortable here in light of statements made by the now minister that only a publicly run system is viable." The minister now has apparently changed her mind and said she is willing to compromise that and qualify it somewhat. The private sector is saying, "Give us something concrete that offsets the statements you've made" -- not the policy of the ministry; the policy of the government. It is the NDP government that has set a policy statement. They are the ones who have put it on paper and released it, on August 24, 1990. What the private sector is saying is: "Give us something to offset that. Give us something that adds" -- if you will -- "meat to your statement that, `Yes, you're welcome; we didn't really mean it in those harsh terms.'" That is what they are asking for. That is what this amendment begins to move towards.

As I have said, with no disrespect to anybody else in terms of his or her evaluation, I will certainly support the legal opinion of learned people who have a tremendous amount of experience and whose academic credentials are absolutely superb in terms of their evaluation of whether this is good law or not. I suggest very clearly that to try --


Mr McClelland: The record will not pick this up. Mr Wiseman is saying off the record that I am insulting legal counsel from the Ministry of the Environment. I am not insulting legal counsel.

Mr Martin: You are.

Mr McClelland: Mr Martin is also saying the same thing -- that I am. I will have my exchange with legal counsel directly. They know I am not insulting them. They are much bigger than that. What I am saying is that, in terms of balance, there are people who have come with a very particular point of view whose opinion I am willing to accept.

Mr Martin: You have been insulting us for weeks now.

Mr McClelland: That is not an insult to anybody. We sometimes have differing opinions. That does not necessarily involve an insult. One of the difficulties, when you are bound ideologically, Mr Martin and Mr Wiseman, is that when people disagree, it does not necessarily mean it is a personal challenge or an insult; it is an agreement to disagree. You have to allow the latitude that people have a different opinion.

I have chosen to state on the record, Mr Chairman, that I happen to accept the opinion of others -- and it is no insult intended to anybody -- who feel it is good law. In light of the background of this legislation and of the economic climate, where a Premier is, as I said, calling the private sector "bloated capitalists," is it any wonder there is an element of fear?

This morning I received a call from St Catharines, Ontario, from a private sector operator. His assessment was this. It was very plain. He said, "I guess you're not getting very far with these people," referring to the government, that it really is not interested. "Only time will tell; it may even come up today," was my response to him. Time will tell, and apparently it has. The writing is very clearly on the wall as to where this government stands. It seems to me evident that they are reverting back to their position paper of August 24, 1990. Inasmuch as they will say they want to have the involvement, inasmuch as the ministry representatives will say, "We discuss with the private sector," the private sector has asked for something specific and concrete. There are a series of amendments to that effect.

The government has indicated very plainly that it is not prepared to look at them or accept them. That sends a very clear message. It is a message being sent by the members of this committee on behalf of the government of the day again saying, basically, "Sorry, we don't like the profit; we don't like the private sector."

I cannot help but look at the paper today. "Silent Revolt: Businesses Flee Ontario Without Fanfare." "Winners" -- in this economic climate, in light of the NDP government -- "will be those...who fall into the `not-for-profit' style of business socialists love." You are just saying, "Yes, that's exactly what we believe," and you are underscoring that by some of the actions of this committee today by the NDP members.


Mr O'Connor: As we sit here this morning it seems we are stuck at a point we cannot seem to get over -- at some points it seems to be rhetoric; at some points it seems to be genuine concern. I think there is concern -- and maybe Mr Cousens put it quite eloquently -- about the private sector lack of involvement. This morning we have heard, from people who have been here to advise the committee through the process, working for the ministry, that there is ample opportunity for them to be involved.

One of the fears that was talked about, too, was that people could be excluded by including just a certain number of people. I think that is a genuine concern and I think that is a reason why I will not be supporting this amendment. But the concerns about private sector involvement and the lack of this government's intention for any sort of role for the private sector in the province is, I think, nonsense. As somebody who came off an assembly line in Oshawa, I know as the economy dipped and turned there were times when cars were not selling and I was laid off. When cars started selling again, then I was recalled back to work. That is how the private sector works and that is how people working for different industries work as well.

I think we have heard an awful lot of rhetoric. I do not think we could assume anyone here would think that we would be nationalizing everything within the province that is run by the private sector today. I think that is nonsense.

We heard through some of our advisers today about how they are including people who are processors, producers, handlers and the consumers of some of the products that end up in the waste stream. Clearly a lot of them are in the private sector, so by including just the words "private sector" we could end up excluding some people in that process. So I do not think it would be appropriate, though the intent is, I am sure, quite honourable by the member, Mr McClelland, to include the private sector.

I think the intent could be quite honourable, but the fact remains that the government is not against all the private sector. So the problem we have before us, then, is that to include something like this amendment then excludes people and of course, as has been pointed out to us, would change the way all legislation is drafted. The problem when you start including people is the fact that you start excluding people.

I hope the committee can get to the point where we can continue with the clause-by-clause and vote on the amendment. We have heard concerns from both sides. We have heard a considerable amount of rhetoric. Anyone who is still watching us probably tuned out some time ago because we have heard a lot of speeches that did not mean anything. They are probably concerned about listening to the clause-by-clause portion of it and seeing the changes and amendments as they do come forward and how they are presented, how they are voted for and what not. I would just close with that and hope we can proceed a little more quickly.

Mr Cousens: I move the question.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I have Mr Wiseman and Mrs Mathyssen to speak. I am mindful of the hour and the time we have spent on this section. If I could, I ask honourable members to be brief, but I would like to get to the vote. We will have Mr Wiseman and Mrs Mathyssen.

Mr Wiseman: I would just like to speak for a moment to the history of where I came from in terms of the questioning about the addition of the language in this amendment. Mr Rohmer made his presentation in Kingston. On the plane from Kingston to Sarnia I had the same discussion with Mr FitzPatrick that I had here. It was because of my concern about the use of language in legislation and about what he was saying in terms of the private sector, because I had had other conversations with representatives from the private sector about their role within the context of this legislation.

I would say that there was, to a certain extent, a certain amount of misconception on their part about the legislation itself. They felt that if they were not specifically included they were excluded. I tried to explain to them that my understanding of the law and the writing of legislation was what we went through this morning, so I will not go through it again. But I was concerned about that, and to say that I was not is not fair, because the honourable member is not privy to conversations that I have had.

Mr Cousens: No one can tell whether you are concerned or not.

Mr Wiseman: So through the discussions it was my understanding of law --

Mr Cousens: I just want to make it clear that it is not good for us to say whether he is concerned or not. I think that is true, because we cannot tell.

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

Mr Wiseman: Because the legislation does not exclude the private sector and because section 4 of this legislation, when we get to the recycling, opens up large numbers of opportunities for entrepreneurs to get involved -- and many have contacted my office since these hearings began. They have ideas for new machinery, the production of equipment for recycling, the opportunities to open plants, the opportunities to hire people -- and they are waiting. Some people are actually waiting for this legislation to be passed so they can get their business opportunities off the ground and get moving, because the process for certificate of approval on recycling plants right now is too long and too onerous. They are looking forward to having an expedited process through the regulations which will allow them to get on with manufacturing.

We have had long conversations on the phone about this, and I have done whatever I can to encourage them into moving along. I would just like to reiterate that the private sector is not excluded by this legislation but I do have fears about changing the tradition and the direction of legislative writing that this would imply.

Mrs Mathyssen: Just one last point: The minister has already said there is room for the private sector in waste management, and this government has made it very clear that we support a mixed economy. In light of Mr McClelland's assertion that he respects legal counsel's opinion that this amendment would create unnecessary and difficult problems, I must say that I am very sceptical about this motion and the motives behind it and the motives of those who support it. I would say, let's get on with it. Let's vote on this one.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall the Liberal motion on subclauses 14(1)(a)(iii) and (b)(iii) carry? Those in favour? Those opposed?

Mr Cousens: A recorded vote on that, Mr Chairman.

Mr McClelland: Mr Chairman, I imagine you are going to let the comment about motives just pass. I will leave that up to your discretion. I draw it to your attention and leave it in your hands, Mr Chairman.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Thank you. I recognize that at times honourable members suggest meaning from what is said. I would just remind everyone that we do not question anyone's motives in the committee or in the Legislature. I am sure no one means to do that.

Mr McClelland: Mr Chairman, could you ask Mrs Mathyssen to withdraw those words?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mrs Mathyssen, Mr McClelland has asked if you could phrase your comments with respect to his motives in a different way. Do you have any comments?

Mrs Mathyssen: That I am sceptical? That I am not sceptical? How would you like me to phrase it, Mr McClelland?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I think the question is just in terms of the way in which one tries to express another member's motives.


Mrs Mathyssen: Oh, I see. I appreciate very much that Mr McClelland appreciates the expertise of our legal counsel, and perhaps we should leave it at that.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Under the procedures of the House and committees, when an honourable member is asked to withdraw it is normally the tradition.

Mrs Mathyssen: Mr Chair, I withdraw the word "sceptical." Would that be sufficient?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): If you could phrase it in terms of just withdrawing. Imputing any motive to the honourable member would, I believe --

Mrs Mathyssen: I certainly would not impute any motive to honourable members.

Mr Wiseman: None of us would.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): There is a request for a recorded vote on the Liberal motion.

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

Ayes -- 5

Cousens, Marland, McClelland, Ramsay, Sola.

Nays -- 6

Lessard, Martin, Mathyssen, O'Connor, Ward, B., Wiseman.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): We move on to the next motion, which is a Liberal motion. Mr McClelland, did you wish to move this next amendment?

Mr McClelland moves that clause 14(2)(a) of the Bill be amended by striking out "transportation of waste" in the fourth line and substituting "transportation of waste, other than products and material derived from recycling."

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Do you wish to comment on that amendment?

Mr McClelland: It is basically to clarify a position, and we may get into the same kind of argument of whether it creates more problems that it solves. The point is that I think we need some clarification in terms of a stated position -- I am sure the parliamentary assistant will correct me if I am wrong -- that there is to be a distinction between what is considered waste and product derived from recycling. There has been some concern that waste, being a relatively generic term and lacking definition, may inadvertently prohibit the transportation of products that are derived from waste. Accordingly, this amendment tries to put handles on the definition. I suppose that at the end of the day we are talking about the prohibition of transporting only the product that ends up being landfilled. Inasmuch as the scheme of the legislation says that the solution will be a landfill, a product that does not end up in a landfill, it would seem to follow, then would be free to move across municipal boundaries.

The motion is an attempt to clarify that. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant could render some assistance in terms of the position of the government and also whether the motion is useful or otherwise in making that clear, making the distinction between the end waste product, if you will, ie, that material that is being landfilled, and the other product that could have some use in the latitude the government will afford the transportation of product that will not end up in a landfill and how that will be defined and worked through, with the definitions, in the implementation of the policy contained in clause 14(2)(a). Perhaps the parliamentary assistant could help us with that.

Mr O'Connor: We have a government motion to follow that is very similar to the Liberal motion. It addresses the concern you have raised and some of the issues you talked about, but I feel the government response is perhaps a little more suited to the purpose of the task that it is to undertake.

Mr McClelland: On what section?

Mr O'Connor: The same one, clause 14(2)(a). Our motion will follow your motion.

Mr McClelland: I apologize to members of the committee. I did not have that in my package.

Mr O'Connor: The intention behind your motion was well taken. Our amendment was actually crafted very similarly. I would prefer that the government motion go forward, and I appreciate the work.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): There may have been a mixup but there were several amendments circulated yesterday and inadvertently you did not receive it. Do you have a copy of it now?

Mr McClelland: For the record, I did not receive any of the amendments circulated yesterday.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Now that you have the government amendment in front of you, do you wish to withdraw your amendment and we go on to consider the government's?

Mr McClelland: Just bear with me for a moment. That is fine.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): So you would withdraw your amendment.

Mr McClelland: Yes, Mr Chairman.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Then we would move to the government amendment on clause 14(2)(a).

Mr O'Connor moves that clause 14(2)(a) of the bill be amended by adding at the end of the fifth line "for disposal."

Do you wish to comment on that?

Mr O'Connor: As Mr McClelland mentioned earlier in discussion, it is for the same purpose as his amendment was.

Mr Martin: I would like to speak in support of this motion and to recognize that its intent is in fact very similar to the motion that was proposed by the Liberals. I think that signifies that certainly on some issues re this legislation we are in accord. I think it also indicates this government is trying to find ways to respond constructively and positively to some of the discussion we have had over the last four weeks as we crossed the province with this important piece.

I would like to couch my comments, though, in response to some of the criticism that has been coming at us from across the floor for the last few days, to which I have not responded but which I have listened to intently and have been somewhat distraught by. It seems to me the folks across the way are, at a time when it is most inappropriate, trying to drive a wedge between government and the private sector working cooperatively to renew the economy of this province. I think the record clearly indicates it is in fact the case that the government is very interested in working cooperatively with the private sector and trying to bring the private sector together with its workers in a more positive way.

