Tuesday 28 January 1992

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


Jay Palter, representative

WMI Waste Management of Canada Inc

Nancy Porteous-Koehle, government affairs director

Bob Webb, business development manager

Peter Hendrick, vice-president of development and public affairs, eastern region

Énergie Sept-Îles energy

Haakon Kierulf, vice-president, Peter Kiewit Sons

Tony O'Donohue

Massimo Steven Panicali

Packaging Association of Canada

Jeff Jeffery, past president

Alan Robinson, executive director

Lyn MacMillan

Regional Municipality of Durham

Gary Herrema, regional chairman

John Aker, councillor

Don Hadden, councillor

Viktor Silgailis, commissioner of works

McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Ltd

Maureen Kitts, director, communications and government affairs

Hal Gregory, vice-president, environmental affairs

Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto

Ken Lyon, chair, environmental quality committee

Canadian Environmental Law Association

Zen Makuch, counsel

Vaughan CARES

Mario Ferri, president

W. J. Palmer Consultants Inc

Bill Palmer, president

Canadian Bar Association--Ontario

Erica James, vice-president

Joseph Castrilli, member, environmental law section

Glen Shields Community Association

Dino Bottero, president


Chair / Présidente: Caplan, Elinor (Oriole L)

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

Cousens, W. Donald (Markham PC)

Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)

Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)

Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND)

Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)

Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex ND)

O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND)

Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West/-Ouest PC)

Sullivan, Barbara (Halton Centre L)

Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)

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

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

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

Turnbull, David (York Mills PC) for Mr Stockwell

Also taking part / Autre participante:

Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)

Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn

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

The committee met at 1006 in room 151.


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


The Vice-Chair: We are beginning this morning with the continuation of hearings on Bill 143, the Waste Management Act. Our first delegation this morning is Greenpeace. I ask that you identify yourself, sir. You have 20 minutes, and it is customary to leave a little time at the end for questioning and/or comments by the members of the three caucuses here.

Mr Palter: Thank you very much. My name is Jay Palter. I am here today representing Greenpeace. I have been with Greenpeace for four years now working on various toxic waste issues. In my brief presentation this morning I am going to focus my attention on two primary areas related to the Waste Management Act, Bill 143; that is, the imperative to implement waste reduction, which is addressed in the bill, and the proscription of incineration as a safe waste management alternative.

I will start by talking about waste reduction. Greenpeace strongly supports the comprehensive application of reduction, reuse and recycling measures to the municipal waste stream enabled by the proposed amendments in this bill to the Environmental Protection Act.

The waste management crisis that our society finds itself in is the product of two main conditions. First, we generate far too much waste and, second, our traditional response to this problem -- mixing and dumping the waste in what amounts to a large hole in the ground -- is incompatible with our desire for a healthy environment and a sustainable future. A sound ecological strategy must endeavour to address both these conditions that produced the crisis without creating a new set of problems that results in a worse crisis or a crisis of greater proportion in the future.

The proposed waste reduction amendments to the Environmental Protection Act contained in this bill address both these conditions. These amendments pave the way for regulations designed to reduce the quantities of waste we generate by changing the current wasteful and dirty productive and consumptive habits in all aspects of our society.

Further, any reduction in the quantity of waste generated will necessarily be paralleled by a change in the quality and composition of the materials we therefore discard. For example, when we sort, separate and compost organic waste and reduce and remove toxic waste from the waste stream, we address the second condition of the waste management crisis by minimizing the environmental impact of the resulting landfill for those residual wastes.

By focusing our attention on front-end, preventive waste reduction with the long-term goal of minimizing waste and maximizing efficiency, we can succeed in fundamentally altering the conditions that produce the waste management crisis we are now facing. Thus, Greenpeace supports an aggressive waste prevention strategy that employs innovative and creative measures to discourage waste generation for solving not only this municipal waste crisis but all ecological crises that are rooted in our wasteful and dirty productive and consumptive practices.

In order to succeed, however, such a waste prevention strategy must be comprehensively applied to all practices that contribute to the waste stream, through the implementation of the reduction, reuse and recycling measures. As a mere theory or an enhanced regulatory authority, a preventive waste management strategy will not succeed in averting another waste management crisis. In other words, real reduction of waste is the sole and most important criterion for success.

It would be useful here to clarify that while Greenpeace supports the general environmental strategy that the present government is applying to municipal waste, this support is conditional upon the achievement of these real reductions in waste generation in the province of Ontario in the very near future.

The ecological benefits of a waste prevention strategy are numerous. Most obviously, when we reduce and recycle paper products, glass, aluminum, metals, yard and organic waste we conserve finite natural resources and the habitats they support. When we recycle we reduce air pollution and water pollution and energy consumption by substituting secondary materials for virgin materials in manufacturing processes.

Economically as well, waste prevention strategies are cheaper and last longer than low-tech, high-cost waste disposal technologies like incineration and mixed-waste landfilling. Additionally, for each one million tons of materials processed, for instance, in the state of Vermont, recycling facilities generate in the range of 550 to 2,000 jobs. This is per million tons processed, depending on the type of facility. Incinerators, for instance, generate only in the range of 150 to 1,100 jobs per million tons of waste processed and landfills, of course, only in the range of 50 to 360 jobs. Job for job, waste prevention strategies beat disposal by a long shot.

The second thing I wanted to talk about was the proscription or exclusion of incineration as a waste management option. Greenpeace strongly supports the exclusion of incineration as a waste management option on the grounds that it is neither an effective, efficient, rational nor ecologically safe technology. Incineration does not address either of the two abovementioned conditions of the waste management crisis. Incineration is a back-end response to waste management, since it focuses on treating, burning and dispersing waste after it is generated. Hence, at the very best, incineration has no impact on the quantity of waste we generate in society. At the very worst, however, incinerators directly counteract efforts to reduce waste generation by creating economic incentives for maintaining steady supplies of waste to fuel them.

Incinerators also fail to address the second condition of the waste management crisis, our dependence on landfills, by actually requiring landfills for ash products and non-combustible materials. Moreover, incinerators, when functioning properly, concentrate the hazardous waste constituents in garbage in the ash byproducts, creating a far more hazardous, though less voluminous, material to be landfilled.

Incineration schemes that are promoted by the operators of cement kilns, for instance, merely present the illusion of addressing this problem by integrating the hazardous ash byproducts into their products, thereby merely transferring or externalizing the environmental costs to the future users of those products and the future disposal problems posed by those products.

Despite the demonstrated ineffectiveness of incineration as a response to the waste management crisis, the incineration industry curiously continues to promote burning waste as an efficient "solution" to other environmental problems. To this end, the industry has launched marketing strategies which link incineration to "resource recovery," the so-called fourth R, and invoke slogans such as "energy from waste." These strategies and slogans are intended to present in a positive light what is essentially a negative and destructive technology. In fact, burning waste under the guise of recovering energy actually wastes energy. More energy is saved by reducing, reusing or even recycling waste materials than is ever generated by burning those materials when you take into consideration the fact that you have to use far more energy to re-create, reproduce, extract, refine and manufacture new products destroyed by the incineration process.

Every day it becomes increasingly more evident that the solutions to our present and future energy problems will come from applying conservation efficiency measures. Incineration is essentially a destructive and wasteful technology of the past. At best, it is neither an efficient nor a rational response to our current waste management or energy problems. At worst, it is utter lunacy.

Finally, there exists no conclusive scientific evidence or proof that incineration is safe. However, much scientific evidence exists showing incineration to be harmful to human and environmental health. Even under the strictest standards, so-called state-of-the-art incinerators emit neurotoxic heavy metals that have escaped combustion, since they do not burn in the first place -- chemicals such as mercury, lead and cadmium -- as well as products of incomplete combustion, which are thousands of different chemicals created in the incineration process, of which only a small fraction, including the deadly dioxins, have ever been identified or tested.

Additionally, all incinerators produce acid-rain-forming gases and contribute to global warming through emissions of large quantities of carbon dioxide, which is in fact precisely what, in theory and on paper, they are supposed to do.

In closing, despite the claims of the promoters and financial beneficiaries of incineration -- in other words, the manufacturers of the parts, the contractors who build large megaprojects, the operators who profit from the operation of incinerators and the sycophantic hordes of consultants who will say whatever they need to say in order to promote incinerators -- incineration is neither safe nor sensible.

That is the end of my formal presentation. I will just allude to a couple of attachments which I was unable to bring in quantities to distribute to all members of the committee. I therefore brought three copies, one for each party caucus, to review and distribute as necessary. I will be happy to answer any questions.

The first is a general report called Playing with Fire. It is a technical review of the literature around hazardous waste incineration. While hazardous waste incineration is not exclusively what you are discussing here, it is quite clear that the technology is generally applied to other wastes. Much of the literature around hazardous waste incineration will be relevant to the discussion of municipal waste incineration, so I draw your attention to this. It is a very thorough review of the literature, quoting extensively from Environmental Protection Agency sources concluding that incineration is far from safe and that there no evidence to prove that it is.

In addition, I have brought a study called Sham Recyclers: Hazardous Waste Incineration in the Cement and Aggregate Kiln Industry, another study done in the United States, based on 41 cement kilns in the United States that are currently burning hazardous wastes. The cement kiln industry usually can substitute a whole range of different wastes, depending on what is currently in the media at any one time, as supplementary fuel for their manufacturing process of cement. This is a very interesting study of the impacts of burning hazardous waste materials, many constituents of which are contained in garbage, in a cement kiln that is not designed to do that. This is another interesting document you might want to look at.

Finally there is a document called Trash into Cash, a study of Waste Management Inc and its environmental crimes and misdeeds over the past decade or so. This is a company that is quite large and a major player in the private waste management industry. There are many references to their less-than-orthodox business practices. It might be something you would want to take a look at. I will just draw your attention to page 8, which talks about the economic malpractice of the company for profit. I will quote very briefly.

"This company, its subsidiaries and its employees have faced anti-trust lawsuits or government investigations in at least 17 states in the United States. Since 1980 Waste Management Inc, its subsidiaries and its employees have paid over $28 million in fines or settlements for price-fixing, bid-rigging and other allegedly illegal means of discouraging competition." There are many examples here. I draw your attention to that and hope you find useful information there as well.

I thank you very much for the opportunity to present to you today and I encourage any questions you might have.


Mr Cousens: My office and Greenpeace have been in conversation since November or December during the debate on Bill 143. I drew attention to Greenpeace support of the Nuremberg incinerators. Yesterday I had a chance to talk to the source of that information and I will be getting it and passing it on to you. They have been in Florida and are now back in town. I understand there are certain state-of-the-art units that have addressed the concerns you are raising. I put that on the record so you know I am following it up with regard to that issue you raised with me earlier.

I think one always has to be careful of his or her sources, the scientific background for the information one is using. I wanted you to know I will have that for you and I am in the process of getting it. I say that publicly because it does raise the question about Greenpeace here in Canada having one view and Greenpeace in Germany having another view on the issue you have talked about.

I want to ask you a question. Where did the fourth R go to? I like the way you brought it into your discussion, because at one time we also talked about "recover" as an important part of the 3Rs. It was 4Rs, and the fourth R was "recover." It has pretty well disappeared from debate. I think Greenpeace has given leadership to everybody to think about these issues. Have you any sense as to why the fourth R has been totally removed from the vocabulary of the environment?

Mr Palter: Yes. I have lots of answers to those questions. First of all, I want to address in the public record the source. I also had the opportunity yesterday of contacting your source for the information. I wanted to make it clear -- I think it was fairly clear in my presentation today -- Greenpeace nowhere in the world supports an incinerator. Greenpeace's policy is uniform throughout the world -- Canada, Germany, every country in the world -- to oppose all forms of incineration, particularly garbage incineration, which admittedly is probably the most foolish resource to be incinerating in our society. For the record, that goes without saying and I hope my presentation made clear the reasons we feel that way.

I had the opportunity of talking to the so-called source of your information yesterday. Curiously enough, the story I heard was that your source went on a tour of a facility and it was the plant manager who in a verbal communication suggested Greenpeace had supported this thing. I thought it was unfortunate of you to return to get this information and publicly in the Hansard, without contacting Greenpeace Canada -- not to mention checking even with Greenpeace in that country and relying on the source, being a plant manager who has every interest whatsoever in suggesting that the environmental foes that are the biggest block to their desire to burn garbage would in fact support it. That was an outright lie.

It was unfortunate that you did not check with this organization in Canada. I would only encourage you in the future to please contact me directly if you have any questions about our policies to clarify them before publicly speaking or misspeaking in public about them.

There is another question I wanted to respond to, if possible.

Mr Cousens: In this room, and anyplace, "outright lie" --

Mr Palter: I am referring to the plant manager in Germany, for clarification.

Mr Cousens: I want to make it very clear that is the reference you are making. I also want to make it clear that I would not have used that information had it not been from a reasonable, honest, good source.

Mr Palter: I would think Greenpeace would be the best source of Greenpeace policy, so in the future I would request, Mr Cousens, if you could just contact us.

Mr Cousens: I will be pleased to.

Mr Palter: We would be happy to share information.

Mr Cousens: I just want you to know there is some question about Greenpeace policy. I have that question and I raise that question.

Mr Palter: I am a spokesperson. There is no question about Greenpeace policy.

Mr Cousens: There is to me, and I raise it here in committee.

I wanted to ask you about the fourth R.

Mr Palter: I am not sure what happened to the fourth R. I know it has been hijacked by the waste management industry. There are many other ways to interpret the fourth R, which is to say it does not necessarily mean we have to burn valuable resources to recover their energy value. It may very well mean that one day very soon we are going to go back to landfills that we have been filling up with valuable resources for many years and literally recover those materials from the landfills -- those metals, those papers, all that material that is sitting there waiting for us to go back.

Very quickly it will become more economical, it will become better for the environment, it will become more efficient for us to go back to the landfills which are now full of valuable resources and recover those resources rather than pretending to recover their energy value through destroying those resources in the future. I think there are a lot of ways to understand recovery. It did not disappear; it was hijacked by the waste management industry.

Ms Haeck: I would like to thank Mr Palter for an extremely articulate presentation. I just wanted to centre on something you said on the second page of your presentation, because I think it falls in line with some of the comments that actually have been made from opposition parties. They have indicated that the profit is something that we should really be addressing. In fact, you are making a comment regarding the number of jobs that are created, the financial benefits that really accrue to a community as a result of recycling. Can you expand on the economic benefits in the examples you have made in your presentation?

Mr Palter: Yes. I will draw your attention to a document I just left in my bag called Worldwatch, paper 104, which is I believe September 1991, which in great detail describes jobs in a sustainable future. One of the sections in that report discusses recycling and reuse strategies and the fact that, in general, they are more labour-intensive and create far more permanent long-term jobs. It is true that building a large project like an incinerator tends to create a lot of short-term construction jobs, but it is arguably more healthy for the economy to be creating long-term, permanent and, in the future, more highly skilled jobs in terms of processing and reducing waste in a waste management infrastructure that focuses on prevention and reduction.

Beyond the numbers I have quoted from that document, in general incineration and disposal technologies tend to be promoted. Landfill rarely is promoted as an economic benefit for a community because it is hard to imagine what kind of benefit could come from dumping valuable resources into a hole in the ground only to leak some time soon in the future.

The incineration unfortunately is promoted very actively as a benefit for economic development, and it has just never been proven to be the case. Any community that has accepted an incinerator usually takes a downturn in economic development over the long term. Incinerators are dirty industries; they are old-fashioned industries. They are like smoking: They are out of fashion, they are out of touch and they do not correspond with the reality that the 1990s represent to us, that we are trying to protect health and to encourage healthy economic development.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. I am sorry that time has expired. We appreciate your coming before the committee. If there is additional information that you would like to share with the committee, please feel free to communicate with us in writing.

I apologize, Mrs Fawcett, we have run out of time.

Ms Haeck: Could we have a chance to put any questions on the record?

The Chair: Yes, you can put the questions on the record.

Ms Haeck: I have sort of a supplemental question to the one I just asked, which is, has Greenpeace looked at the financial benefits for companies by their initiating any large-scale waste prevention or waste reduction programs?

The Chair: Mrs Fawcett, did you want to put your question on the record?

Mrs Fawcett: I am just wondering, has Greenpeace done any cost analysis of incineration compared to landfill? Right now, what are the options? If we ban incineration outright, what about landfill? Is it totally safe? Is it cost-effective? Also, what is your suggestion for biomedical waste?

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Fawcett. The clerk will notify you of the questions that have been placed on the record. We would appreciate if you would answer in writing before February 14; it will become part of the public record. After that it will be shared with the committee members for their information. Thank you for appearing today.

Mr Palter: Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity and your attention.



The Chair: I would like to call next WMI Waste Management of Canada Inc. I would ask that you begin your presentation by introducing yourselves. You have 20 minutes for your presentation and we would appreciate it if you would leave as much time as possible for questions from members of the committee. Welcome.

Mrs Porteous-Koehle: Thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning. My name is Nancy Porteous-Koehle, government affairs director for WMI Waste Management of Canada. With me today are Bob Webb, business development manager of WMI Canada; Howard Goldby, our senior environmental engineer for eastern Canada, and Peter Hendrick, vice-president of development and public affairs for the eastern region, which includes northeast United States, Ontario and Quebec.

When the New Democratic Party was elected, we at WMI were very pleased when Premier Rae appointed Ruth Grier as the Minister of the Environment. We know her well and we respect her dedication and commitment to protecting our and our families' environmental future. Our Recycle Canada Etobicoke facility is located in her riding. We share many of the same environmental concerns expressed by Ruth Grier and members of the Legislature and we are looking forward to continued working in partnership with Ontario and the municipal governments at developing and delivering waste management services for environmental needs.

During these hearings committee members have expressed conflicting statements on whether Bill 143 will or will not eliminate private waste management companies and operations. We appear before you today to request some changes to Bill 143 to ensure that the private sector remains an integral component of the management of waste, will be allowed and encouraged to continue partnership arrangements with governments and will be encouraged and requested to continue to research, develop and implement leading-edge solutions for Ontario's environmental problems and concerns.

WMI is the largest provider of environmental and recycling services in Canada and the United States. In Ontario we employ over 400 men and women, operate 11 companies, have a payroll in excess of $18 million and in 1991 opened a $25-million recycling facility designed to process 500 tons per day of dry industrial, commercial and institutional material. Many of our employees have close to a quarter of a century of experience in waste management issues.

Our Recycle Canada Etobicoke facility is the first of its kind and the largest in Canada and the United State to provide industrial and commercial customers with the opportunity to do their part recycling materials which would otherwise have gone to landfills. These materials are now ending up in guaranteed end markets as a supply of manufacturing stock at industries throughout Canada and the world. We have found markets for and are recycling more materials than the ministry is mandating in Regulatory Measures to Achieve Ontario's Waste Reduction Targets: Initiatives Paper No 1, such as HDPE, PET, LDPE, polystyrene, polypropylene, boxboard and computer printout paper. In addition, we have active programs in research and development, waste reduction and reuse, and environmental innovation.