I think one only has to look as far as the deal that was cut re the de Havilland situation in southern Ontario, the work that was done on behalf of the people of Sault Ste Marie re the Algoma Steel challenge that faces us up there, and actually the very interesting development around the difficulty the Reichmann family is having in this province at a moment when the Ontario government has stepped in and said: "We'll assist in whatever way we can. We're interested in having you stay healthy and well, because certainly Ontario is interested in its private sector."

It is with that in mind, and certainly the Bob Rae democratic socialist government's intention to move the economy of this province forward in a very difficult global recessionary time, and it will be done in ever more creative ways and certainly in more courageous ways than I think previous governments have found the will to do.

In northern Ontario we are very interested in new industrial development and taking advantage of any opportunity that might make itself possible as our world becomes more and more concerned with the environment and how we manage our waste.


This piece of legislation will certainly put those of us who live and work in northern Ontario in a stronger position and more in control for a change, actually, to have some ownership around how this question of waste management and the evolution of a portion of the recycling in most of the industries we do might benefit us in a more positive and greater way.

Historically we in the north have not been dealt with in the most positive of ways regarding the resource that we are and the resources we have in that part of this province. There has been a history of the private sector seeing what we have, coming in and high-grading it, and then leaving those of us who have been attracted to the work opportunity up there wondering what we might do through this bust-boom cycle of many of the one-industry towns that now exist in that part of the province.

We feel this legislation and the pressure that will be put upon those of us who produce waste to manage it in a more intelligent way will provide us with a greater opportunity to have industry that is in fact sustainable, productive and sensitive to the environmental impact than simply shipping garbage north and putting it in some of the big holes that have been left by previous efforts to develop northern Ontario. We no longer will be satisfied with the remnant of big holes and piles of dirt. We want good jobs for our friends and neighbours and our families and we want them developed in a way that gives us as much control and ownership of that industry as is possible, certainly in partnership with government, with the private sector and with those who will work directly in those enterprises.

This amendment to the legislation we have in front of us I hope will clarify for everybody -- certainly there were lots of questions, particularly when we were in Kirkland Lake, about just what we could and could not transport in the interests of industrial development and the evolution of the way we will manage waste. Yesterday the minister was here and spoke of this piece of legislation as simply being a start in the evolution of how we will manage waste in Ontario and how industry will benefit from a more intelligent approach to the management of waste.

This amendment to the legislation should make all those, in northern Ontario particularly, who are somewhat nervous about the possibility of all products being stopped from coming north as we look at ways of perhaps enhancing the stock of recycling material we have so that the industry we develop would have a more positive chance to be viable, less anxious and less concerned. With this amendment we certainly indicate that any materials that would have benefits re industrial development in the north, as we look at the whole question of recycling our waste and managing our waste in a more intelligent way, will go a long way to making sure this in fact happens.

I will be supporting this amendment because I have had some good and I think meaningful discussion with the ministry and with my colleagues about it and feel that this will in very significant ways clarify a lot of the questions my colleagues and my friends and neighbours in the north have around this legislation and how it might impact their ability to take advantage of those opportunities.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Thank you. Mrs Marland.

Mrs Marland: I certainly welcome Mr Martin to the debate. Did somebody jump in and change your batteries? It is great that --

Mr Martin: Excuse me, Mr Chair. It is interesting to note that it seems whenever the opposition starts into a discussion they cannot help but take the opportunity to continue to insult and to bait us. I want you to know that it is really not appreciated.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mrs Marland has the floor. I would just make the observation to honourable members that we are debating a government motion and perhaps we could keep our comments related to that motion.

Mrs Marland: Yes, Mr Chairman, I will keep my comments to the motion. It is interesting, however, to hear members speaking. I think it is great that it is Thursday and Mr Martin has finally gotten into this discussion this week, because whether he likes it or not, in the real world of being an elected member in this House, debate is what it is about. If any member does not like the debate, then I guess he or she is not in the right job. The fact is that these amendments are before us for discussion and debate. If the member for Sault Ste Marie has concern because we react to the statements made by the Bob Rae socialists, be it as it is, that is something that is not within anyone's purview to control.

I was encouraged, however, in hearing the member for the Sault refer to his government as being a democratic socialist government. I thought, boy, at least we are halfway down the path, because certainly I have been referring to them all week as the Bob Rae socialists, and now they at least recognize they are a socialist government. I think it is great to recognize that there are three socialist governments left in the world and one of their own members here in Ontario has now acknowledged that in fact that is what they are.

In this particular amendment, Mr Chairman, the member talked about the fact that there is a concern by all of us in opposition about what is happening to the province, and he is saying that the government is driving its own wedge. I would suggest they are well past the wedge and it is the whole mallet that now is being driven into the breakdown of the economy of this province. Certainly, if he wants to look at the policies of the government, he can only look --

Mr Martin: Mr Chairman, might I clarify my comments, in light of how they are being twisted?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Excuse me, Mrs Marland. Mr Martin, you are quite able to speak later, after she has concluded her remarks, and I can put you down on the list. Apart from a valid point of order, Mrs Marland has the floor.

Mr Martin: I just wanted to say that the wedge was not being put by us, but by the opposition.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): That is not a point of order or a point of anything.

Mrs Marland: What everybody in this province knows is that this socialist government in Ontario today is not doing anything to help the economic recession we are in. Everyone understands the priorities of this government. Everyone will see it in the throne speech a week from now. They will understand what labour law reforms mean to the economy of this province. In fact, the labour law reforms themselves may impact on the execution of this bill, and in particular this amendment.

If we are talking about what their government has done for this province, we will not have to worry about whether the people of Ontario understand what their government has done to this province, because the people of Ontario understand very clearly.

I want to say that I do support the government motion. It is a motion that clarifies clause 14(2)(a).

To Mr FitzPatrick or Mr Jackson: Yesterday I asked whether the word "incineration" would have clarifications in the regulations. I wondered if you would give the answer that you gave me yesterday when we had adjourned about how the word "incineration" was going to be addressed in the regulations.


Mr FitzPatrick: The Minister of the Environment some time ago announced that the incineration of municipal solid waste would no longer be allowed in the province. Since that time instructions have been given to staff to flesh out that policy, work out a number of details, to ultimately implement it by giving it the force of law in regulation. That is being done. It is expected the regulation will go forward fairly shortly, and the instructions to date include that there will be a prohibition against the burning of fuel derived from municipal solid waste, with some exceptions such as clean wood.

Mrs Marland: Thank you for that clarification.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): It is 12 o'clock. If you just have a couple of things you want to finish up, we could do that, or we could wait and come back at 2, or we could move this motion. Do you have some other things you wish to add at this point?

Mrs Marland: No. I am quite happy to support the government motion with the understanding that Mr FitzPatrick has just clarified that refuse-derived fuel from municipal solid waste is included when this section refers to incineration, and that is so.

Mr FitzPatrick: By the time this section of the bill is relevant to anyone, it is expected that the regulation I described will be in place.

Mrs Marland: Will it apply to any applications that are currently before the ministry?

Mr FitzPatrick: It will apply from the time that it is made, which is expected to be fairly soon.

Mrs Marland: When it is proclaimed, does it deal with any applications that are before the ministry now?

Mr FitzPatrick: It will apply to any applications that have not already been dealt with by that time.

Mrs Marland: Dealt with in what way?

Mr FitzPatrick: In terms of issuing approvals.

Mrs Marland: In giving a certificate of approval?

Mr FitzPatrick: That is correct.

Mrs Marland: If they have not received a certificate of approval, they would be under the proclamation of this bill.

Mr FitzPatrick: Under the new regulation, that is correct.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I would like to put the government motion.

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

Ayes -- 8

Cousens, Lessard, Marland, Martin, Mathyssen, O'Connor, Ward B., Wiseman.

Nays -- 3

McClelland, Ramsay, Sola.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Before we adjourn, I note that we will be coming back at 2 o'clock. At 4 o'clock we will begin to vote on all those clauses and sections of the bill that we will not have debated by that point. We still have a lot of work to do and we will see everyone back here at 2 o'clock.

The committee recessed at 1205.


The committee resumed at 1403.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Good afternoon. We are back and ready to complete the bill, as authorized by the House. When we finished before the lunch break we had just passed clause 14(2)(a). The next motion relates to subsection 14(3). So before asking Mr McClelland to put that, shall clause 14(2)(b) carry? All in favour? Carried.

Now we move on to subsection 14(3). Mr McClelland, there are two. I am wondering which of the two motions there you would like to move. Possibly the second one?

Mr McClelland: We will start with the second one.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr McClelland moves that subsection 14(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Deemed compliance

"(3) An environmental assessment which complies with this section shall be deemed to comply with subsection 5(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act in respect of the matters referred to in this section if a notice is published in a newspaper of general circulation in the area where the landfill waste disposal site is located stating that the environmental assessment has been completed but that the assessment does not comply with subsection 5(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act."

Mr McClelland: What we have here is really an absurdity on its face. The legislation says we will have deemed compliance with subsection 5(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act. The very substance of the Environmental Assessment Act is to maintain its integrity and to follow through the process, and to say that you have deemed compliance with the process is on the face of it quite absurd. So what we are saying is, if you are going to say it is deemed compliance, then let people know that is what it is; it does not in fact comply. The very necessity of putting this language in the act is saying that it does not comply and there has been no attempt to comply with subsection 5(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act, so the government says, "Well, we'll deem it to have happened."

I know what is going to happen with this amendment. The government is going to defeat it, and so be it. But the reality is that they are saying, "We're going to put on our little veneer of complying with the Environmental Assessment Act," when in fact there is no compliance. "We'll just say we complied," and that somehow makes it all right. "Even though we haven't done it, we'll pretend that we've done it." What we are saying in our amendment is, let's be realistic about it. If you are going to say that you have deemed to do it, also say that the reality is that you have not done it.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall the Liberal motion, subsection 14(3), carry? Those in favour? Opposed?

Motion negatived.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall section 14, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed?

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Section 15:

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): We will move on, then, to section 15. I have a Liberal motion.

Mr McClelland moves that subsection 15(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:


"(1) The Minister of the Environment may, after consulting with representatives of the public and private sectors, establish policies for the purposes of this part."

Mr McClelland: This amendment takes the stated section in the act which says the Minister of the Environment may establish policies by putting on a legislative requirement that policies established by the ministry, particularly with respect to waste management and landfills and so on, have a component of public and private sector consultation. You will note that we have included both elements in the consultative process that we seek to have legislatively prescribed.

I think the reasons have become abundantly clear. We are absolutely convinced more and more on this side of the table, particularly in light of much of the discussion this morning, that the government, notwithstanding its lipservice to the involvement of a variety of interest groups, in fact does not deliver the goods. We heard so many people come before this committee throughout the course of hearings who said they were not consulted. We even had the absurd situation where people sat at this table and said, "Nobody talked to us about Bill 143," and then government members would say: "Yes, we did talk to you. Trust us, we talked to you." The people would sit there again and say, "But you didn't talk to us," and the government said, "You must be wrong because we think we talked to you, so we must have talked to you." It is a sad day when we have to try to legislatively address the fact that consultation is in fact an honest exchange of ideas, that it is a matter of not just hearing with your ears but of listening and giving people access.

We have heard, as we travelled to places like Kirkland Lake, and Mr Cousens brought this up yesterday, of select people and select interest groups having an opportunity to consult with the minister. In particular, groups that were pro-government in their position were invited and brought down to Toronto by the minister to "consult with the minister." But if duly elected members of council and others wanted to have the same audience and be afforded the same opportunity and courtesy, that opportunity was not afforded them.

We have brought forward this motion not only to hopefully encourage the government but also to require the current government to consult with public and private sectors. Again, it stresses the fact that there is a broader world out there, and we are not sure, quite frankly, based on what we heard around this table from the countless deputants who came before us and said that they had no real hearing of any kind -- we heard that with respect to the drafting of the legislation itself, major players, municipalities, did not even find out about it until after the fact, so accordingly we have moved this amendment to subsection 15(1).


Mr Cousens: An example of where this government has completely gone astray has to do with the labour legislation in which we are having --

Mr Wiseman: That would be out of order.

Mr Cousens: It is proof of the point. You can call order, and I will pause while the chairman rules on it.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Go on.

Mr Cousens: The situation we are having in another ministry gives cause for this kind of motion in this ministry. By prefacing my remarks with that, I would like to just comment briefly on the proposed labour reform legislation the Ontario social democrat government is going to be bringing in.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I am assuming that any remarks you make on any particular policy will be linked and that you will demonstrate the link to the motion for discussion.

Mr Cousens: Have confidence in me, Charles. The fact is I want to rub some salt in the wounds of the New Democrats who to this point in time have demonstrated no consideration for publics other than groups they want to listen to. I want to listen to everybody when I make a decision. There are all kinds of people who have important things to contribute to a good decision-making process.