Bill 143 addresses important aspects of waste reduction and recycling. However, regulatory efforts to control waste streams are only part of the answer. Currently, legislative mandates in other jurisdictions requiring separation and diversion of materials from the waste stream have worked, but have also created an oversupply of materials without regard to demand or available markets.

To answer this concern, Waste Management of Canada actively supports legislation or policies which would require (1) mandatory provincial government procurement of products containing recycled materials consistent with recycling rates and goals; (2) incentives for manufacturers to use recovered instead of virgin material; (3) measures to reward business for the utilization of recovered material; (4) measures to realign responsibility for the solid waste stream; (5) the development of a simple minimum-content requirement; (6) in cooperation with business, government-sponsored research and technology transfer studies on the use of recovered material; (7) expanded grants to the private sector to stimulate market development; (8) diversion programs tied to available markets, and (9) expanded public information and education programs.

Some of these policies are contained within Initiatives Paper No 1, which we commented on to the ministry. Adoption of the above policies will lower net recycling costs and increase market demand, thus providing the basis for a sustainable, long-term recycling program on a nationwide basis. The emphasis of current public policy and legislation needs to shift from focusing on diversion of materials to creating markets and reducing the overall costs of recycling.

WMI, along with other private companies, invests millions of dollars each year in the research and development of environmental solutions. Government should encourage the contribution environmental companies can make in supplying Ontario with excellent environmental solutions. Losing the private sector's involvement would put an astronomical and unnecessary financial burden on the residents of Ontario. We would also lose millions of investment dollars, jobs and an opportunity to develop our own or have access to world-renowned environmental technology and facilities.

Most of our requests for changes to Bill 143 are very similar to requests contained within Metro Toronto's and AMO's presentations. Some are different. I will quickly verbalize some of them, which are detailed in our written submission given to you today.

In part I we request that a clause be added to restrict the powers of the Interim Waste Authority to lands in the GTA and to put a time limit on the life of the authority.

In part II we are requesting that the proponent be responsible for diversion figures after consulting with industry and municipalities, that energy from waste not be legislated out as a waste management alternative and that protection of the environment and not political boundaries determine "primary service area" and that shipments of waste and/or materials not be restricted.

We believe the wording in part IV puts private waste management companies out of business in Ontario. We have heard more than one committee member state that this is not the intention of the bill nor of the government. The changes we are recommending should help to eliminate some concerns the private sector may have. We believe these changes could be endorsed by all members of the Legislature, including the minister.

In section 23 we support the province taking an active role in encouraging research and development, but we request that the ministry's role be one of regulator, policymaker and enforcer of environmental laws. It should not be the proponent or operator of a waste management system. We also request the deletion of the words "any arrangements" from the definition of "waste management system."

In sections 23 and 26 we request that the minister retain all powers. By adding the words "to ensure" to the beginning of the bill's section 26, dealing with section 29 of the EPA, you would give municipal governments the option to either do the directives themselves or contract out to private enterprise. Also, in the EPA's section 29(2)(c), "to support" and "to ensure" would need to be substituted for "to seek" and "to implement".

We would also request that section 33 be deleted entirely, but if it remains, we request the minister not to get involved with staffing or design of waste management systems or waste disposal sites, except for environmental safeguards.

In closing, we support many of the stated objectives of the minister to change Ontario into a conservator society. We support and encourage strong regulations that will bring about improvements to Ontario's environment. We believe and support governments' mandate to regulate and enforce high environmental standards. We extend a sincere offer to share with the minister and our fellow citizens WMI's many years of experience and the knowledge we have gained from firsthand endeavours. As proud residents of Ontario, the employers of WMI want to continue developing and implementing new ideas and technology in the field of reduce, reuse and recycle. We believe we offer an excellent environmental service to our neighbours, our local government and business and industries in our community. We are here to ask for a show of confidence and support by this government for the private sector through changes in this bill. We are also requesting that all future government documents and bills pertaining to environmental and waste management issues address in a positive manner the issue of private sector involvement. Thank you for your attention.


The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We have approximately three minutes for each caucus.

Mr Wiseman: On page 3 of your brief you say, "We have found markets for and are recycling more materials than the ministry is mandating in Initiatives Paper No 1." Could you give us a quick description -- I think we have one more question -- of the kinds of markets that are available?

Mr Webb: Just one market we have established is for fibre products: cardboard, newspaper. We formed a joint venture with Stone Container, which owns 50% of Consolidated-Bathurst here in Canada. Through that organization we are marketing fibre products not only through North America but around the world. In 1990, Waste Management alone recycled more newspaper than the province of Ontario.

Mr Wiseman: Some questions about the state of the market for aluminum tins, tins made out of metals, glass and all these things: Could you perhaps give us a good description of what it is that the consumers of, say, glass are looking for in glass recycling, and why there is so much trouble in the marketing of glass?

Mr Webb: I am not sure exactly what --

Mr Wiseman: There is a problem. We read in the newspaper, that Consumers Glass or somebody is turning back glass. Why are there problems there, and what can be done to solve them?

Mr Hendrick: I think this question points out the need, particularly for government, to play an active role in market development. Glass is just one example. Particularly in the eastern part of North America, there are not many manufacturers of glass reuse products. They have very high demands of the quality of material when they are turning the glass back into bottle products. When you have mixed cull, it is very difficult to produce an end product that is suitable for the marketplace. Additional moneys in research and development to stimulate the manufacturers into retooling and creating those markets will ensure that there is a market demand and that the recycling programs set up by this government will not collapse due to an oversupply of material.

Mr McClelland: I have a couple of very brief questions. Yesterday we were told by a group of individuals who were before the committee that it is their belief that the profit motive impedes the development of the 3Rs initiatives by the private sector. I wonder if any of you, Mr Webb or Mrs Porteous-Koehle -- by the way, I would like to thank each of you for being here -- would have any comparative data in terms of how much money the private sector has put into the development of markets you have talked about in response to Mr Wiseman's question. Is there any comparative analysis you might have? Do you have a sense? If not, how much money in the private sector does your company, for example, put into it compared to what the government has put into the development of markets and the 3Rs technology initiatives?

Mr Webb: In developing markets, I mentioned one joint venture we have with Stone Container. We have a second one set up with American National Can which is just being developed right now for the recycling of glass containers and metal containers. We have built our first plant, on which I believe we spent about $2.5 million, in the Chicago area, with plans to develop more plants. We worked with Du Pont for the recycling of high-density polyethylene and PET and built plants in Philadelphia and Chicago and we are planning to work with them and other plastic manufacturers to develop more recycling technology and more end markets.

Mr McClelland: Can you give me a brief handle on the capital expenditures -- we are limited to three minutes, unfortunately -- any sense, even in the past five years or three years, of capital investment in terms of developing markets and technology research?

Mr Webb: Last year in our region alone, which is eastern United States and eastern Canada, we spent over $35 million in development of recycling and reduction programs. There are nine such regions in our company.

Mr McClelland: That is $35 million in one region and there are nine such regions. I wonder if later on the parliamentary assistant would provide how much money the government of Ontario has invested in a like period of time in development of those types of markets.

One other thing that appears here, Mrs Porteous-Koehle -- and I apologize for rushing through this, but as you know, we are limited to three minutes -- is that you say on page 2 that you require some changes "to ensure that the private sector remains an integral component in the management of waste."

Mrs Porteous-Koehle: Yes.

Mr McClelland: You have heard some statements to the effect that you are welcome and so on. You are accountable to shareholders as a corporation. You cannot operate on vague promises; you need assurances. I wonder if you could re-emphasize that point in terms of the private sector and the way it operates.

I am not trying to be critical in this sense. I think there is something we have to really address here, that assurances are required, that representations are not sufficient, and the necessity for you to have changes so that you can invest and continue to do the work you are doing.

Mr Hendrick: I think, like any organization, we need to plan for the future. To forge a true public and private partnership, we recognize that there is an active role that public organizations and entities must take. In the private sector, the amount invested in the future is usually outlaid over a five-year period. The planning for that process, planning for changes that are mandated by legislative bodies, is a very important process in any business unit, particularly in the environmental arena, where society and public entities as well are demanding more accountability for organizations like ours.

Mr Turnbull: Given the fact that there seems to be a difficulty with the price obtained by anybody wanting to sell waste materials such as bottles or newsprint or anything for recycling -- it has become less economic -- what would you do, without costing the public purse any money, to ensure that there was more demand and that we could spur recycling?

Ms Porteous-Koehle: I think we outlined a bit of that in our presentation where we said that the government can set up a policy -- I am trying to find the right terminology -- to create markets, "diversion programs tied to available markets," "development of a simple minimum content requirement" and so on. The government can do a lot to help stimulate the end markets. We have been able to go out and find end markets for many products that are not even listed.

Mr Turnbull: I am very pointedly saying that it cannot be government money, because it is quite clear that the government does not have any money.

Mr Hendrick: I think business, industry -- not just our industry -- is quite willing to commit resources. A simple thing like technology sharing -- there are a lot of innovations that have occurred throughout the world on how to take different waste products and turn them into useful end products, whether that be paper or plastics or the combination of both. Getting that information out to the private sector and providing some long-term investment or tax incentives might be economical ways whereby the government can participate to create a greater demand for material that was once considered waste.

Mr Turnbull: And presumably some sort of guarantee that if you are making these investments, the government is not going to suddenly wade in and take over your business in the future.

Mr Hendrick: I think there is certainly an active role for the private sector and for government and that there can be some positive synergy between the two groups.

The Chair: A question for the record, Mr Lessard.

Mr Lessard: I want to thank you for your presentation. You seem to see a lot of positive aspects of this legislation. You say you believe, "the wording in part IV puts private waste management companies out of business in Ontario." You also mentioned partnership, and I just wanted to state that this is going to require partnership from the public and private sectors and from consumers. You have suggested some changes to the bill, and I wonder how you see those changes, which seem very subtle, giving you the assurance that the private sector does have a role to play in the future.