What I want to do is make sure that the government is going to listen to more than just preferred, favoured groups that it might want to listen to. That has to do with the way in which the Ministry of Labour has already demonstrated its inability to talk to business. By the way, maybe this is the first time that people who are watching this program on a Thursday afternoon have heard it, but on April 6 when the Ontario Legislature resumes with a speech from the throne, Mr Bob Rae's government will be making significant announcements that take it forward in labour reform legislation. In a leaked cabinet document that we have been reviewing for the last couple of days, the number one item on the agenda for the New Democratic government is the labour legislation.

It is an example of where a government has not listened to business. It has gone ahead and it has listened to one group in the triangle. They have listened to them and they are responding to them, and yet they are not acting in the overall best interests of everyone in Ontario. What I want to do is criticize a government that is only going to listen to preferred groups.

Mrs Marland: Do you want to see the leaked document?

Mr Cousens: Well, maybe we should. I do not have mine with me. Do you have yours?

Mrs Marland: It is next to my heart.

Mr Cousens: It is next to your heart?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Order, please. Mr Cousens, perhaps you could please continue with your discussion of this motion. If honourable members would ignore other comments, then we could continue to be focused on the motion on subsection 15(1).

Mr Cousens: This motion will require the Ministry of the Environment, especially the Minister of the Environment, to consult with the public and private sectors. That has not happened in the instance of the labour reform legislation that is going to come before the House on April 6 or shortly thereafter. There has not been dialogue between business and this government on that bill. If there was some way in which we could force the New Democrats to listen to more than just labour on this issue -- I want to listen to labour, but not just labour. I want to be able to listen to the combined resources of all the people who have something to say and then come to a decision. But when some 60 or more recommendations on labour reform have not been reviewed with business people --

Mr Wiseman: Forty consultations around the province.

Mr Cousens: I venture to say, from the comments we have coming out of your cabinet, you are not going to make any changes of any significance to the labour reform legislation. So you can consult all you want, Jim. You guys, you can consult all you want, but if you are not --


The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Order, please. Mr Cousens, perhaps you could link your comments directly to the motion.

Mr Cousens: It takes a while to do it, Mr Chairman, and I appreciate your patience.

What you really want to do is in some way force the dippers to listen to someone other than dippers. If they would listen to people who have other views, then our province would be much further advanced. The best interests of the province would be advanced. If the Minister of the Environment has the same kind of locked-in, closed view as the Ministry of Labour in her future dealings, which has been demonstrated by previous dealings in the preparation of this bill, then why not have a motion brought before us that is going to require the minister to publicly consult with the private sector and listen to other people?

If the government members on this committee believe in consultation, they will come along and support this motion. If they do not believe in consultation and listening and working with groups that may not agree with them fully, they will vote this motion down. By virtue of the comments that have been made, I have little doubt the New Democratic members will vote it down, but I cannot understand why. If they believe in consultation and open government, then they would come forward and say this kind of friendly amendment is going to make it possible for the government to do things better than it is otherwise going to do. Otherwise, you are just talking to yourselves.

You cannot run a government and listen only to your own views. Get out there and hear what the world is trying to say, what the world is trying to tell you. The world I am talking to is increasingly incensed at the New Democratic government's failure to listen to the real people. You are failing to listen to the real grass roots out in Ontario. So I sound like a broken record.

Mrs Mathyssen: Yes. I am glad you acknowledge that.

Mr Cousens: Mrs Mathyssen, I understand how you probably feel about it, but what we are seeing is the breakdown of a province that I love and believe in, because it is a government that does not listen, does not communicate. If you were able to listen and you were able to consult and you were to do it with more than just yourselves, then we would begin to see some progress.

What I am concerned with is the labour law. The labour law, and we are discussing it today, is the arch example of a government that has not listened, does not listen, will not listen, is not about to listen. They are going to bring forward changes in the labour law of Ontario that will set us back. All you have to do is start talking to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, start talking to business people. I have had a group of developers in this week and they were talking about it. There is no one who runs a business who is not concerned with this government, because this government is driving business out of Ontario. They have failed to listen.

Mr B. Ward: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: For the benefit of the viewing public, could you say what amendment we are talking about?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): We are discussing the Liberal motion, the amendment to subsection 15(1). Mr Cousens has the floor.

Mr Cousens: I think the honourable member asks a good question, because it asks for the Minister of the Environment, "after consulting with representatives of the public and private sectors, establish policies for the purposes of this part." I see that as a good amendment when you have a minister who has proven to this point in time that she is not listening.


This government is taking Ontario on the road to disaster and into a decline. We are in a recession already, but that recession is a steep slope. We are falling into something that unless we stop it, arrest it through good policies, good action, good dialogue and good working together with everyone who is out there in business, we are not going to get out of it. Part of the secret to that is, as an example, the reform of the labour laws of Ontario.

If your government continues with its approach to labour reform, having decided to do so without meaningful consultation -- Mr Wiseman will be able to go back to his constituency and say, "Yes, we had some 40 meetings on it," but if the changes to the reform are only in the interests of unions and advancing the cause of labour, without balancing off the needs of business and the needs of running a company, then you are going to turn off the tap of investment for people who would otherwise invest in Ontario, and that is an example of no consultation. They call it consultation, but it is not the kind of consultation that is being called for in this amendment. We want to start forcing the government, to have some way within each law where it will be compelled to consult. That is really the main reason for this.

I have a sense that this motion would not be brought forward at all if we were not having the problems with the Ministry of Labour or we had not seen the problems with this minister. There are numerous examples of groups that have talked with us over the last four weeks of public hearings, because they could not get to the minister and the minister would not respond to their calls.

I happened to know Ruth Grier both before she became a minister and afterwards. Before she was a minister, she was a very accessible person. Now that she is there, she seems to have walls of people who protect her from the real world. What we want to do is break down some of those walls so she can get out there and see what is really going on. She has to listen and we have to force that kind of consultation.

I have made my point. The real point I want to make is to tell people, "If you think this one is bad, get ready for what is coming under labour reform." We have not been able to change the laws with Bill 143, and I venture to say, with that leaked cabinet document, what is going to come forward with the new labour reform is going to be even worse in what it does to business, prosperity and the economy of Ontario. We are in for deep trouble because we are stuck with the government and we cannot do a thing about it. We cannot change their minds in committee. They have not listened to the delegations that have come in and I know they have not listened to me. So there we go back to you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Wiseman: I think these comments with regard to this section of the bill and the accusations being made against the minister are completely unfounded given that the minister, in the height of a very bad snowstorm, actually showed up at a meeting that was cancelled by the local council in Mississauga. She spoke to a number of residents who had come to that meeting, was very accessible to them and then returned the next evening when the meeting was rescheduled to meet with them over the concerns about Britannia. That to me is an accessible minister, somebody who is concerned about the issue and about meeting with people and talking to them.

In the example we had in north Pickering, when it was P1, we could not get the Minister of the Environment to come to north Pickering or to Pickering anywhere to speak about P1, when they did the deals behind closed doors. We could not get anybody from the previous Tory administration, in the early 1970s, to come to Pickering and explain why it expropriated 23,000 acres of land.

I think it is a patently unfair accusation to be making against the minister, who has gone out of her way to be available to people and has gone to these areas and spoken directly to people who are concerned about these issues.

I think to give the idea that 40 consultations on the Ontario Labour Relations Act is not consultation because we have decided to go ahead with the bill when they said, "Don't do anything," is also an unacceptable approach.

You can talk, you can listen to people and you can have a difference of opinion, and that difference of opinion may result in your going down a different road. To say that you did not consult or did not listen because you are not doing what they are telling you to do is something that is completely absurd. If that was the case, why did the federal Tories continue with the GST, which has the most unacceptable rating in the history of this country? His party has continued with it and he is still a member of that party, so I presume he still supports it.

Then they go ahead with the North American free trade deal while there is a lot of opposition from people about that deal. There are a lot of people who want to be consulted, a lot of people who want to be included in the process, but it has been kept secret. The only way they can find out is through some working documents that have been leaked over the last little while or asking a Mexican senator who freely sent it up here and obviously is including his population in the debate. The federal Tories continue to keep the Canadian people in the dark, making nonsensical statements about only 1% of the economy being affected, when that is complete nonsense given that the economies of comparative advantage would give the Mexicans advantages at 59 cents to $1 an hour in working wage. So I ask anybody out there, who in this country would want to compete with the Mexicans at $1 an hour? That is what they are putting this country in competition with.

The other thing is that it is just absolutely absurd for that member to go on like this about not consulting with business and not talking to them about it. I am going to ask if the waste reduction office will give us a list of the grants and the consultations of this government with respect to the waste management and recycling that is taking place in this province.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): The question is that you want a list of the grants?

Mr Wiseman: I would like him to put on the record now the people he has talked to, the people who have come into his office, and the money they have received in terms of grants from this government.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): And that is directed to?

Mr Wiseman: Mr Blackwell or whomever might have that information.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Is that information available, Mr Blackwell?

Mr Blackwell: I could not recite a list. There is funding through the industrial waste diversion fund to the amount of $16 million a year. There is money that goes through the technologies fund and the research fund, which are not necessarily for waste management, but a portion of that money is also used for waste management. There is another amount of direct grants for specific experimental or high-priority projects in the neighbourhood of $5 million a year. So I think we are talking about a total of somewhere slightly over $20 million a year that is given out in grants to private industry for activities in the waste management area.

Mr Wiseman: What is it again? Is it $25 million?

Mr Blackwell: I believe it will be somewhat less than $25 million.

Mr Wiseman: Now this government is accused of not listening when one of the largest net holders, Olympia and York, which has a $20-billion deficit -- that is the private sector -- which is half of the revenue income of the province of Ontario and half of the accumulated debt, has come to the province to ask for welfare and handouts and said that we are not listening.

This is really a patently absurd direction the member for Markham has taken, to say we do not listen to business. Businesses on the one hand come to us and say, "Give us free enterprise, a free economy. Don't regulate us. Don't do anything, just let us go," and then on the other hand when they have accumulated a $20-billion deficit, they come and say, "Help us out." I think it is time for somebody to think about fairness.

The other side of the coin is when I get documents from the business community on the Ontario Labour Relations Act. I had one from a company and I read it yesterday. I will not use their name, but they listed seven factors which they said were the reason some of their clients were going out of business or losing jobs. Five of them have everything to do with the federal government: the GST, free trade, the high dollar, high interest rates and the banks that are prematurely foreclosing and using the Bankruptcy Act to put solvent, good companies into bankruptcy and receivership.

I have people in my riding who come to me and say they have been in business for years and years and a bank is saying, "We're going to cut off your line of credit," and put them into receivership. It is through the Ministry of Industry, Technology and Trade, through its assistance, through the economic development councils and through the venture loans and through the new venture loans that these companies are being bailed out, while he sits here in his sanctimonious way saying that his federal government is doing such a great job in this country. It has not done anything about changing the bankruptcy laws or changing any kind of laws or giving a break to the small businessmen.


Mr Cousens: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Just to slow the little fellow down, I have not said a thing about the federal government, I am a provincial member and in my discussions I have not involved the federal government at all.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Order. That is not a point of order. Perhaps I could just state to honourable members that the Chair has recognized that in the amendment that is proposed there is a question about consulting with representatives of both the public and private sectors. I have allowed for some leeway. Perhaps I have allowed a little bit too much. While we have been able to comment on a variety of policies, the issue before us relates to this bill and to the Minister of the Environment. Perhaps all members could focus a little.

Mr Wiseman: I will tie these together for you, Mr Chair, if you would really like. The accessibility of this government to corporations like de Havilland -- de Havilland is a very important company in this province. Way beyond the number of workers who work at de Havilland, you have almost 40,000 jobs attached to de Havilland in terms of suppliers and research and development that would have been lost if de Havilland had been lost. To say that we were not a major player with Bombardier in saving de Havilland I think is complete nonsense. To say that we are not prepared to work with the private sector, as we have done in Kapuskasing, as we have done in Algoma and as we have done in other jurisdictions to give grants to General Electric on recycling in terms of energy-efficient production of lightbulbs and create jobs --

Mr Cousens: You gave money to General Electric for a plant it was already going to build, so there is another example of throwing money away.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Order, please. Mr Wiseman has the floor. Mr Cousens, please, you will have an opportunity to speak. Mr Wiseman has the floor.

Mr Wiseman: To say that we have not been sensitive to business needs I think is a most unfounded comment. The particular reference to the Minister of the Environment is totally unfair. It is totally inaccurate and unfair given the courage she has shown in going to Mississauga --


The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr Cousens, please. Mr Cousens, I would ask you to allow Mr Wiseman to finish his remarks. He has the floor.

Mr Wiseman: To go to Mississauga in the height of a snowstorm and speak to the residents who showed up there and to show great care and concern for their attitudes -- far more, I might add, than the honourable member and the opposition showed in Kirkland Lake to the people who came before this committee to speak against the Kirkland Lake proposal, when they were out at a demonstration, making speeches without listening to the other side of the debate.