The Chair: A question for the record, Mr Wiseman.

Mr Wiseman: My question has to do with page 4, number 1, and page 5, number 5, with respect to "the development of a simple minimum content requirement" and "mandatory provincial procurement of products...." Given the likelihood that the federal government is negotiating a North American free trade agreement, and my information is that Consumers Glass has already lost two of its plants due to Labatt's sending its bottle production to Mexico, how do your recommendations fit with the current FTA and what could be a new North American free trade market?


The Chair: A question, Mr Cousens, for the record.

Mr Cousens: If there are any specific examples or guidelines suggested through your own discussions on pages 4 and 5 of your presentation that give some suggestions to the government, with your worldwide experience which I strongly respect, I would appreciate any of those guidelines, because it could give us at least a discussion point in future debates in this Legislature.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. Further question, Mr Lessard?

Mr Lessard: I have two questions for the record. I would like to know what percentage of your gross income goes towards research and development, and whether you can determine the impact on your recycling operation that incineration or energy from waste might have.

The Chair: The questions that have been asked will be made available to you by the clerk in writing over the next few days. We would appreciate it if you could respond in writing. If we receive your reply before February 14 it will become part of the public record. If it is received after February 14 it will be available for all committee members to share and to receive.

I would like to thank you for appearing before the committee today and assure you that if there is any additional information you believe would be helpful to the committee, we would appreciate hearing from you on that count as well.

Mrs Porteous-Koehle: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Within the package we passed out to you today was a very sincere invitation for every member of the Legislature to come and visit our plant, Recycle Canada. It is only 15 minutes down the road. We would be delighted to have you visit.

The Chair: Thank you very much.


The Chair: I would next like to call ENSIE. Please come forward. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. Would you begin by introducing yourselves? We would appreciate it if you would leave as much time as possible for questions from committee members.

Mr Kierulf: My name is Haakon Kierulf. I am vice-president of Peter Kiewit Sons. Joining me today is Charles Pole, vice-president, operations, of Upper Lakes Shipping Corp. We are the proponents of this scheme we call ENSIE.

I appreciate the opportunity to make a submission to this committee and look forward to your questions and comments. It is somehow appropriate to us that this bill is before a social development committee. Waste disposal is primarily a social matter. Technology and practice provide us with the solutions.

I want to say at the outset that we support the drive towards a conserver society and accept the impacts -- such as 3R programs -- this has on projects such as ours. I do not intend to read my brief to you. Rather, I would like to describe the concept of our proposal, outline some of the benefits, discuss how it fits the minister's stated objectives, explain how Bill 143 impacts on our project, and then leave time for your questions and comments.

Our proposal is designed to take residual waste from the GTA that is otherwise bound for landfill. We will process it to recover recyclable materials and then use the material to prepare a densified, stable fuel, all of this within the GTA. This will then be taken to Sept-Iles, Quebec, through energy-efficient bulk transport shipping, where it will be used in a new, leading-edge facility to produce electric power. This proposal uses proven technology that will be further adapted to GTA needs. It is cost-effective. It will create new, good jobs and preserve existing jobs. It will mean over $100 million of new investment in the GTA. Similar facilities are operating elsewhere which meet and surpass stringent environmental regulations.

In Sept-Iles, where we expected to encounter opposition, we have received the unanimous support of the local council, the encouragement of the ministère de l'Environnement, and the interest of Hydro-Québec. In Ontario, where we have the waste crisis, we find a public policy environment which seems fixated on an outdated understanding of the technology and processes involved and a refusal even to consider alternatives to the somewhat primitive landfill practices we have used in the past. Opponents of our project frequently compare it to the worst mass-burn incinerators of 30 years ago, or even to new mass-burn facilities which are using outdated technology. This prejudice is unfortunate. Our process is different and our outputs will be different. Even in the past year there have been important advances in this technology.

Transportation is also viewed as inappropriate by some people. However, it takes as much fuel to transport material to Seven Islands, or Sept-Iles, by ship as it does to truck it to a dump in the GTA with ordinary trucks.

This project has been proposed and refined in response to the minister's stated criteria to establish an environmentally sound, cost-effective and technologically innovative waste management system. One of the minister's key principles is public consultation, but this legislation pre-empts a full and complete consideration of options and alternatives. We support the principle of product stewardship and the waste reduction initiatives outlined by the minister, and we believe this project supports this principle.

In her opening remarks to you, the minister stated she welcomes new constructive approaches. This is one of them. ENSIE is an alternative to landfill. It is not designed to replace reduction, reuse or recycling. Rather, it is designed to accept residual waste which is otherwise going to landfills and which the ministry recognizes will need disposal for decades to come. Refuse facilities in the United States prove this project can be compatible with waste reduction goals.

Another key principle is full cost accounting. Landfill cannot be considered a cheap method of waste management. Recent data from New York suggest that the true capital cost of building a landfill site approaches $1 million per acre. This means a public expenditure of over $1 billion in the GTA to build the three new landfills, and also the depletion of green space.

We are not here today to advocate our proposal in isolation. Rather, we are here to encourage all involved to engage in a full consideration of waste management options, to appreciate the rapidly changing technology that can provide preferred solutions and examine this proposal and others on their technical, environmental and social merits.

As currently written, Bill 143 prevents a full debate of the waste management alternatives that exist. For the government to pre-empt this debate while claiming to promote consultation is regrettable. Section 14 of part II must be withdrawn if citizens are to be allowed the opportunity to consider all options and make informed choices. We urge you to amend this legislation to permit the consideration of alternatives.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr McClelland: I was particularly interested in one of your points and I wondered if you might expand on it. One of the issues often thrown out in defence of the position is the idea of shipping product. I use the word "product" and I would like you to emphasize that, if you would, in terms of what we are talking about, that this is not necessarily waste that is a product. Could you give a brief comparative of what we are talking about and expand on the issue you have raised here that it is post-3R? This is material that has already been recycled or has been sorted, yet you are taking it a step further. Could you also expand on the shipping costs? There has been much said about the relative downsides of shipping product out of the area, and I wonder if you could just expand on that for us. You made a passing reference to the cost of shipping to Sept-Iles.

Mr Kierulf: We have developed our scheme on the basis that the municipal solid waste that enters our stream is processed here. The output of that, once we have taken the recyclable materials, is a densified material in a pallet, briquette or some similar form to which we have put some additives for the purpose of both compacting it and to make it stable so that it does not break down physically or rot. That then becomes a bulk material similar to coal, limestone, even other matter like iron ore, which can be handled by these very efficient vessels operated by Upper Lakes Shipping. The costs of handling the material in a transfer and transportation sense become much lower than one might otherwise expect with ordinary municipal solid waste.


Mr McClelland: The operative element of your proposal is in Sept-Isles. You indicated that the Quebec Ministry of the Environment had given approval.

Mr Kierulf: I did not say approval, I said encouragement.

Mr McClelland: Encouragement, okay, thank you. I wanted to clarify that. In terms of that encouragement, are they prepared at least to look at and subject your proposal to scrutiny under any process that could be comparable to an environmental assessment?

Mr Kierulf: Yes, it would be necessary to do that for the process and we understand it. It is required legally for the permits, but it is a well-understood process and they are encouraging us to go through it. The reason we have not proceeded is that we have not reached a point at the upstream end that warrants doing that at the downstream.

Mr McClelland: Yesterday, while under cross-examination in a court case in the United States, the Minister of the Environment of this province said she had not relied on any technical data or scientific evidence in issuing certain policies. Am I correct in assuming or suggesting that what you are asking for is simply the opportunity to put forward your proposal to the most stringent scrutiny and tests available in allowing the project or the proposal to be measured on the basis of the empirical data and scientific evidence that could and would be presented?

Mr Kierulf: Yes, that is correct.

Mr Cousens: Just a comment, if I may, to begin with: What I see in this presentation is something of a balance between what would give economic benefits back to society, coupled with an environmental concern. Somehow or other, that has to be where we find a marriage between the way we dispose of our waste and yet do it in a way we can afford and recognize the very serious environmental concerns raised by people such as Greenpeace, which made an earlier presentation.

I have a couple of questions: The Greenpeace presentation raised the question about -- for lack of a better word -- incineration causing neurotoxic heavy metals, metals, deadly dioxins and acid rain-causing gases. I am coming to a question. I want to know the degree to which units you may know something about have various toxic substances coming from them, if you could comment on that. Maybe I will just leave the questions and you could respond.

Mr Kierulf: I can respond in more detail other than verbally, but the essence of a properly constructed refuse-derived fuel facility is, as I think was mentioned by others, to take the hazardous materials out at the front end. There is a plant in Elk River, Minnesota, operated by the associates with whom we are working on this and NRG Resource Recovery, whom we have mentioned in our brief, that has such low emissions of lead, mercury and other volatile metals that the Minnesota public environmental control commission -- I believe that is the correct name -- has recently told them they no longer need to test for them because they are so successful in removing them from the waste stream. We would expect the process on a project such as this to be examined against stringent output requirements. The ash requirements are also being successfully dealt with by them. These are not the only people, but there are good reference plants that can support these numbers. I would be happy to try to give you a summary of some plants in more detail.

Mr Cousens: I would appreciate that, because part of the information I would like to work from is where I gather technical data, scientific information, and base the decision on standards that have been established and where people are living within them. I think that is the kind of thing coming through from Mr McClelland's questions, the value of an environmental assessment. Indeed, I am not going to be any happier if Quebec does not have similar high standards to those we would want to have here in Ontario for any kind of emissions. I am sensing that is something you have addressed.

If you can I would also like you to comment -- I do not expect it now; this is notice of a question. The Minister of the Environment, in her press release of January 24 in which she talked about the Detroit incinerator case -- I will give you this piece of paper -- said, "Studies show that the combustion of municipal solid waste during incineration releases a wide range of air pollutants, including hydrochloric acid, dioxins, furans, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and heavy metals such as mercury, lead, chromium and cadmium."

The problem we have is that some but not all do, and the degree to which the kind of processes you are talking about -- I would be interested in having some assessment as it relates to that guideline.

The Chair: Mrs Mathyssen, you have the floor.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you for your presentation.

Mr Cousens: I wish we had John Sola in the chair.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you, Mr Cousens.

In your proposal, Mr Kierulf, you said you had the support of the town council, Hydro-Québec and the Ministry of the Environment in Quebec. In deputations that we have heard from Mr and Mrs Cooney from Orillia, Dr Paul Connett and Rhonda Hustler, they indicated that incinerators face fierce opposition from the communities wherein they are sited. I wonder, has there been a public consultation process with the people who will have to live with this incinerator? What has the response been? What has the public reaction been to this proposal?

Mr Kierulf: We have not gone through that process, because it is premature in the commitment to the project, but recently in that city there was a similar environmental assessment process gone through for a new industrial plant, an aluminum plant. Based on observation of the reactions of the community and the various interest groups, we think a project such as this will be accepted after it has been put through that process. We have not gone through that process yet. We expect to have to, if it goes ahead.

Mrs Mathyssen: Was this aluminum plant proposing to burn garbage?

Mr Kierulf: No, it just happens that it was a major industrial facility that went through an environmental assessment process. It had emissions and it had all these various considerations. No, it was not an RDF plant.

Mrs Mathyssen: So you still have not discussed the issue of burning waste products, burning garbage, with the community?

Mr Kierulf: Not with the community at large, only with its elected representatives.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your questions. A question for the record, Mr McClelland.

Mr McClelland: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant -- not to presume a time frame, but I think this could be done almost immediately -- could have a comparative provided for this committee of air quality regulations in the state of Minnesota and the province of Quebec, with current and/or draft 308 regs of the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario.

The Chair: A question for the record, Mr Lessard.

Mr Lessard: In Windsor we had a proposal for a gas-powered generating plant, but its future is in limbo because we are told that the power is not really necessary. Do you have any statistics to show that, in light of hydro-electric power availability in Quebec, they might need energy from this type of facility?

Mr Kierulf: Do you want me to answer that now?

The Chair: That is a question for the record. However, I note that we do have a minute and a half remaining, so if you would like to respond to the last one, you may.

Mr Kierulf: I can expand on that in more detail, but essentially we have discussed this with Hydro-Québec. They have a need in that particular area, not just Seven Islands but the immediate area, in which a plant of this capacity would be useful to them for peak loading. I am not sure I understand all the reasons, but it is a nice fit for their requirements and needs for private power development to supplement their major power. I can give you more detail.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. The questions that have been placed on the record will be made available to you by the clerk. We would appreciate it if you could answer in writing. As I have said before, if it is received before February 14 it becomes part of the public record. If not, it will be shared by all committee members to help us in our deliberations. Further, if there is additional information over the course of our hearings that you think would be helpful to the committee, please feel free to communicate with us in writing. Thank you for coming forward today.



The Chair: I would like to call next Councillor Tony O'Donohue. Welcome to the standing committee on social development. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We would like you to keep as much time as possible available for questions from the committee members.

Mr O'Donohue: First, thank you for having me here. Second, I am not here as a member of the city council. I am here as an engineer and as a private individual with some expertise in the field of waste.

I would like to start off by telling you that in 1968 -- I know that is going back a long way -- I did a report on European solid waste practices. I visited I think it was 27 cities in Europe. I did this at my own expense. At that time I could not even write it off as an income tax thing. Anyway, it resulted in six weeks of touring Europe and having a look at what Europeans were doing. I was reviewing it the other night and I found that very little has changed.

One thing that has changed is of course the cost. In 1967-68, when you look back right now, it was literally very inexpensive to do the things they were doing. But a couple of other things have happened as well. There has been a lot of research and a lot of development in equipment, especially in incinerators and the measurement of minute particles and trace particles. In looking back over the 23 years, it seems to me it is a vicious circle, that around and around you go.

What I would like to dwell on today is that this particular report I did in 1968 indicated that European cities at the time were about 25 years ahead of North American cities in that they used electrostatic precipitators. They were unheard of in North America. Waste heat recovery was one of the principal things most European cities went after. Composting was very effective and very actively pursued in warmer climates in the southern part of Europe, especially in isolated areas where the climate permitted all-year-round composting and also where there was a lack of natural resources. That basically was the European picture at that time. It has not changed very much since, with the exception of more sophistication in equipment etc.

I also spent some time with the Minister of the Environment. I was a special assistant to the Minister of the Environment in 1973. In that capacity I chaired a committee called Watts from Waste. It was a committee that was specifically focused on using waste as a supplementary fuel at the Lakeview generating station. That was a very technical report, and a very well received report, but it did not go anywhere, for several reasons. I guess the major one was that by the time the report was finished and through the system, the cost of oil and coal was back down again, so fossil fuels played a big role in that.

I have also been available in my private capacity as a consulting engineer to the various sectors in private industry. I have worked for Waste Management Inc, Ontario Liquid Waste and Laidlaw. I have a fairly broad experience in some of the things that affect our community with respect to waste.

I am a little disappointed that the ministry would be so restrictive in excluding incineration as an option. I think that is a mistake. I think we should be objective in our view of things. We should have an open mind. Unfortunately, I think a lot of minds have been closed lately.

I have been one of the victims of that as a politician. I remember when I was back on council in 1974, city council at that time unanimously approved the refuse-fired steam plants. That was the major address of Mayor Crombie at the time. That was the number one item. I have witnessed that come around full circle so that in the mid-1980s we decided to scrap it entirely. We did that unanimously. I was one of the people who voted unanimously to do that.

I regret that. I think I have been misled by a lot of so-called experts out there who have really been no credit to their professions in the way they have manipulated information and presentations and really destroyed a lot of good people in the type of information they have put out there. Some of the presentations and research that have been done by well-known and well-respected people in the field have been selectively chosen and misrepresented. I think this has been terrible.

After having reviewed some of the flip-flops I have taken with respect to this, I have come to the conclusion right now that my first views on it were correct, that incineration with waste heat recovery is an option and should be pursued and not excluded. I think the minister is probably caught in the same trap I was caught in a few years ago. I feel that is probably one of the worst things I have done in the past few years and I do not mind admitting my mistake.

The Chair: I think there are many people who will find your presentation quite refreshing at a time when most people are feeling quite cynical about all politicians.

Mr O'Donohue: Thank you.

I would like to mention some of the things that have taken place in years gone by that I think have impacted on what is happening here.

The development of new equipment which will show trace elements in gases has been a big step forward. Now you can easily read parts per million, parts per billion, parts per trillion and further on. Of course there is a new problem with that. It has generated a whole new term in medical land, and that is "microchemophobia," where most of these people are scared of the minute trace elements in everything. If we were to apply that to everything, we probably would not be drinking any water, or drinking anything, because there are trace elements of toxic materials in everything you do, everything you see, everything you breathe and everything you drink. Technology has brought us to that level, and there are people who exploit that. I think this is very dangerous.

On top of that we also have the problem, with the abundance and cost of fuels, that there is really no incentive to do any great experimentation with respect to efficiency and things like that. I hope this will be an area we will dwell on in the next few years, trying to get the most efficient use of energy, not only from fuels but from waste as well, because I think that is a very important issue.

The other thing that bothers me when I look at what is happening in the field of waste disposal is the way we negatively look at the private sector. To me this has been a very damaging thing to waste disposal in general because I think what we are doing really is destroying a very active and productive system that has brought us a lot of research and innovative things over the years and helped us in the Metropolitan Toronto area understand some of the problems we have had.

I do not want to see government get into the disposal of waste the way I assume it is going to happen here. All I have to do is look at the Ontario Waste Management Corp and simply tell you that if in the private sector I had a corporation that was working for 15 or 16 years and had spent $90 million to $95 million in looking for a site for a toxic liquid waste disposal system and the development of that, using off-the-shelf technology, I do not think I would last at all.

I would like to see government stay out of it as much as possible and let the private sector do all the research and all the technical work that has to be done. Government has a very legitimate role in giving some guidance and making sure people are treated fairly and adequately, but please stay out of it. Do not complicate it and do not freeze out the private sector, because it has a very important role to play.


I am very familiar with the NIMBY problem. There are really no technical reasons for doing some of the things we want to do; they are all political reasons. Here is where NIMBY plays a real role. I myself was involved as a member in the private sector in processing the Keele Valley landfill sites. I led the engineering team from Crawford Allied Industries, one of the partners in the venture. Indeed, it is their particular site that is being used right now. I spent six or seven years processing that and I am familiar with what has happened. No matter what you do, there will be people who live around a facility who are against it. I have sympathy for anybody who lives next to a sewage treatment plant, a garbage dump, a water filtration plant, a factory or anything like that, but you have to put them somewhere.

In reviewing the way we do things, I think the systems we have devised over the years make it almost impossible for anybody to get approval on anything. The Keele Valley site itself at that particular time cost around $6 million to process, although I have been told it is up to $10 million. It took six years. I do not think any small private company could ever afford that. It really pushed waste disposal into the clouds as far as small companies were concerned, and it really helped the big conglomerates become the sole occupants of that responsibility. This has been wrong.