I think that for them to sit here and accuse the minister of not listening is unacceptable, because we heard many very good presentations from the people who opposed the Kirkland Lake proposal and there were only seven of us sitting there, the Chair and six New Democrats, to listen to those people -- no, eight; Mr Sola was there as well; I remember that.

Mrs Mathyssen: He was the Chair.

Mr Wiseman: No, Elinor was the Chair.

Mrs Mathyssen: She went out.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Please continue.

Mr Wiseman: There were no Tories there, and Mr Sola was there. I apologize for that, because you were there. So I think for him to comment about listening and supporting is ridiculous.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I think we have examined this one fairly carefully. Mr McClelland, pehaps you want to bring it all together.

Mr McClelland: I wanted to add something to the discussion that may or may not warrant any response. Briefly said, there is a concern -- it is not a concern expressed only by myself. It is a concern expressed by me on behalf of many people who contacted me as critic, who have written and phoned and said, "We can't get through and we can't get answers." That was evidenced in terms of the consultative process that Mr Cousens talked about yesterday. Here we are as opposition critics and we receive a document that we are asked to comment on with respect to the scrap tire management workshop long after it has been circulated elsewhere and circulated to the media.

Mr Cousens: Did you get a copy at last?

Mr McClelland: Yes.

Mr Cousens: When did you get it?

Mr McClelland: Yesterday evening.

In any event, part and parcel, it is sort of the mentality that exists. Mr Wiseman seems to seek to lead with his chin from time to time. He talked about a meeting on January 14 that the minister attempted to attend in a snowstorm. I hasten to add that the great care and concern that was demonstrated to the residents who appeared, the coalition of Britannia and area ratepayers, has been expressed by the fact that they still have not been able to get a definitive answer to the questions that were put at that time.

The meeting was on January 15. The meeting was asked for as early as September 1991. It was in response to faxes and phone calls and a plea to the Premier's office by the mayor of Mississauga that ultimately the minister agreed to meet with the people of Britannia on January 14. So it was from September through to January. Yes, after numerous faxes, phone calls and messages, she did go and meet, but I think that may be a little bit beside the point, other than to put on the record the full story that Mr Wiseman used by way of example.

The fact of the matter is that throughout the course of these hearings, hearing from some 200 deputants and many written submissions, a significant number of those people said they had a difficult time making their views known to the minister or even getting an acknowledgement of letters sent or correspondence, and basically requests for meetings just not being responded to. Again I say as critic, I have received numerous complaints to that effect.

I will say that the minister has said to me as critic that if there is such a situation, if I would hand-deliver to her a note, she will attend to it. I think credit ought to be given where credit is due and I think the minister is a person who is concerned personally, but the reality is that, unfortunately, given the circumstances she finds herself in right now, it has just spun out of control. Bill 143 is part and parcel of that evidence.

In light of the fact that they are having difficulty controlling the agenda and not being able to get hands on managing this issue and when we have something that is as fundamental as waste management affecting communities, and in light of the fact that this legislation also calls into question the efficacy of the environmental assessment process and the extent to which that may apply, the amendment seeks to enshrine, albeit in sort of a backhanded way, what should not necessarily have to be an amendment.

Policies ought not to be driving this issue. Regulations and legislation ought to. It seems to me that the Minister of the Environment should be obliged to set policies forth in law and in statute and regulations that provide the safeguards that are generally afforded the people of this province.

We have developed a system of government that allows considerable latitude in terms of policy, but it seems to me that what subsection 15(1) says is that we will allow policy, really, to supersede the formal law. In light of the long-term impact of what would result from policies that are dictated by somebody who apparently is having a difficult time meeting with people and managing correspondence, we wonder, then, when issues of such significance come to bear on the people of Ontario, why it is that, first of all, policies would be so prevalent, in light of the fact that regulations and usually legislation are the driving forces, and second, why it is that the government is afraid of acknowledging legislatively its responsibility to meet and consult with people from a broad spectrum of society.

The amendment to subsection 15(1) seeks to address those apparent deficiencies, again, not necessarily articulated by myself, although I have done that, but brought before this committee and brought before many people by citizens of this province.


Mr O'Connor: On the Liberal motion we have before us, again we have had another lively discussion and much rhetoric around this government's involvement of the private sector. The purpose of this --

Mr McClelland: The public too. This is the public and private sectors.

Mr O'Connor: I see that. I would just like to point out that the purpose of this clause in the legislation deals directly with the undertaking that is before the Interim Waste Authority, which is to search for a long-term site. The process, as we have heard on numerous occasions, does involve an awful lot of people in the public and private sectors.

We have touched on the Mississauga meeting and some of those concerns. Unfortunately the member for Brampton North was not able to be here the other day and perhaps has not had a chance to completely review the Hansard when the minister was here. She did address the concerns and points that had arisen from some of the concerns addressed by the people and the coalitions. She has met with them several times and pointed out some of that and agreed there were some points they did not come to complete agreement on. I guess that is part of the process too: Not everybody is going to agree with everyone. In fact, much of what has been said in this committee room this afternoon leads me to say that I could disagree wholeheartedly with some of the rhetoric that has flown around this room today, which is unfortunate because we do have a piece of legislation before us that I would like to carry on with the clause-by-clause on.

I just thought I would point out that your intention here again to include the private sector and the public sector also points that we are eliminating other people in there as well. By pinpointing and directing at only some people and not all people, you could say then we are excluding others. It is a precedent that does not need to be set right now. The process, as has been said many times, has been quite open, the IWA going through the draft criteria trying to establish the long-term site. The undertaking has been discussed at great length with the private and the public sectors.

I would be pleased to discuss with you at great length at another time some things that you would like to see put in legislation in the future, but for now I think we have an undertaking before us and I think we should continue.

Mr Sola: I would just like to pose a question. This amendment includes both the public and the private sector. I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant what other sectors there are that are being left out if this amendment covers both sectors.

Mr O'Connor: I guess it points to one sector that our colleague the member for Markham pointed out. Our colleague mentioned that he would not like to see changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act without discussion with the business and private sector and labour as well. That is just one example.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall the Liberal motion carry? All in favour? All opposed?

Motion negatived.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): We need first of all to vote on subsection 15(1) before we move on. Shall subsection 15(1) carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

We move next to subsection 15(2).

Mr McClelland moves that subsection 15(2) of the bill be struck out.

Mr McClelland: The rationale for that is quite simple. Subsection (2) refers to the policies established by the minister and it says that the IWA shall have or the corporation shall have regard to the policies established under that section.

A part of what we had tried to move earlier was an amendment that would have allowed the IWA to look more broadly than at, by way of example, estimates provided strictly by the ministry, to afford it not only the opportunity but the requirement, generally within the scheme of the act, to accept other databases, other information and so on. We had some fairly lengthy discussion about that yesterday.

Inasmuch as the government has chosen to defeat the amendment to subsection 15(1) that would have included the necessity for consultation, we believe very strongly that it is not appropriate for an individual, whoever he or she may be, to set policy and to have a legislative -- let's understand what this act says. It says, "The Minister of the Environment may establish policies for the purposes of this part." There is no prescribed process by which those policies may be established.

I have no doubt that Mrs Grier will do her utmost to consider a variety of views. She may or may not be successful in tapping into the resources that are available, and I have indicated that I believe there is significant difficulty with her being accessible to a variety of groups and people, particularly those that her staff determine are not sympathetic or supportive of the government. It seems to me that they do a very effective job of screening the minister from those people who might have a contrary opinion.

In light of the fact that subsection (2) requires the Interim Waste Authority to have regard to those policies and in light of the fact that those policies do not necessarily have to be fashioned within any attendant discussion or public input, we feel very much that we are opening the door here, ultimately, to set the stage for a position where one person can, according to the process here, set policy that must of necessity have significant impact on the corporation. We just think that is fundamentally wrong.

We think democracy is a whole lot more than one person making a decision, however good or competent he or she may be. Running the risk as always -- that sword cuts both ways. Anybody can end up in that office. Times change and things change.

One of the hallmarks of democracy is accountability and a broad-based input. This is moving the opposite way. This clearly says that one person is going to take the position that he or she knows everything, or certainly sets that person up with the potential of taking that position.

As I said, I think there is a tremendous amount of goodwill that resides in the person of the present minister, a tremendous degree of personal integrity. But what this section does to say that that makes it good enough, for one person to make policy decisions.

Yes, there is a role for government to make those, but we believe because of the government's reluctance to accept a legislative framework of consultation or a prescribed frame of consultation, which is usually the process of legislation, not by dictate, that we just simply could not support subsection 15(2).

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall the Liberal motion on subsection 15(2) carry? All those in favour? All those opposed?

Motion negatived.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): We move on to subsection 15(3). Again there is a Liberal motion, and I note as well that the Conservatives have a motion similar to the second part of the Liberal motion.

Mr Cousens: I will waive our motion to the Liberal motion.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr McClelland moves that clause 15(3)(a) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(a) take into consideration the estimates provided under section 13; and"

And he further moves that clause 15(3)(b) of the bill be struck out.

Mr McClelland: This is really, I suppose, just to make a point again for the record. We had said earlier, and it is all part and parcel of the same argument, that the IWA has to be given the latitude to look at a wider range of estimates to work with than those simply provided by the minister, that there is a broader world out there; I think that is phrase I might have used in earlier discussion. We think there is wisdom not only in looking beyond the four walls of the minister's office or the ministry's office but there is a tremendous amount of wisdom and benefit in looking further afield. Again we bring up the point, recognizing the fact that the government has already said no, that it is not prepared to allow that latitude to the corporation. We will move the amendment notwithstanding that.

It then follows that the second part of it -- I know Mr Cousens will want to speak to this, because it incorporates his particular amendment that clause 15(3)(b) of the bill be struck out. That particular section, by way of explanation for those of us here today and others who might be interested in what is taking place here, is a reference back to section 14. Section 14 is that part of the bill that basically undercuts and, if you will, circumscribes the Environmental Assessment Act in a way that was never contemplated by those who drafted the Environmental Assessment Act. What it does is to limit it and put on a predetermination. That, quite frankly, is the complete antithesis of what the Environmental Assessment Act is all about.


It seems to me that on the face of it one would be hard-pressed to make a logical argument that they could support clause 15(3)(b) of the bill and then say they support the Environmental Assessment Act. I put it to my colleagues here and I put to the parliamentary assistant: Do you or do you not support the Environmental Assessment Act? It is a difficult question for them to answer. They would like to say, "Yes, we support it," but the reality is that many provisions of Bill 143 run contrary to the fundamental principles of the Environmental Assessment Act, so that they cannot come out with a clear answer and say, "Yes, we support the principles of the Environmental Assessment Act."

Clause 15(3)(b) of the bill just underscores that point again. It says we will refer back to section 14, that section that contains or confines scopes, whatever nice euphemism you want to word, that cuts the heart out of the fundamental principle of the Environmental Assessment Act, which is probably the more accurate way of putting it. So to support clause 15(3)(b) says, "We don't really believe in, nor can we support in its entirety, the Environmental Assessment Act."

Mr Cousens: We are talking about just giving more powers to the minister. I think if I were a New Democrat I would not vote for this motion, because we are really challenging the ability of the present government and ministry to make policies that are going to be consistent with the wellbeing and the future of this province.

I am voting against this one, as I have voted against other parts of the bill. It begins by saying, "The Minister of the Environment may establish policies for the purposes of this part." We are just giving her the right to write and say anything she wants, and the level of responsibility that has been shown by this government is enough to drive a wedge between this government and the municipal governments, between Ontario and the regional governments that surround us.

I happen to have heard some of the comments made by the mayor of Mississauga. I know the statements that were made by a regional chairman, Eldred King, when he came to this committee. I have never seen a regional chairman as angry and as outspoken in his opposition to what the government was doing. The problem he and others have had in their presentations is that they have tried to make a point and this government just does not listen. It just gives them further encouragement to go ahead and develop new, strange, innovative and foolish policies that may well cause Ontario to cease to be an entity of any worth in the business world.

I am so concerned that we are out of control at Queen's Park. I do not know what I can do about it. I will vote against this. I will speak out against the government on the policies it has developed. The policies surrounding this bill have been ill-founded and restrictive. I cannot for the life of me see why a government would not look at an option of a willing host such as the Adams mine site in Kirkland Lake, but it has decided that you cannot ship garbage out of an area, that you must get rid of the garbage, you must bury it, landfill it in the most expensive land in Ontario, if not Canada. That is right here within the GTA. What power she has, and how she is abusing it.

We are down to the last hour or so that we will be voting on these motions, but I will vote against this one. My hand is up as high as it can go in opposition.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall the Liberal motion --

Mr Cousens: Mr Chair, I vote in favour of the motion to defeat the section.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I was about to call the motion, Mr Cousens, and I somehow suspected from your remarks that might be the case.

Mr Cousens: I have confidence in the Chair.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall the Liberal motion, clauses 15(3)(a) and (b) carry? All those in favour? All those opposed?

Mr McClelland: Could we have a recorded vote on that?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): There has been a request for a recorded vote.

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

Ayes -- 4

Cousens, Marland, McClelland, Sola.

Nays -- 6

Lessard, Martin, Mathyssen, O'Connor, Ward, B., Wiseman.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall clauses 15(3)(a), (b) and (c) stand as in the bill? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.

Shall section 15 carry? All those in favour? Opposed?

Mr Cousens: Recorded vote.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): A recorded vote.

The committee divided on whether section 15 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 6

Lessard, Martin, Mathyssen, O'Connor, Ward, B., Wiseman.

Nays -- 4

Cousens, Marland, McClelland, Sola.

Section 16:

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall subsection 16(1) carry?

Mrs Marland: I have a question on subsection 16(1). I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could explain or give an example of persons to whom the Intervenor Funding Project Act does not apply.

Mr O'Connor: Given that this is a part of the mechanics the IWA will be following through with, I would ask for legal counsel, Jim Jackson, to answer the question.

Mr Jackson: Jim Jackson, legal services branch, Ministry of the Environment: There are no people to whom the Intervenor Funding Project Act cannot apply who might become involved in these hearings. Anybody who becomes a party or wishes to become a party can apply under the act for funding, and anybody, such as the proponent who is found to be a funding proponent under that act, can be compelled to contribute funding.

Mrs Marland: I do not really understand the answer, but I will re-read it in Hansard. Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr McClelland, did you have a question or a comment?

Mr McClelland: Yes. I wonder if I am correct in assuming that this particular section of the act, participant funding -- I think I might have heard it and I want it clarified for my own understanding -- suggests that interim funding may not be sufficient in its present form, given the extension of the act. It does not define the parameters for such funding clearly and it does not say who is eligible, although we have an idea, from what you have just said, I understand, Mr Jackson.

According to this, if I understand it correctly, participant funding deals with any part of the environmental assessment process where your funding is not available. The question then is, is it intended that the minister's policies under section 15 then define the parameters of what may be and who may be eligible for participant funding?

The reason I ask that -- and I ask the parliamentary assistant, who will doubtless refer it -- is because if that is so, if section 15 defines the parameters, then what we have here is a situation where there is potentially no scrutiny of those policies in the Legislature or anywhere else. Of necessity, it follows that section 15, which your caucus has just voted in support of, is an opportunity for the minister to, by fiat, say: "Thus and so it shall be. Here is the policy." One can ask the questions, and that policy then dictates who the "participants" are. If that is the case, what we have then is a situation that compounds the difficulty Mr Cousens and myself and others have been saying, that this then becomes a decision of potentially political expedience in the worst sense. I do not think any of us want that to happen. So does section 15 then define the parameters of section 16? Potentially, can that happen?


Mr O'Connor: The participant funding, just maybe to clarify that a little bit, is to allow people an opportunity to assist them in getting information together for an environmental assessment before the hearing process. Just to further clarify that, again, perhaps I will --

Mrs Marland: We already know that.

Mr McClelland: The question, though -- you might be able to clarify this -- is that presumably it stands to follow that the preparation would have to be consistent with the policies of the minister. If there was any preparation that was sought to be done by anybody who was not "user-friendly" to the government, they probably therefore would not qualify for participant funding. The minister's policies define the parameters, so it stands to follow that only those that fall within the minister's policies or are friendly in regard thereto then would fall under the catch-all of participant funding. Of necessity, the policies define the process, so the minister's policies define who can participate and ultimately control who gets funded. So again, what it does is that the government funds people who are government-friendly.

Mr O'Connor: That is not quite correct. You have heard the statement I have made and I will just ask Jim Jackson and perhaps even Jan Rush to comment on it, because they will no doubt be involved in this.

Mr Jackson: In case there is any uncertainty about my previous answer, I was talking about who was qualified under the intervenor funding act, not when they were qualified. The intervenor funding act does not apply until after the notice to commence the hearing has been given by a joint board. Jan Rush will talk about to whom participant funding will be available and under what conditions.

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

Participant funding is one of the subjects for public consultation and the questions posed for the public are in the draft approach and criteria document we have discussed before during these hearings.

I also should say that the Interim Waste Authority commissioned in the summer, July 1991, a participant funding study by the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy. That paper proposed some options but not conclusions about eligibility, administration of the funds and the relationship between participant funding and intervenor funding. We took some of those questions and put them into the public consultation document.

Under the memorandum of understanding, which you also have, it will be up to the Interim Waste Authority to work out a budget for eligibility and administrative procedures for participant funding. What this section does is permit us to do that, and it not only allows for the same body that will administer the intervenor funding to be aware and also administer the participant funding, but allows it also to take into consideration the participant funding that was awarded in the awards it would grant under the intervenor funding act.

This is a relatively new procedure in the environmental assessment process. It is our hope and intention that people will be able to become active in the process earlier, both to their own benefit and the benefit of the process.

Mr McClelland: It is probably asking you something that is unfair, and for that I apologize, inasmuch as you say it is in the process of being defined and will be worked through. There are from time to time situations where under the terms of the Intervenor Funding Project Act people who have standings or organizations who are party to a proceeding may be granted funding, regardless of which side of the fence they stand on. In other words, they may be a proponent or opponent or simply a party of interest to the proceedings. Is there contemplation that participant funding would also potentially be available for people or organizations, individuals, whatever, who may not necessarily fall within the framework of section 15, minister's policy?

The logic -- such as it may be, whether it makes any sense to you or not -- I am trying to follow through with is this: The policy of the minister, pursuant to section 15, very much defines the work and the proceedings of the corporation, to a large measure. It is not exclusively, but it is a fairly significant driving force in terms of the corporation's work. That seems to me the purpose of section 15. To what extent will the section 15 policy implications also roll over, if you will, into the probability of a participant receiving funding or not receiving funding? In short, if a participant is seen to be contrary to the government's position or the minister's position -- the minister of the day, whoever he or she is -- is he less likely to be funded, more likely, or is it a non-issue?

Ms Rush: It is a non-issue. There are two things I might comment on. One is that section 15 merely enables the minister to give policy direction to the board and the board must have regard to that policy. There is not a direct relationship there. "Have regard," as you know, is a very important choice of words.

The second part is that the participant funding will not be administered even by the authority. We will obviously set up criteria and some budget for it, but it is not our intention ourselves to administer participant funding, and the purpose of that is fairness.

Mr McClelland: Is there some difficulty, do you think, in terms of the process -- it is already pretty difficult as it is -- that we are going to get a mix of what is intervenor and what is participant and further confuse the issue? Is there some plan or plans in place where maybe that whole process can be rationalized and perhaps subsequent amendments to the act as it now stands where that whole scheme of funding can be mixed and shaken down, if you will, into one neat, user-friendly package? I think Mr Blackwell understands where I am coming from.

Ms Rush: I think the package is user-friendly. Unfortunately the words in this part of the legislation, because it is referring to another piece of legislation, are not clear. Sometimes the law is not the best way to communicate. What this is doing is trying to do exactly what you suggest. It is saying participant funding may be made available -- and by the IWA's decision it shall be -- ahead of intervenor funding. It allows the same body to determine and run the process, and it also allows consideration in awarding intervenor funding to how much was given in participant funding.

The flow-through, in terms of the people who are going to make use of that funding, I think will be very simple. They will know, through the consultation process we have undertaken, what is under consideration. They will be dealing with the same body. They will know that they will continue as they began in terms of who they deal with and how they deal with, and we will also be using the expertise of those who have some knowledge of the intervenor funding to help us in developing the participant funding. We also went to an outside source for the policy paper to help us cast the questions we put in consultation. I think it is simple and user-friendly, and it is certainly without any influence.

Mrs Marland: Do I still have a question?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mrs Marland.

Mrs Marland: I think I want to clarify the question I asked a few moments ago, because it seems to me, the way I read subsection 16(1), that people can apply for funding under the existing Intervenor Funding Project Act, which is the one I think the government has now announced it has extended the support to. I think originally it was a three-year allocation. When I read 16(1), I would like to be clear to know whether people can apply for one or other sources for intervenor funding, either the Intervenor Funding Project Act or under this act what you call participant funding, or does it mean, if they are turned down, because it says if "the Intervenor Funding Project Act does not apply," then do they apply under 16(1) of this act for participant funding?


Mr Jackson: The applications for participant funding will be made much prior to people becoming eligible to apply under the Intervenor Funding Project Act. So whoever is applying for participant funding will not know whether or not they are going to apply let alone whether any will be awarded under the Intervenor Funding Project Act, because they deal with different time periods. The Intervenor Funding Project Act, which is already in existence, starts to apply after the board that is going to be conducting the hearing publishes a notice. It does not get to that stage until after the environmental assessment has been prepared through the process set out in the DAC and submitted to the Minister of the Environment under the Environmental Assessment Act for review and the minister has published the review and the review period provided for under the Environmental Assessment Act has gone by. That will be several years off.

Mrs Marland: So is it possible, then, for an individual or a group to receive funding from both sources?

Mr Jackson: Yes.

Mrs Marland: Wow.

Mr Jackson: At different periods of time.

Mrs Marland: Oh, yes.

Mr Jackson: One up until the hearing starts, and then the Intervenor Funding Project Act kicks in and does not leave them there with no funding to participate in the actual hearing; it provides them with funding to participate in the hearing.

Mrs Marland: Wow. That is interesting. In your regulations or in your guidelines, are there going to be any limitations on the number of times the same individual or the same group can come back for this kind of funding and are there eligibility criteria -- I mean, other than the usual thing about it must not be facetious, but are there strong eligibility criteria -- and is there a cap on how much they may request or how much they will be allocated if they are going to end up getting -- I am not thinking about the reasonable -- I mean, I am a supporter of intervenor funding. In fact, I started it in Mississauga without the formality of a provincial statute. But I am wondering what it is you will do to protect from the person who is almost borderline facetious yet may sound quite credible and may use this funding and then the intervenor funding under the Intervenor Funding Project Act later on to pursue something that might be questionable. Are you going to have very strict criteria about who gets this government money?

Mr Jackson: I will start from the end and work up to the present. The Intervenor Funding Project Act itself establishes criteria the hearing panels under that act apply in order to determine the amount of funding that individuals or groups will be entitled to. There have been a number of determinations in different procedures before the Environmental Assessment Board, before the Ontario Energy Board and before joint boards under which those criteria have been applied.

You mentioned multiple applications. In some cases, when a hearing has gone on for an extended period of time, the funding panel is not able at the beginning of the hearing to prejudge how much money a person might need to reasonably carry him through the whole hearing and supplementary applications are made.

With respect to the participant funding, under the Intervenor Funding Project Act there is no specific dollar cap. The board will make whatever ruling it makes and people will expect it to be reasonable. Under the participant funding that happens prior to the hearing, the corporation will set a global budget, and the board members, who will later be administering the intervenor funding, will have that money to divide up. It is the board of the corporation, the IWA, that sets the global amount, and it will be the EA board members, who are the intervenor funding panel, who will also be the participant funding panel that will decide how to divide it up. There will be a budget. People may apply for more from time to time, if that is required and they can convince the board they need more. In some cases, they may make submissions to the board of the corporation to the effect that they did not supply enough money in their budget for participant funding and ask the board of the corporation to make more money available to the intervenor funding panel to divide up under the participant funding part of the program.

Mrs Marland: So it is the EA board that will decide who gets the participant funding, even though the EA process has not started before that panel.

Mr Jackson: That is correct. That is the purpose of this section.

Mrs Marland: From your answer, then, I guess the thing is if you are going to be looking for this participant funding, you had better get up there to the bench early. From the answer, I assume, obviously, if the IWA is allocating a certain amount of money to be used for participant funding, and there are a number of groups that wish to be eligible for that grant, as it is, you would want to be first in line. Is there much likelihood that the EA board would be able to go back to the Interim Waste Authority and say, "Look, we've got seven groups" or "10 individuals"?

Ms Rush: If I may, we are discussing now the administrative arrangements between the corporation and the EA board. Certainly the EA board members will know what the global budget is, and presumably part of the administrative arrangements for them will be how they do some form of -- I do not mean a survey in a technical sense but how they find out how many players there are, and the requests, and ensure that they will be equitable and fair. If it proves to be unreasonable, we will be very reasonable in return, also having some guardianship over the amount of money that will be spent.

I should also point out that one might expect that some of the work that might have been carried out under intervenor funding may have already been carried out under participant funding. That is the purpose of allowing the award of intervenor funding to take consideration of how much was given in participant funding and what use it was. So there are some protections built in in terms of the use of these moneys.

Hopefully it will be smooth. This is new ground to some degree, so we are having some difficulty putting a budget together, but we are doing so. There has been one experience. We have looked at that and we are trying to make some assumptions. If those prove to be unreasonable, we will fix them. If they are reasonable, we do not intend to provide more money than is necessary, but as close to the right amount as we can.