Of course, it has not been better over the last few years. It will now probably take between six and 10 years to process the sites using all the tactics you can use under the system, and it will probably cost $10 million to $15 million to do all the necessary work and have all the lawyers, the planners and the engineers. So in the end, really, the process becomes the product more than anything else, right down through the whole environmental assessment that we have in place right now. I think it is destroying our system; it is eating up a lot of the good people we have. I know some engineering companies now that have no people in construction at all, companies that traditionally had a lot of people working in construction. Most of them are doing studies. This is one way it has become a non-productive society. I hope some people and policies will turn that around.

The other thing I find rather distressing about what is happening in the waste system is the lack of interest in markets. I think there is a role for government in helping to develop markets. This has not happened. This week Metro council, by a vote of council, is going to decide to dump 2,500 tons of old newspapers. That is symbolic of what is happening in the marketplace. I really question whether the system we have set up with respect to markets will mean that our recycling programs and processes are going to be successful. I think they are going to be dismal failures unless we help out with markets. It means a whole new approach to waste disposal, especially in the recycling field. If we do not get some help there, I think we are on a slippery, sliding trail.

I think I should open it up for questions now.

Mr Turnbull: Mr O'Donohue, I think you make some extremely good points. I have to say that I myself am still sitting on the sidelines with respect to incineration and asking myself if it is right or not. I have to be very honest that if there were the prospect of somebody incinerating a product close to my house, I think I would be the first with the NIMBY syndrome. We have to recognize that is built into people. With modern communications, I think people are more aware of these issues and therefore NIMBY has become more of a factor today.

When the discussion of incineration comes up, I suppose the greatest problem is the people that get to you first. If the people who are against incineration get to the uninformed first and get them stirred up, they are going to say, "No, I'm against incinerating." The other group of people, those who are in favour of it and industrial companies who have an interest in it, will say the technology is absolutely safe. The greatest problem people have in making the decisions is whom to believe, because today we have so many conflicting sets of information. I am beginning to get the impression that yes, there can be clean ways of incinerating, but at the same time I understand the average person on the street being reluctant to believe it is safe. Can you respond to that?

Mr O'Donohue: I think the biggest problem we have is these so-called experts who become sorts of missionaries in their field. They tend to get the headlines. All of a sudden they are given the title of "expert." That is what happened to me. You probably have had some people appearing before you on that. Paul Connett, for example, was one of the people whom I really thought very highly of. I think he has now totally destroyed any faith I had in him.

I had to review personally some of the things he said and go back to the people he was getting the information from. I found that he was completely misusing the information, particularly information from Dr Chris Rappe from Sweden and Dr Bob Theelen from the Netherlands. It takes a lot of time and effort to go through that. These people just use all this information for their own particular goals. It really has nothing to do with science and engineering or what is objective at all. They package it in a sort of showmanship way and all of a sudden the NIMBY thing develops around them and they have that to go on too. Of course it destroys the objectivity of it and really hurts a lot of people.

Mr McClelland: Thank you, Mr O'Donohue, for being here. You are familiar with Professor Jones, the late -- not late; he would not want to hear that -- formerly at the University of Toronto.

Mr O'Donohue: Yes.

Mr McClelland: I think you did some work with him in the past.

Mr O'Donohue: Yes.

Mr McClelland: He says much of what you say. He was interviewed on W5 recently, on December 29, 1991. I wonder if you might elucidate or expand on some of the things he has said. He has said in part that people who are ruling out options are more interested in propaganda than practical solutions. He hopes there is still time for us to come to common sense in environmental policy. He says this of some of the so-called environmentalists: "So long as they were listening to science, they were a very good group to believe. But they have stopped listening to science now and today I think that they have lost their agenda." He concludes after a fairly lengthy, interesting interview to say, "The null decision made by people who claim to be environmentalists is the worst decision you can make in the environment."

Mr O'Donohue: I would agree with Phil Jones, I think. Phil has probably put his finger right on it. I think we all want to be called "environmentalists." I do not know of anybody who does not. It is a question of, are you more of an environmentalist than I am? It is that sort of thing. It is a totally misused word. Of course, to really be an expert in the field, I think you have to listen to the views of people and have an open mind.

The problem with a lot of these experts we get right now who call themselves environmentalists is that they have very shallow knowledge. It is like they would read what Dr Connett said or something like that and all of a sudden think they are experts too. I think this is a real tragedy in our system. I think we have gotten away entirely from the idea of being totally objective in the studies we read, putting all the information together and reading it objectively. But I do understand the problem of NIMBY, because I would not want anything built next to my house.

The Chair: Question, Ms Haeck?

Ms Haeck: I am going to defer to Mr Wiseman.

Mr Wiseman: You have talked about your European experiences and so on. Are you aware of the new German government green dot system for reducing packaging, and that part of this system, which was developed by the private sector, rules out the incineration of packaging waste? Have you any thoughts on that?

Mr O'Donohue: As a matter of fact, the amount of paper in garbage is, I think, about 41%. Most of the incineration rotates around that. Plastic is about 6%. But I think we should be pulling out plastic. Packaging is a very select area to be in. It depends entirely on how you want to recycle. I would personally try to pull out as much paper as I could, as much plastic as I could, but I really look at incineration as an alternative way of disposing of material. For example, if organic material or paper goes into a landfill site, it will eventually decompose and produce methane which, if it is allowed to escape naturally, will do far more damage than if it is collected or burned as a carbon.

I feel that packaging, from a visual point of view, is part of the plot to make you buy, being human beings. If you can regulate it and cut down on it, great. But if you are on the other side of the market and you are trying to make people buy something, packaging is a major factor.

I do not really know how you fight that. I just know there are a lot of people working in the system. I know all of us will say we should reduce packaging. I do not know anybody who would say that we should not. So we are caught in that very human area of having to make decisions, and the decisions have been, from my point of view anyway, to try to cut down on packaging with the least possible impact on those who are using packaging and those who are producing it.

If you have to dispose of packaging, recycling is number one, I think, if you can reuse it. But there are a whole lot of factors that go into that. There is the question of energy and remanufacturing and things like that. There is the question of whether it is a non-renewable resource like plastic, a whole lot of things. It is not an easy decision, not an easy decision at all.


The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before the committee today, Mr O'Donohue, since you are not appearing as a member of council, but we all know, of course, that you are a member of Toronto city council. If there is additional information over the course of our hearings that you think would be helpful to the committee, please feel free to communicate with us in writing.

Mr O'Donohue: I did a tour of the Baltics on environment this year, and I would like to leave some copies for the members of the committee.

The Chair: That is fine. If you will just give it to our clerk, I will make sure that all members of committee receive it and it will become part of the public record. Thank you.


The Chair: I would like to call next Massimo S. Panicali. I hope I have pronounced your name correctly. Please come forward to introduce yourself to the committee. You have 20 minutes for your presentation, and we would ask you to leave a few minutes for questions from committee members.

Mr Panicali: Madam Chairman, committee members, I would like to thank you all for allowing me this opportunity to speak to you about the concerns I have about this particular piece of legislation.

I begin by saying that I am a resident of the city of Vaughan. I also have a business in Vaughan and have been carrying on this business and residing in Vaughan for six years now. I have been in touch with numerous individuals from the city concerning the environmental issue, the Keele Valley landfill site, and specifically Bill 143 since its introduction. I feel I am suited to give you some feeling for how the public, at least the residents of the city of Vaughan, feel about part III of this particular bill.

I have prepared a synopsis which pretty much outlines what I am going to be dealing with today.

The Chair: Members of the committee have received your synopsis and it will form part of the public record.

Mr Panicali: Thank you. I would like to preface my remarks by saying that I am certainly not a sophisticated individual. I am not an engineer. I do not propose to discuss any alternatives to disposal and I do not propose to discuss any of the legal issues with respect to this particular piece of legislation. Those have all been canvassed by other individuals. I am sure you have heard enough. All I would like to say is that I have reviewed the material that the city of Vaughan and the region of York have presented to you, and I believe it adequately represents the views of the residents of the city of Vaughan. It certainly represents my views, in any event.

I would like to begin by saying that what bothers me most of all about the bill, and specifically about part III, is that when Premier Bob Rae attended at the Keele Valley landfill site, he made certain promises. The residents of Vaughan are used to hearing promises, and they feel that it is time some of these promises are acted upon.

It is with great concern and great disappointment that the city of Vaughan received a copy of Bill 143, which I reviewed along with a bunch of other residents and discovered -- in fact I think it is fairly clear -- that the Premier intends to break the very promise he made. He said prior to the election that there would be no further expansion of the Keele Valley landfill site without a full environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act.

The residents of the city of Vaughan found some consolation in the fact that if this New Democratic Party were elected, and it ultimately was elected, the Premier would act fairly, would act reasonably and would undertake an assessment that would give the residents of the city of Vaughan some peace of mind with respect to further expansion. It would allow the residents of Vaughan to input effectively in all matters concerning further expansion.

Part III of that bill, if enacted, would empower the honourable minister, Ruth Grier, in a way that needless to say all the residents find abhorrent. That particular part would abrogate and subvert all environmental legislation now in place, would not allow, on an interim basis at least, the city of Vaughan and the residents of Vaughan to effectively challenge the further interim expansion of the Keele Valley landfill site and in my opinion would represent very, very cruel and unusually severe legislative intervention into personal rights.

It is my feeling that part III of Bill 143 is premature and ill-conceived. The general feeling, I believe, is that statistics presented both by the city of Vaughan and by various other individuals would indicate that present capacity for the Keele Valley landfill site and the Durham landfill site would not reach a level where the types of emergency powers envisaged by part III would have to be implemented. Therefore, in my opinion, part III is premature. At least, the residents of the city of Vaughan believe that this type of legislation, because they perceive it as premature, is an attempt on the part of this particular government to strong-arm the opposition, to show and to flex some political muscle in the chambers and to put it through.