Mrs Marland: In a ballpark estimate, when you looked at putting this provision in this bill, how much money has the government thought about allocating to this section of the bill? Are we looking at thousands of dollars or millions of dollars? In order to agree to putting this provision in the act, you must have had a discussion about what kind of money you might budget for, especially if it comes out of the Interim Waste Authority's budget.

Ms Rush: The one experience we have used is Windsor-Essex, I believe; I do not have my notes with me. I believe in their experience it was around $200,000 for the site search. It is smaller and is one, and we have three. I cannot give you a fixed number now, but that is the one experience we have, and we are trying to take that experience in terms of complexity and size of area, size of site, and apply what was learned through that experience to a budget for the three site-search areas for which we are responsible.


Mrs Marland: So you are saying that other levels of government could be eligible for this funding as well.

Ms Rush: We do not have the eligibility worked out. That was part of the consultation that has been under way and part of the rules that we are now working through. Our response to that will come out in the next set of documents that are due as part of our public consultation, so I cannot give you that now.

Mrs Marland: Gosh, this is interesting. Are you willing to say that individuals, groups of citizens, business, industry, commerce and other levels of government, like the municipalities, for example -- at the moment would you say that full range of representation might be eligible for participant funding?

Ms Rush: What I am saying is that the review of all of those is ongoing and I have yet to see the results of both the public consultation and the work that has been done. I just am not able to offer much at the moment. We have not turned our mind to that yet.

In terms of the paper I was talking about, we have posed a number of questions about what was and what was not appropriate. At the moment we are at the broadest point, and all those things are under consideration. It is simply work we have not completed yet, so I can tell you more, if you wish, in a few weeks' time when we get to that point.

Mrs Marland: I think it would be interesting to know the implications of this section before the bill goes through third reading. I think it is very important for people to know who would be eligible because, my goodness, if we are using an example of $200,000 for Essex county, or whichever one it was -- it does not matter -- if that is one example of an applicant for participant funding --

Ms Rush: Excuse me. They were the proponent, so it was not an applicant: "the proponent who is responsible may." This makes us able to do this; it is not requiring us to do it. It was the proponent that set a budget of $200,000. It was not an applicant to that funding.

Mrs Marland: If the city of Mississauga, for example, is forced into an environmental assessment process and it wishes, on behalf of its taxpayers, to receive participant funding towards the cost of that, is that one of the possibilities you are considering?

Ms Rush: It is one of the possibilities, yes. I believe that municipalities have been given intervenor funding, and certainly the rules that apply to intervenor funding will have a lot of influence on the participant funding rules, given what I was saying to Mr McClelland about how we hope in a sense that, as participants, there will probably be more applicants for participant funding. Then, as the process gets to a preferred site, they will drop off and there will probably be fewer of those people wanting to continue, because some people's interest will wane at that point as others' interest gets more extreme.

As I say, this work is under way; I am just not able to answer your questions fully today. But it is the proponent's obligation to undertake this. As I say, the Intervenor Funding Project Act is quite specific, and we will be using that, plus the results of the public consultation, plus the advice of the people who will administer this to help us determine the participant funding rules. As I say, we intend it to be fair and reasonable.

Mrs Marland: But you can see here that if the proponent is the Interim Waste Authority -- my goodness, this act is so popular around the province that I can see just unheard amounts of money being asked for under this section of participant funding. If an individual or a group or a formalized group, which you could describe as a municipality -- you could describe a mayor and members of council as being representative of individuals or groups that may seek participant funding -- this could have an incredibly high cost to the government. It goes way beyond anything I had ever thought of in terms of intervenor funding because now we are talking about pre-intervenor funding. That is really what this participant funding is: It is pre-intervenor.

Ms Rush: I think through the Intervenor Funding Project Act there has been a lot of experience in having scrutiny of the purpose for which the fund is used and the reasonableness. As I did say before, the expectation with participant funding is that the requests for intervenor funding will be less than they would have been had it just started in intervenor because some of the groups will have already completed the work for which the money is allocated. So I think it has that relationship.

Mrs Marland: Do you not see a tremendous lineup at the bank for this money?

Ms Rush: I think that is part of setting a global budget of what is reasonable and using the expertise we can get from the people who have applied the Intervenor Funding Project Act and striking that reasonable amount of money. I think that is what we are attempting to do.

Our expectation is that it will mean, as I said, less money that will be needed to be made available under the intervenor funding and also people feeling they have the capacity to participate much more fully in the process at an earlier point in time. So we will see a better process, a faster process and less money than would have gone out under the intervenor funding side. I think this will be a benefit in the process.

Mrs Marland: I just say, good luck. Does Mr Laughren know about this? Good luck with it. When there is so much controversy surrounding anything you are going to want to do under this act, I say to the parliamentary assistant, good luck. The whole concept of intervenor funding is very new in the global sphere of things, and with the kind of World War III that you are going to get with this beautiful piece of legislation, you are going to have to sidle up pretty close to the Treasurer, I think, in order to make section 16 work. I just give it as respectful due warning. I hope our assistant deputy minister of the GTA and the chair of the Interim Waste Authority will not be landed with all the people lined up on her doorstep with their big moneybags open, because I think you are going to need a lot of money.

Mr Cousens: Mrs Marland has asked some excellent questions that deal with this. How timely it is, since on March 25 we just had the extension of the Intervenor Funding Project Act announced by the Minister of Energy, the Minister of the Environment and the Attorney General. I guess I will repeat the question, inasmuch as I want to just be absolutely certain from ministry staff that in fact they have a budget. If so, what is the size of the budget that would be set aside for this?

Ms Rush: As I say, we are working on that now. What I gave is the one example we are aware of that the proponent in -- I am sorry, I do not have my notes on this -- but I believe it was the Windsor-Essex proponent for landfill. Their budget was around $200,000. I think it was a little more than that, but that is the one experience we are aware of. We are looking at how comparable the conditions are for their experience, how it worked, and then trying to make some assumptions. That is one site search area. We have three site searches under way, obviously a more complex environment under these circumstances, and different sizes, different numbers of communities involved. We are trying to use that information to help us put a budget together.


Mr Cousens: Could I ask if the parliamentary assistant would make the commitment to follow up on some of the points Mrs Marland has raised, that we could expect from the ministry certain information that would respond to the need for the dollars that are going to be budgeted and allocated for this?

I would like to know if any guidelines are going to be defined and delineated that would help laypeople who will be following this act more closely as it reaches the final stages in the House; how they would apply and what is involved. I do not think there is anything out of the ordinary under the Intervenor Funding Project Act, but I would not mind if members of our caucus and the committee were to receive copies of information on how people can apply through that intervenor act. They are somewhere, but it now becomes all the more important since this bill is invoking the intervenor act and since that act has been extended by decree of the three ministries, it gives very special weight to what is being considered.

It also draws to the attention of at least the Conservative side of the caucus the great difficulty this government has in measuring costs for the implementation of this bill. There are a lot of things going into it. Inasmuch as the government has not so far been able to give us a defined budget being planned around these projects, the site planning and so on, if there is anything further you could do before the House sits and we have our final set-to, maybe the parliamentary assistant could provide us with any other financial information that surrounds this bill.

Part of the reason we are raising this is that the economic realities of the 1990s require control of the costs. Since the New Democrats have come to power --

Mrs Marland: They are closing hospital beds while this is going on.

Mr Cousens: Exactly. While you are closing hospital beds and erecting bilingual signs in Toronto at $4 million; while there is a $12-billion, $14-billion budget deficit, we really have to see fiscal accountability for what is going on. I know it is a lot to ask from people who are not used to spending money as carefully, but that kind of information would be very helpful to the public and to us as we reach the last gasps of this bill.

Mr O'Connor: I am glad you are sympathetic to the plight of the Treasurer and the government, given the financial restraints we find ourselves in and the difficult times in this recession. The financial ends of the intervenor funding might be a little time coming because, as Ms Rush had said, the process is still ongoing. I am sure you and all members of the committee, after going through five weeks of committee hearings, would be interested to hear a little more about that. Maybe long before it gets to the estimates process they can see exactly what is happening.

The other point you raised was how people apply for the participant funding. That information can probably be made much more readily because that process has gone on quite a bit and consultation has taken place already. Some of the other information may take a little longer, but I am confident we can share that information and all members of the committee, as well as -- because we have, as colleagues, sat here and listened and discussed this bill at some length. We are probably all quite interested, so I appreciate your raising those concerns, as well as your colleague the member for Mississauga South.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I will call the subsection, then. Shall subsection 16(1) carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall subsection 16(2) carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall subsection 16(3) carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.

We come to Mr McClelland's motion, subsection 16(4), which you were proposing to --

Mr McClelland: Withdraw.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): You withdraw that because it has already been dealt with.

Shall section 16 in its entirety carry?


The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I am sorry. Excuse me just one moment, please.

Mr Cousens: I did not know whether mine was still there. Did I get it in in time, Mr Chairman?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): My apologies. The Chair was so electrified by the rapidity with which we had gone through this section I was ahead of myself. So if I could --

Mrs Marland: Yes, we are suddenly galloping along.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I know. It was an exhilarating feeling. Mr Cousens, you had a motion adding a subsection. Would you care to move it.

Mr Cousens: I move that section 16 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Private Contractors

"16(4) A regional or metropolitan municipality may contract with an individual or corporation to assist the municipality in fulfilling any requirements of this part."

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Would you care to comment on that amendment?

Mr Cousens: The point we were making is on the request of a private waste management company that appeared before the committee. We propose an amendment to ensure that they have a role in future waste management. We have promoted private sector participation in all areas of the economy on the assumption that the private sector can complete the work more efficiently, effectively and at a lower cost.

Mrs Marland: How does that come under 16?

Mr Cousens: I am trying to see why that follows right where it is.

Mrs Marland: I do not think it is in the right place.

Mr McClelland: I think it might be just a typo. It should probably be section 16.1, not a subsection but rather a section. Section 16.1 is a section unto itself. That might be of some help to the Chair and to my colleague.

Mr Cousens: I am somewhat embarrassed. I apologize. I should be calling this section 16.1 and then changing the number to 16.1, where "A regional or municipality may contract with an individual or corporation to assist the municipality in fulfilling any requirements of this part." I do not think there are a lot of explanations required, if that motion is allowed to stand.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I believe we can discuss that. I might first of all ask that we vote on section 16 and then go to 16.1, as this would then be numbered.

Section 16 agreed to.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Now, Mr Cousens, we have --

Mr Cousens: Assuming it was read.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): We will assume it is read. We will replace the 16(4) with a 16.1.

Mr Cousens: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I apologize. Not a lot of explanation is required. It is just that let's encourage the bill right within its context to have that opportunity for regional municipalities to contract outside with private corporations and individuals to fulfil that part. A very simple amendment. I so move.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall section 16.1 carry? All in favour? All opposed?

Motion negatived.


Section 17:

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): This means we have completed the second part and we move on now to part III, "Implementation of Minister's Report."

Mrs Marland: I would like to speak on section 17 too.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): One moment while I consult with the clerk. We are just looking at the first three here, two Liberal motions and a Conservative motion and getting some direction as to how we will approach the first three. Mr McClelland, what is your wish with respect to the first Liberal motion you have there?

Mr McClelland: The first Liberal motion is to move that part III of the bill consisting of sections 17 to 20 be struck out altogether. I know you are going to rule that out of order, but that is the part of the bill that says the Environmental Assessment Act does not apply, even if the implementation requires the municipalities to do something that they would otherwise require the consent of the municipality to do, and so on.

We have asked that this whole section be struck out because it runs contrary to everything the municipalities are charged with the responsibility of doing. We ask that you would consider ruling this in order so this part of the bill can be dealt with as it ought to be dealt with and scrap it entirely.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I have to rule this out of order.

Mr McClelland: I am surprised to hear you say that, but obviously the --

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Obviously, if you wish to vote against the various --

Mr McClelland: I accept your ruling with full regret.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I will ask Mr Cousens what he proposes with his motion.

Mr Cousens: If I can just make a comment on it first. In bringing forward this motion, there is no doubt that part III of the bill is anti-democratic. It is a theft of the authority of elected municipal officials and giving it to some official of the state. The whole business of the disposal gap that has been referred to in this bill need not be managed by this form of overbearing legislation. The amendments the government has drafted suggest further confusion on what the government intends to do. We are into something that requires total abolishment, both the government and this part of the bill.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Mr Cousens, I have to call this amendment out of order in dealing with the part, but of course you are free to deal with each of the sections as we go along and vote against them. There are other amendments later on where you would have an opportunity to speak. There is one further motion. Mr McClelland.

Mr McClelland: I am withdrawing my motion that section 17 of the bill be struck out.

Mr Beer: Thank you. Would you go on with your next motion and move it please?

Mr McClelland: Are we going to proceed immediately with subsection (4)?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Sorry. Wait a minute. Thank you for stopping me. I get so excited.

Mr McClelland: We begin to see the last half of the bill, Mr Chairman.

Mrs Marland: Imagine if you had been here five weeks, Charles.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Okay. Shall subsection 17(1) carry? All in favour?