It is of even greater concern to me that such a particularly strongly worded bill would be introduced by the minister and expected to be passed by Christmastime, especially considering that its introduction took place during municipal elections, when many people were not even aware of the fact this particular bill had been introduced. To my way of thinking and to many people I have spoken to, it is completely insensitive.

The minister herself, in speaking to the residents of the city of Vaughan that particular day, when I and some 299 other individuals appeared outside these particular buildings to voice our concerns about this bill, said these powers envisaged by part III possibly would never have to be utilized. Well, then, why pass them, I ask you? Why put them in place?

In my opinion, by passing this particular section of the bill, by getting it into force, the party is in effect deferring the difficult decision of determining interim and long-term landfill sites. Those are difficult issues and I think this party perceives the fact that it will be difficult to make these decisions. It is very convenient to have located sites that already exist and can be utilized on an interim basis. People can say: "The Keele Valley landfill site already exists. Why not have them bear the burden of further dumping? I mean, somebody has got to take our garbage." In effect, that is deferring the important decision-making process of determining an interim landfill site.

I submit that, given the time frame that has been amply illustrated by the various missions of the other organizations that have been before you, this minister should undertake the process of a determination of interim landfill sites if she feels that long-term landfill sites cannot be identified; and once those interim landfill sites have been identified, to bear the burden before the final landfill site is located, a full environmental assessment of those interim sites should be undertaken under the Environmental Assessment Act. Then at least the residents of those particular areas can be satisfied that the minister has done everything she can, everything that is reasonable legislatively and environmentally to satisfy the concerns of the residents of the affected municipalities.

When she has undertaken that, if an emergency arises and if the Environmental Assessment Act process of those interim landfill sites has not been completed, then perhaps at that point it would be appropriate for the minister to introduce legislation of a strong-arm nature. Not until then, in my opinion, is it appropriate to introduce this type of legislation.

The citizens of Vaughan truly resent this legislation. They feel it is an enormous intrusion on their environmental rights. That is the feeling of the city of Vaughan and that is the feeling I bring to you today. It is an intense anger about this piece of legislation. If this particular government wants to pass this legislation and effectively undermine our rights, then I think we have a battle and that is what I want to bring forward.


Mr Wiseman: I have a number of questions. How much time do I have?

The Chair: You have approximately three minutes.

Mr Wiseman: I can understand your frustration. I come from Durham West, which has on its boundaries 18,000,000 tons of Metro's garbage at Beare Road and approximately 16,000,000 tons of Metro's garbage in the Brock West landfill site. Metro has not really been a good corporate citizen. As a matter of fact, its running of Brock West has been condemned in a report by its own consultants, Conestoga Builders. There is material flying all over the place. At one point some of Brock West slid into Duffin Creek. It is right beside Duffin Creek.

Also, the leachate from the old Maple landfill site is currently being collected through the Keele Valley system and is then being processed slightly less than a mile and a half from where I live. The frustration you feel I guess is felt by my constituents as well, given the global nature of the way the system works. I have spent five or six years of my life working very closely with my citizens to try to get a process in place that will try to alleviate that. It was a very real possibility that Brock West could be expanded, except that it is so poorly managed and such a terrible landfill site, one of the worst in North America, that it just would not have been able to sustain it. It would slide all over the place.

My question has to do with the Interim Waste Authority and the document. I have seen the York-Metro document from the Interim Waste Authority, and I believe the process of setting out criteria first before you look for a landfill site is a good one. It sort of precludes arbitrarily deciding that you are going to take these five sites and then figure out whether they meet the criteria. Have you read the document and have you any comment on that document?

Mr Panicali: Actually, I can say that I was involved on a preliminary level with Interim Waste Authority. Even during our initial contact with them, before even characterizing or identifying criteria, we were made to believe that the citizens of Vaughan would be given an opportunity for input concerning which criteria should form the actual selection criteria. In fact, I was dismayed to find that the criteria were identified and the report was produced and at least I personally did not have an opportunity for input in the criteria. Once again, we residents of the area feel we have been let down. We feel that representations have been made and have not been fulfilled.

Yes, you are absolutely correct about our frustrations, but the system somehow is not responding to the community's needs. It is not in effect fulfilling its own criteria, so I do not take a great deal of consolation from the fact that criteria have been identified. I just wish we had had an opportunity to examine the criteria and have input as well. I think that was supposed to be the nature of my involvement and other organizations' involvement.

Mrs Fawcett: Just before the election, when Bob Rae promised not to extend the expansion of the Keele Valley without the environmental assessment, did you and the residents you know believe him?

Mr Panicali: I think we definitely did, because it was certainly an important issue to us. We had met on one previous occasion to discuss how significant it was -- I believe it was during the clay extraction issue in 1989, in fact -- that a full environmental assessment be performed before further clay extraction occurred. I think the honourable minister herself said at that point it would be inappropriate to undertake further extraction until there was a full environmental assessment, so we felt those promises should be kept.

Mrs Fawcett: I am sure you must also have believed this government's promise of an environmental bill of rights, its whole idea of civil liberties and protection of individual rights, and so on. You must be rather disappointed now as you see this bill and the promises broken. It must be, as you have so aptly said here, repugnant and morally reprehensible to have this happen. Do you see any recourse? Do you see anything at all that you can now do?

Mr Panicali: Unfortunately we feel somewhat defenceless. We the residents understand the nature of the political animal. We understand there is a majority government. We understand, if this government is intent upon introducing this form of legislation, that we will be hurt. At that point, in fact, on numerous occasions, when the honourable minister herself has been seen to discuss the bill and we have responded, we have noticed that she is intent on putting forward the bill exactly as it stands and her decision with respect to Part III has not softened.

Yes, we are in fact feeling somewhat defenceless, and as a result I think if this particular government puts through this legislation, it will not have created friends in the city of Vaughan. To my way of thinking, it will in fact have created enemies and that is not the nature of the political animal.

Mrs Fawcett: You would like them to start all over again.

Mr Panicali: Absolutely, especially with respect to Part III of the bill. As I said, I am not prepared to comment on the other sections, I am not qualified.

Mr Turnbull: I must say I broadly agree with you on your submission. It is very hard not to become political in the questions, because we all saw the carefully scripted press conferences during the election where Bob Rae stood in front of garbage dumps and proclaimed how he was the most environmentally sensitive person who has ever run for office in the world, and we now see this kind of legislation.

I put to you that there is a body of thought -- I do not happen to subscribe to it -- that, probably because of the NIMBY syndrome, it is better for governments simply to take all powers to themselves and get rid of all the environmental assessment processes and public input and with the dictatorial power go ahead and do the things they believe are necessary. As I say, I do not happen to subscribe to it, but on the other hand we know there is endless stretching of assessment processes. Do you think in light of the situation we now have we should aim for a much more restricted environmental assessment process where you have a very tight schedule, you allow people to input and then it is decided one way or the other?


Mr Panicali: That would be, in my opinion, a much fairer approach than, as you say, the adoption of very stringent legislative measures that would restrict any form or avenue of appeal, because I feel that nothing is ever black and white.

As far as empirical data is concerned, I have just heard Mr O'Donohue say that as far as he is concerned scientists themselves can be incorrect in putting forward their data, so how can a government intercede and pass legislation that can affect a community without both sides of the picture? I think it was Neville Chamberlain who said there were lies, damn lies and statistics. That is where it is all at; that is what we want to avoid. We want a fair process. Anything other than this is preferable.

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

Mr Panicali: Thank you very much. I would like to apologize if my language was just a little bit overpowering, but it demonstrates my general feelings on the matter.

The Chair: Your presentation was welcomed by the committee, extremely articulate. I know I speak for all members of the committee when I say we appreciate your concern and we appreciate your coming before the committee today.


The Chair: I would like to call next the Packaging Association of Canada. Please come forward, and begin your presentation by introducing yourselves. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. If you would leave as much time as possible for questions from the committee it would be most appreciated.

Mr Jeffery: Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the committee for this opportunity. My name is Jeff Jeffery. I am past president of the Packaging Association of Canada. With me this morning is Alan Robinson, our executive director and Larry Dworkin, who represents the association on the national packaging task force.

The association represents the Canadian packaging industry, which employs more than 60,000 people, the majority being in Ontario. Our association and industry have initiated and continue to initiate concrete leadership in the area of waste reduction. More than four years ago our industry faced different potential environmental regulations from each province. If these regulatory regimes had been allowed to proceed, in effect we would have been forced to create different consumer packages for each province. It would have meant economic chaos for our industry.

To avoid this disaster our association met with the then federal Minister of the Environment to create a multistakeholder group to help develop standardized national environmental guidelines. This effort resulted in the establishment of the national packaging task force created under the auspices of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. In turn, the ministers have mandated industry to divert 50% of packaging waste from landfill by the year 2000. However, task force members, including the province of Ontario, also agreed that industry would be allowed to achieve these goals on a voluntary basis.

If industry fails to live up to its commitment, then a series of standardized national guidelines and, if necessary, regulations could be implemented by the provinces. These agreements are the basis for the national packaging protocol. Under the protocol our industry will achieve a 20% waste diversion by the end of 1992. It now appears that we may exceed even our own ambitious targets under the 3Rs: reduce, reuse and recycle. Not only are most industrial organizations voluntarily taking steps to audit and develop the necessary work plans but, most important, these plans have been and are currently being implemented.

The collection and reporting of data is being carried out by Statistics Canada every two years to ensure industry meets its obligation.