Mrs Marland: A recorded vote. I would like to see Mr Wiseman vote on this.

The committee divided on whether subsection 17(1) should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 6

Lessard, Martin, Mathyssen, O'Connor, Ward, B., Wiseman.

Nays -- 4

Cousens, Marland, McClelland, Sola.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall subsection 17(2) carry?

Mrs Marland: I would like to speak to subsection 17(2). Subsection 17(2) says:

"The regional municipality of Peel shall maintain, operate, improve, extend, enlarge and alter the waste management system consisting of the Britannia Road waste disposal site in accordance with the report made under section 29 of the Environmental Protection Act by the Minister of the Environment to the clerk of the regional municipality."

Could the parliamentary assistant tell us what the report made under section 29 says?

Mr O'Connor: I would like to recall for all the members here that we were given copies of those reports right at the very beginning of the committee hearings.

Mrs Marland: With respect, you are the parliamentary assistant. We are about to pass a very significant section of this bill and I would like to know what the report says.

Mr O'Connor: I would like to ask Alex Giffen if he has a copy of the report and maybe Mrs Marland would like it read.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): If you would just identify yourself for Hansard.

Mr Giffen: I am Alex Giffen, assistant director, central region of the Ministry of the Environment.

I apologize that I do not have a copy of the report in front of me. Was the member looking for it to be read verbatim? I am very familiar with the report.

Mrs Marland: No.

Mr Giffen: I think an overview of the report is what was sought.

Mrs Marland: I just would like to know what section 29 -- the reason the wording here is so interesting is that when this government chooses, it pulls out a section of the Environmental Protection Act and applies it. At the same time, this whole bill sets aside the value of the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Protection Act. I just find the wording here that a report has gone to the municipality under section so and so rather curious. In other words, the government selectively chooses whether to use the Environmental Protection Act or the Environmental Assessment Act at the same time it is passing this act which supersedes everything.

If section 29 tells the regional municipality of Peel to do anything more than maintain, operate, improve, extend, enlarge and alter, I just wonder how much more it can tell them.

Mr Giffen: Again, would you like it verbatim?

Mrs Marland: How long is it?

Mr Giffen: It is quite a few pages.

Mrs Marland: No.

Mr Giffen: I could give an overview, though.

Mrs Marland: If you could just tell me what section 29 says other than these words that are in subsection (2). Is it telling them to do anything other than maintain, operate, improve or expand?

Mr Giffen: The minister's report issued under section 29 of the Environmental Protection Act requires the region of Peel to do a number of things to plan for an increase in the capacity of the Britannia landfill site in stages up to about 2.5 million cubic metres of additional waste.

The report describes the technical studies the region of Peel is required to carry out to demonstrate that the additional waste can be placed in the site in an environmentally safe and acceptable manner in accordance with the existing standards and policies of the province. It also requires the region of Peel to carry out a community involvement program that involves the setting up of a public liaison committee and the establishment of a public information centre as well as to provide to the residents and interested parties a communication strategy for ongoing information about the nature of the studies.

The community involvement program of a public liaison committee is intended to provide an opportunity for people living around the site, whether they be developers who own land affected by the site or residents around the site, the opportunity to input into the studies, to learn and understand what studies are being done and to satisfy themselves that their concerns will be addressed.


Mrs Marland: May I just interrupt, please, because of the shortage of time. You answered what section 29 pertains to, but what it brings forth is the question I have been trying to establish all week.

You answered very well that section 29 gives direction to the municipality about what it has to do. Since the Interim Waste Authority is involved in some of those things you just described, the conduct of the public meeting and gathering the public opinion and testing and so forth, although section 29 is an order to the regional municipality of Peel and although the Interim Waste Authority is involved, can you tell me who is going to pay for all that?

Mr Giffen: The Interim Waste Authority does not have any involvement whatsoever in the minister's report and the implementation of the minister's report. The report issued by the minister to the region of Peel deals with the expansion of Britannia as an interim measure while the Interim Waste Authority is carrying out the long-term search.

Mrs Marland: So the IWA only pays for the new site.

Mr Giffen: That is correct.

Mrs Marland: The government is not paying for any of the costs associated with subsection 17(2).

Mr Giffen: The report issued under section 29 is issued on the basis that the region of Peel owns and operates the Britannia landfill site. It receives the revenues from that site. It will continue to receive the revenues from the expanded site and those revenues should provide the basis for paying for the necessary work to demonstrate that the expansion is safe and acceptable.

Mrs Marland: So the total responsibility and cost rests with the region of Peel.

Mr Giffen: Correct.

Mrs Marland: Thank you for the answer. I will not take up the balance of the time since we are getting down to a shortage of time, but I think it is very significant that when you look at subsection 17(2) of this bill and realize this is all well and good -- it is fine for the region of Peel to be paying all the costs -- and then you get down to subsection (4) and find it may also have to accept the responsibility for waste disposal from municipalities other than the one in which it operates, that is pretty awful stuff.

Mr McClelland: I want to put a question to the parliamentary assistant. My understanding is that subsection 17(2) says that the 2.5 million cubic metres of additional waste will be added on to Britannia without an environmental assessment or without an Environmental Protection Act hearing, notwithstanding the fact that your Premier promised this would not happen and notwithstanding the fact that your now minister promised this would not happen. That is what this section does. Is that correct? That is a simple yes or no. My understanding of it is that this is the section that basically contravenes the promises made by your Premier and by the Minister of the Environment.

Mr O'Connor: When members of the committee take a look at this bill, actually the portion just before (2) are all subject to the minister's orders. The minister's orders for Peel that we are discussing right now require the municipality to undertake a series of studies -- a site survey, leachate collection control, disposal, gas generation control, storm water management, final cover buffer zone, site operations, monitoring of the leachate gas and water surface -- and come up with an after-use study plan as well as the community information centre and what not that Mr Giffen spoke about.

The problem, of course, that was found in Durham region was the fact that they were not able to have an expansion of their site. There was no need for them to undertake the studies. The fact of the matter is that when we first started the committee hearing process and the minister's order was out there and we had the mayor of Mississauga before us -- and a very eloquent speaker she is indeed -- she spoke about some of the problems and difficulties they had, and the minister was out speaking to the people in the community.

Mr McClelland: I would indicate that I simply asked for a yes or no answer, whether in fact this is the section that contravenes the promises made by the minister and the Premier. Is it or is it not the section that contravenes it? It hardly requires a 10- or 15-minute dissertation by the parliamentary assistant.

Mr O'Connor: I do not think I can go on for that length of time, because we are getting very close to the time.

Mr McClelland: It is a long way for him to say that yes, it is the section, if that is essentially what he is leading up to.

Mr O'Connor: When the mayor was here before us, she pointed out that they were in fact in contravention of the minister's orders at the time. After hearing from this committee and approaching the committee and speaking on it, they took it to council and they are now in compliance with the minister's orders. So in fact the process that is undertaken right now has a complete set of studies on environmental areas of the bill and the site but does not comply with what you are suggesting.

Mr McClelland: So the answer is that this is the section that runs contrary to the promise, Mr Chairman. I think the record should indicate that very clearly.

Mrs Mathyssen: I think there has been a suggestion that somehow or other the municipalities are going to suffer financially. I wonder if, through the parliamentary assistant, Mr O'Connor, I might ask Mr Giffen what revenues the region of Peel can expect to receive as a result of the lift at Britannia, just so that we can know what the financial situation will be.

Mr Giffen: The minister's report, as I indicated earlier, provides for additional capacity up to about 2.5 million cubic metres. That is equivalent to about two million tonnes of additional waste going into the site. It is projected that this would be placed in the site over approximately a five-year period. Presently the region of Peel charges a tipping fee of about $150 a tonne and a slight increase is planned in July of this year.

The commissioner of finance for the region of Peel indicated in his report to council that the region of Peel would benefit overall by an amount in excess of $200 million if it proceeded with the implementation of the minister's report. That benefit was based on accommodation of the additional tipping fees the region would receive as well as the money the region would avoid paying if it had to take its waste outside of Peel region. That is a public document and I believe it was provided during one of the earlier presentations to the committee.

Mr Cousens: Will we vote on it now?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Yes. I will just get my notes. Shall subsection 17(2) carry? All in favour? Those opposed?

Mrs Marland: I would like a recorded vote on all of section 17.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): We are at subsection 17(2). I can do a recorded vote on subsection 17(2).


The committee divided on whether subsection 17(2) should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 6

Lessard, Martin, Mathyssen, O'Connor, Ward, B., Wiseman.

Nays -- 4

Cousens, Marland, McClelland, Sola.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): It now being 4 o'clock --


The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I am using my own clock.

Mr Cousens: Mr Chairman, you have been using this clock throughout the hearings.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): No. Actually, with respect, I have a clock here.

It now being 4 of the clock -- I wanted to use that turn of phrase. It is one I thought the former Speaker, Hugh Edighoffer, used to use so well.

Mr Cousens: Just to comment briefly, the next section is one of the worst sections of the bill in that the ministry is coming along and shoving --

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Thank you, Mr Cousens, but pursuant to the instruction from the House it was indicated that at 4 o'clock I would have to then move to follow the rules that were set out by the House leaders and passed in the House.

You have in front of you a document I would like to read. It sets out the procedure we will now follow. I am now reading the document you have in front of you, dealing first of all with those motions that we are going to withdraw. Then we will go forward and deal with all the others.

"It being 4 o'clock, I am, pursuant to the terms of reference of December 10, required to put the question on all outstanding sections and amendments to conclude the committee's business on Bill 143.

"Before proceeding I would like to indicate that I have had an indication that members wish to withdraw certain amendments in order to expedite the process. I will list those amendments referring to the section number and any other identification as may be necessary.

"Section 18:

"18 to strike out Liberal motion.

"18(6) 60 substituted for 21 days Liberal motion.

"Section 19:

"19 to strike out government motion.

"Section 22:

"22 to strike out Progressive Conservative motion.

"Section 23:

"23(3) to strike out Liberal motion.

"Section 24:

"24(2) waste disposal site in bill Liberal motion.

"24(2) waste management system in bill Liberal motion.

"Section 28:

"28 to strike out Progressive Conservative motion.

"Section 33:

"33(2) clause 176(4)(j) to strike out Liberal motion.

"Section 35:

"35 to strike out government motion."

I would indicate to members that in the case of motions to strike out a section they were out of order, and the same end can be reached by simply voting against that particular section of the bill at the appropriate time.

I have asked the clerk to circulate a copy of this statement to enable members to follow along enabling them to vote in accordance with the intent of the above-mentioned motions.

At this time I would declare that all remaining motions are considered to be deemed to have been moved, and I will now call the question of each outstanding amendment or amendments by section and then on related section or section, as amended."

Mr McClelland: In terms of procedural niceties here, I had drafted a motion to amend subsection 24(2). The government subsequently or perhaps concurrently -- I guess it is really irrelevant -- also drafted a motion to amend subsection 24(2). In the result, it is necessary therefore for my motion, rather than amending the section, to amend the government amendment.

The change in reading would simply be if you could refer to -- I believe it is on page 59 -- the Liberal motion to subsection 24(2) with respect to the definition of "waste disposal site." It would then follow, in order to be consistent with the government motion, that one would remove from it the words "in section 25 of the Environmental Protection Act." Then it would read more appropriately, "I move, in amendment thereto, that the amendment be amended by adding" and moving right down to the definition, "`waste disposal site' means," and as is printed.

I hope that is clear for our friends in Hansard. We will provide a written copy of that, but as I said, it is a housekeeping measure in order to make our amendment mesh with or dovetail with the amendment brought forward by the government.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Thank you for that clarification. When we come to that point, and there needs to be just a reminder of the change, the Chair will entertain that.

We will begin on subsection 17(3). Shall subsection 17(3) carry? All in favour? Opposed?

Mrs Marland: Are you back on subsection 17(3) now?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Yes, we are now starting through all of the clauses in order.

Mr McClelland: I want a recorded vote on that.

The committee divided on whether subsection 17(3) should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 6

Lessard, Martin, Mathyssen, O'Connor, B. Ward, Wiseman.

Nays -- 4

Cousens, Marland, McClelland, Sola.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall subsection 17(4) carry?

Clerk of the Committee: No, the amendment comes first.

The committee divided on a Liberal motion respecting subsections 17(4) to 17(9) and 17(11) to 17(13), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

Mr McClelland: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Just by way of information, I am wondering, in terms of the process here -- I am sure the clerk will provide some assistance -- rather than asking for a recorded vote at each particular point, can we, as it were, continue that and have it recorded? As we often do from time to time, we say "same vote." When we say "same vote," does that imply the same recorded vote? It is a point of clarification that I think is important, because many of us would be asking for a recorded vote on particular sections. Can we accomplish that by asking for the same vote and not having to go through the rotation each and every time?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Do you want that shown as a recorded vote on every clause that we now deal with?

Mr McClelland: Yes, Mr Chairman, if that would accomplish the end that we seek. May I put it in this context? Of the remaining amendments, there are perhaps somewhere between 35% and 50%, more or less a third to a half of them, that I personally would want to have a recorded vote on. It seems to me that if the end result is that we are picking and choosing which ones we have a recorded vote, can we in some fashion have the vote consistently recorded on each and every amendment? I want to make it clear that I am not necessarily asking it for all of them, but there are a substantial number of the amendments. It may facilitate it for everybody.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): It would be simpler, I believe, if we dealt with all of them. Obviously in some cases it would be the same vote reversed, if everyone understands my meaning. We would indicate then that in fact each vote would show in Hansard as a recorded vote. Is that clear and all right? Fine.

Mr Sola: As long as it is same vote reversed in our favour.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Yes, watch the way I say "reversed," please, because as we go along this may get confusing.

Mr McClelland: Mr Chair, we have an able clerk, who I am sure will --

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Thank you. I am not sure what that says about the Chair, Mr McClelland.

The committee divided on whether subsection 17(4) should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.

The committee divided on a Liberal motion respecting subsection 17(4.1), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.


The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall subsection 17(5) carry? Carried.

The committee divided on whether subsection 17(6) should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall subsection 17(7) carry? Carried.

The committee divided on a Liberal motion respecting clause 17(8)(d), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Subsection 17(8), shall it carry? Carried. Subsection 17(9)? Carried. Subsection 17(10)? Carried.

The committee divided on a government motion respecting subsection 17(10.1), which was agreed to on the same vote.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall subsection 17(11) carry? Carried.

The committee divided on a government motion respecting subsections 17(11.1) and 17(13), which was agreed to on the same vote.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall subsection 17(12) carry? Carried.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

Section 18:

The committee divided on a Liberal motion respecting subsection 18(4), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

The committee divided on a Liberal motion respecting subsection 18(6), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

The committee divided on a Liberal motion respecting subsections 18(7), 18(8) and 18(9), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

The committee divided on a government motion respecting subsections 18(8) and 18(9), which was agreed to on the same vote.

Section 18, as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on a government motion respecting section 18.1, which was agreed to on the same vote.

Section 19:

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): There is a Liberal motion to subsection 19(4) which is out of order and requires a royal recommendation from the Lieutenant Governor.

We are going to deal with section 19. That is the section to which there was a government motion which I ruled out of order. We are now voting on section 19. All those in favour? It is defeated.

Section 19 deleted.

Section 20:

The committee divided on a Liberal motion respecting section 20, which was agreed to on the same vote.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.


Section 23:

The committee divided on a Liberal motion respecting subsection 23(2), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

The committee divided on a government motion respecting subsections 23(2.1) and 23(3), which was agreed to on the same vote.

The committee divided on a Liberal motion respecting subsection 23(3), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

Section 23, as amended, agreed to.

Section 24:

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): I will just explain what we are going to be doing. We are going to be voting first on the Liberal amendment to the amendment that was referred to earlier.

The committee divided on a Liberal motion respecting subsection 24(2), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

The committee divided on a government motion respecting subsection 24(2), which was agreed to on the same vote.

Section 24, as amended, agreed to.

Section 25 agreed to.

Section 26:

The committee divided on a Liberal motion respecting section 26, which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

The committee divided on a government motion respecting section 26, which was agreed to on the same vote.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): We have just voted on the government motion related to section 26; that means the next four Liberal motions are now out of order, which is what I was going to deem them.

Mr McClelland: You are a hard man, Mr Chairman. You are cruel.

Section 26, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 27 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 33:

The committee divided on a Progressive Conservative motion respecting subsections 33(1) and 33(2), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

The committee divided on a Liberal motion respecting subsection 33(1), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

The committee divided on a Liberal motion respecting subsection 33(2), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

The committee divided on a government motion respecting subsection 33(2), clause 176(4)(j), which was agreed to on the same vote.

The committee divided on a Liberal motion respecting subsection 33(2), clauses 176(4)(j), (k) and (l), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

The committee divided on a government motion respecting subsection 33(2), clause 176(4)(k), which was agreed to on the same vote.

The committee divided on a government motion respecting subsection 33(2), clause 176(4)(r), which was agreed to on the same vote.

The committee divided on a government motion respecting subsection 33(2), clause 176(4)(t), which was agreed to on the same vote.

The committee divided on a Liberal motion respecting subsection 33(2), clauses 176(4)(t), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.


The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall subsection 33(2), as amended, carry? Carried.

Mr Cousens: No.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): We then move to subsection 33(3). Shall subsection 33(3) carry? Carried.

Mr Cousens: Are you listening to our objections and votes on this?

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Very closely.

The committee divided on a government motion respecting subsection 33(3.1), clause 176(7)(b.1), which was agreed to on the same vote.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall subsections 33(4), (5), (6), (7) and (8) carry? Carried.

The committee divided on a government motion respecting subsection 33(8.1), which was agreed to on the same vote.

The committee divided on a government motion respecting subsection 33(9.1), which was agreed to on the same vote.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Shall subsections 33(10) and (11) carry? Carried.

The committee divided on a Progressive Conservative motion respecting subsection 33(12), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

Section 33, as amended, agreed to.

Section 34:

The committee divided on a Progressive Conservative motion respecting subsection 34(2), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

Section 34 agreed to.

Section 35:

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): There was a government motion to delete section 35, which has been declared out of order. Shall section 35 carry?

Interjection: No.

Section 35 deleted.

Sections 36 and 37 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Before we adjourn, a couple of members have asked to say a few words.

Mr McClelland: This has been an interesting process for all of us involved and I just want to take a moment to put a couple of things on the record.

There have been difficult times. In her absence, at the risk of sounding somewhat patronizing inasmuch as your predecessor in the Chair is a caucus colleague of mine, I think all members would agree that notwithstanding the fact that from time to time any one of us, myself included, may have felt a little bit aggrieved by the firm hand of Mrs Caplan in the Chair, I think she acquitted herself exceptionally well under very difficult circumstances and I think we should pay tribute to that fact.

The logistics involved in handling this bill, with some of its complexities, and the conduct of the committee were aided considerably by a number of people, and at the risk of leaving some people out, I think the clerk, Ms Mellor, did an outstanding job and assisted each and every member of the committee in the deliberations and the mechanics and logistics necessary for the travel, the conduct, the invitation of people here and everything related to the committee, and I wanted to mention that. I would ask that perhaps, should we be travelling as this particular committee again, you could prevail on Mr Cousens and one of his rich corporate clients for a private jet to transport us across some of the distant parts of this great province. It was an experience none of us, I am sure, will soon forget.

For legislative counsel and the assistance they provided, I think we owe them a debt of gratitude as well. The ministry staff have been here and their purpose is to serve each and every member, and for the assistance they have provided and for their attempts to provide us with information, sometimes recognizing very candidly that this is a political forum and much of what takes place is political, ministry staff have been indulgent and patient, to say the least, in many cases. For that I want to personally express my thanks and the thanks of my caucus colleagues and I thank all members of the committee, and, Mr Chairman, for the job you have done over these past few days, thank you and welcome to this happy group.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Thank you. I will not comment.

Mr Cousens: I would like to echo what has just been said. Staff of the ministry are public servants and they have served the committee well. I feel sorry that some of the direction they get from the ministry is not what I would like to see them get through the policies they have to implement, and I am afraid the history in this province is that the public servants will implement what they are given to do in a very competent way, and that is the way it will be.

I thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank Lynn. I thank research. I think there has just been a tremendous support along the way. Jerry Richmond in particular, up until this week, when he had done his work. Poor Hansard; they have to write it all down. Anyway, thank you very much. Except for the fact that no one has agreed with me for the last five weeks from the other side of the room, we have done our job and leave without too much acrimony.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to echo the sentiments that have been given already, and I would like to thank the clerk for the work she did in organizing the wonderful tour of Ontario through the auspices of Skycraft in Oshawa, right next door to my riding.

I would like also to say to Jerry Richmond that I thought he did a good job in terms of his research and I enjoyed his company on many occasions when we found ourselves in faraway places and looking for a place to have dinner.

I would like to thank my colleagues. Their presence and their ability to be here on time and to keep the numbers up was made easier by them being as prompt as they were.

I would like to thank the Chair and I would like to thank the previous Chair, Elinor. She did an excellent job in terms of keeping us moving through all the deputations and keeping us on time. I would like to thank the current Chair for getting us through this part. It is an experience that was new to me and I would like to thank him for his help in that.

I would also like to thank the ministry staff. I found the discourse with them to be always enlightening and always to be --



Mr Wiseman: I just got sidetracked by Mr O'Connor.

It was always polite, enlightening and informative. Most important, though, I would like to thank the presenters. I would like to thank the people of Ontario who came forward and made some 200 presentations on this bill. It is important that the people of Ontario get involved in the political process whether they agree or disagree with each other so that the debate can continue. It is the very essence of democracy that people become involved. A democracy cannot happen when it is only one-sided.

I would like to thank the presenters for their time, particularly those presenters who have given the hundreds and hundreds of hours of volunteer work for no pay, because they are the ones who have shown in their public spirit and their dedication to a cause that they put their community and the wellbeing of their neighbours paramount and above their own concerns, including their families. I think it is important to say something about that kind of volunteerism and spirit that brought so many forward to make this a better bill. I would like to thank them as well.

Mrs Marland: It is beginning to sound like the Academy awards. Are you not going to thank your mother and your father and your grandfather and your higher power? I am really disappointed that nobody thanked me, because I have only been a sub on this committee but I have really enjoyed it. It has been a very enlightening experience. I think the most memorable experience for me on this committee was the privilege of flying in an aircraft that Humphrey Bogart had flown in. It was even older than the aircraft I flew in as a stewardess in the 1950s, so it was quite enlightening.

Seriously, in thanking the public who were involved with this process, I must say it is unfortunate they were not listened to. I think it is great that we ended up with a public process. That evolved because of the strong determination of the opposition parties to have public hearings. I am glad that process took place.

I particularly want to commend the ministry staff. I think they had a very difficult time with the questions that came forth from all sides of this room, I say to Ms Mathyssen, who thinks they only have a difficult time with the opposition. When Mr Cousens said that unfortunately the public servants implement government policy, I think he meant that it is fortunate when we agree with the policy; nevertheless, because we have capable, dedicated people in the public service, they are there to serve whomever the government is, and it is the choice of the people of the province who the government is.

Having been here only as a substitute member of the committee, I am impressed with the tolerance and the endurance of the people who have represented the ministry staff because I know it is a difficult and challenging job listening to us.

I thank you, Mr Chairman, for this week, and the members of the committee for the opportunity I have had to put some input into this issue. I think the work of the Legislative Assembly staff, namely the legislative counsel, research and Hansard, and especially Lynn Mellor, our clerk, is obviously the reason that the committee is able to function at all.

Mr O'Connor: Just about everybody in this room has been thanked, but I think it would be appropriate that I thank some others, as the parliamentary assistant to the minister, Mrs Grier, who has been carrying this legislation and indeed a heavy load as we look at the whole waste management problem within the GTA. It is a problem that indeed has many complexities. We have had a lot of the complexities discussed in this committee room by all members.

In proceeding with a bill of this nature, we have had to bring together people from many offices: The newly established IWA, through the capable chairmanship of Jan Rush and her help there, Barbara Johnston, who got a little bit under the weather on this famous flight that we travelled about the province on; from the waste reduction office, Drew Blackwell and his assistant, David McRobert, did an excellent job; from the Ministry of the Environment, Alex Giffen and John Merritt certainly proved invaluable not only in the committee process but also in preparing this parliamentary assistant with many of the facts needed to try to answer some questions put to me; and of course our legal assistants here, Jim Jackson and Leo FitzPatrick, who I inadvertently called Fitzgerald and seemed to have stirred a name change in him. I hope he is not going to sign the wrong name the next time he goes to get his licence renewed.

I would be remiss if I did not recognize the fact that the minister had her staff here, Paul Smith, and my own staff and the other parliamentary assistants helping out. In carrying a piece of legislation such as this, there are a lot of complexities and a lot of running around and a lot of late nights. I am sure that people watching this today do not necessarily realize the number of long hours ministry staff and minister staff and indeed parliamentary assistant and members' staff put in to make sure that we can take a piece of legislation such as this, hear from as many deputants as we have and try to improve legislation as much as possible while still sticking to the intent of the legislation.

I think we have had an opportunity to improve the legislation and still maintain the intent of the legislation. Some improvements have been recognized from all sides, and certainly some long arguments and discussions.

I will close with that. I appreciate having a colleague from York region here with me as well as my other colleague from York region. Maybe it had a kind of calming effect on him at times, though I think our other Chair had a little more of a calming effect.

The Acting Chair (Mr Beer): Thank you. Let me simply close by thanking all of the members for cooperating this week. I am tempted to say to the members of the ministry staff who now have to go back and see what is on their desks that I am sure that will be a pleasant task. The committee stands adjourned until the call of the Chair.

The committee adjourned at 1648.