The packaging industry also helped create and initiate the Code of Preferred Packaging Practices. This document calls for industry's voluntary compliance in meeting various milestone targets. Rather than regulations, it is the marketplace, from the consumer to the retailer to the manufacturer, that is the driving process.

As the Halifax Herald so rightly reported at the CCME conference, "It is good to see that government is willing to work with industry on this environmental problem, instead of bringing in regulations the public sector cannot afford to enforce and the private sector cannot afford to implement." It is important to remember that this cooperative effort was issued only four short years ago.

To help achieve a 3Rs program an infrastructure is required, not only to process material but also to help develop necessary markets. To this end, our industry has already invested and continues to invest billions of dollars under very trying economic circumstances.

We are well under way. Since 1989, for example, the number of firms involved in plastics recycling across Canada has jumped from about a dozen to more than 70 by mid-1991. Many of these are recycling post-consumer plastics.

About one year ago there was only one major de-inking plant in Canada to handle the needs of the paper industry. Since then two world-scale operations have opened in Whitby and Thunder Bay at an average estimated cost of $125 million each. Seven more plants are under construction across Canada. The Canadian printing industry is undertaking wholesale changes to high vegetable content inks. Similar environmentally sound actions are being taken by producers of colourants and adhesives.

Plax Inc, a plastic converter, estimated it will soon produce 25 million containers annually made from a minimum 50% post-consumer plastics.

Alan Robinson will demonstrate how the detergent industry has reduced more than 30,000 tons of boxboard annually which previously went to landfill. Similar actions are being taken by almost every segment of our industry. Major industrial packaging users such as General Motors and major consumer packaging users such as Kraft General Foods are each eliminating more than 20,000 tons of packaging waste annually from landfill.

Smaller firms are also reducing, reusing and recycling proportionately significant amounts of packaging material. When you add the results of these waste diversion efforts, including the industry's contribution through the blue box program, we are on track in meeting Ontario's diversion goals.

It is for this reason that industry is deeply concerned by the province's proposed regulatory measures to be introduced this year with respect to audits and work plans. This program, contained in the province's initiatives paper and to be implemented under Bill 143, contravenes the intent and the spirit of the national protocol. As the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment stated in their own communiqué, "The object of the code is to achieve voluntary cooperation and compliance with preferred packaging practices that were developed from CCME's national packaging protocol."

The province of Ontario, as a senior signatory and author of the protocol, participated in the process, which has developed a trust among all stakeholders. To introduce regulations, especially when our industry is meeting all of its obligations on a voluntary basis, not only breaches this trust but also sends out the wrong signals to industry.

The province should abandon this regulatory initiative. Instead, it should encouragingly support the unprecedented multistakeholder success being achieved under the protocol.

We must also point out that by not harmonizing its actions with those of the rest of Canada the province causes industry to face once again the risk of province-introduced separate regulatory agendas. Since the province is unable to impose its own regulations on firms in other jurisdictions, this further tips the competitive balance in favour of Ontario's competitors in other provinces, the US and beyond. We have requested that the minister provide a cost-benefit analysis of these proposed regulations and the cost of compliance.

In summary, we recognized the need to improve the environment. Then we took the initiative. Then we revolutionized our product. It is important to maintain the momentum that has been created without unnecessary regulatory hardship to industry. We ask the government to give consideration to reaffirming its commitment to the national packaging protocol. We therefore again request that the government strike those regulations relating to audits and work plans contained in subsection 136(6) of the bill. These violate the voluntary nature of the national packaging protocol.

I would now like to call on Alan Robinson, our executive director and coincidentally a former chairman of your committee, to show you concrete examples of the changes taking place in our industry.


Mr Robinson: You have to have some tests by which to determine your success, no matter what your endeavour is, whether it is here or in industry. We are trying to keep it simple. We are trying to deal with the special interest groups on the environment, industry itself of course, and the entire political agenda of the public sector. But we have two or three different theories now that I think serve us and you well in pursuit of those agendas on behalf of the environment.

First of all, we work from the idea of only loaning packaging materials to consumers. Rather than being a throwaway society which we are more traditionally familiar with, we now have a sense of giving it to them and then getting it back. Probably our most significant sense of giving them less than ever is in trying to put most of our eggs in the reduce R, if that is an appropriate way to describe it. We have also abandoned a notion of cradle to grave in favour of a notion of cradle to cradle which says that a packaging material gets into a cycle. It has a hierarchical notion about it that the first and best use of virgin material will be for food and for types of materials and manufactured goods that have a high public safety component. Those are all very strictly federally regulated. The federal health protection regulations demand new packaging material.

But again, rather than traditionally making use of it once and then throwing it away, we are determined to get it back, because if we can get it back we can use it for non-food packaging purposes. If we get it back from there or from some other things, we can use it for non-packaging-related materials altogether. Most of you on the committee would certainly be familiar with the saga of Superwood, the company that took mixed plastic back, ground it down and turned it out as a lumber substitute.

That company has failed for the moment because there was not sufficient aftermarket for the materials. That aftermarket could have been completely accommodated if the government of Ontario had only bought all its picnic tables for its provincial parks for one year from that company. That is aftermarket, that is what it is all about, but there are other ways around it as well. In that hierarchy nothing should ever leave the system, and if it does, there should be sufficient provision for other uses for it or for it to be landfilled in a successful way.

I appreciated Councillor O'Donohue's comments this morning. We do not consider incineration, however high-tech, as one of the methods by which we will achieve the 50% diversion by the year 2000. We are looking to do it, as I say, within our own resources of which reduction is the most significant of all, followed of course by reuse and then by recycling. We all know the trammels of the recycling industry at this particular time. It has a very limited but very significant position within the waste management stream, but it is certainly not all-encompassing.

We set out as an industry to produce on a very simple slogan, if you will. That slogan is, "Every R in every aisle," and that refers to a supermarket. If I can, I would like to show you some new packaging which in some ways is very sophisticated and in some ways is very simple, and so I do not step on the Hansard people I will do that before I start.

Every R in every aisle. Something in the supermarket no matter where you go has been considered because of its environmental soundness. Who would have thought you would get yellow pages back as paper towels and the packaging they come in as a reduce? The only thing that prevents more of the content of this from being recycled paper is an absence of more yellow pages or more telephone directories to put into it, but it is certainly a sign of the times.

You all know the saga of grocery bags: those that are reused, those that are recycled, those that are returned. There is no reason why everybody has to have 150 of them hanging in their broom closets now just like my mother does. But it is not enough just to reuse. There have to be whole new methods. This is a brand-new container. You know what? You buy it empty. You pay $1 and you buy it empty. It is for fresh water. It is sealed. It has a crack-off lid on it. What you do is you accept responsibility for the clean use of this container, rather than the packaging industry. You take it to a vending machine and you fill it with clear, fresh water. You use it and when you are ready to refill it you bring this container back and you refill it from a vending machine. It should never see a waste stream. As long as you accept the liability for it -- if you put gasoline in it, then I am sorry, you are probably not going to want to use it for water again. It is one of the reasons why the old three-quart milk container program was unsuccessful at the time: People would take those and drain their lawnmowers into them in the old days.

If we do get it back, even if it is no longer useful as a food product, because it is not brand-new or you have not accepted liability, we can turn it into a non-food container. This container, which you would recognize even without the label as a standard one-litre motor-oil container of a particular brand, is made up of 100% recycled plastic. There is going to come a time very soon, and we talk about it in terms of reusing packaging, when you are going to be able to draw a litre of motor oil from a vendor into this, put it in your crankcase and then put the container back in your trunk until you need it again. It is already 100% recycled plastic and it is going to be completely reusable.

Other reused and recycled plastic comes back in different ways. You were talking about marketing earlier and whether marketing drives purchase decisions. Of course it does. That is part of it. But here is a way that Spic and Span, a product you all recognize certainly, can maintain its market identity and still be part of recycling and environmentally sound packaging practices. The centre layer of the container -- and I will certainly pass this around, as long as I get it back -- is now a completely recycled plastic as well. There is a thin yellow layer on the inside, a thin yellow layer on the outside and the centre is made of recycled plastic. It is a laminated container.

When it comes to reducing the amount of packaging that ever goes into the system, of course, there are two significant ways. One is through a program of straight reduction. Everybody complained about how many packages there were around a container of toothpaste. There was an outer box for its shell. Then there was a tube or at least a pump in this case. Then there was a lid. They were all different polymers. As you well know, that has all been replaced by one single packaging unit of the same plastic and base materials available for recycling. The only extraneous material is a safety seal across the throat. That is all you get. It is designed to stand up. Not uncleverly, it is designed to display, of course, the name of the product when it does stand up so you will always remember why you have particularly white teeth when you stare at the container.

The other way of course is through concentration. It took people a while to catch on to the fact that there was a lot of water in some laundry products. This is a concentrate; you have to add the water. We had to break a mindset in consumer's minds that they were tampering with the chemical formula by adding water to a concentrate. They used to say: "If it works fine with the water in, I am not sure I want to take responsibility for putting water in myself. Perhaps it will ruin my wardrobe." Now people have overcome that. It is very prominent in some of the detergent industries. Again, here is a different type of container, also concentrated back into an original container, a larger one which you have saved.

Of course, in the matter of laundry detergent itself, what was once an enormously large boxboard container is now smaller and concentrated. This is actually an award winner from our national packaging competition. The only thing that is not immediately recyclable is the tear-off strip that holds it all together. The hot melt cement that holds this in place, that integrates the whole carton, is contained only in the strip that you pull off and throw away initially. Otherwise, it is as good as virgin board to put back into a paper recycling stream. So not only is it significantly reduced, it is also even more recyclable than it ever was.

Enviropacs, of course, were the pioneers. You are all familiar with them. You know what they do. It is a different type of packaging that goes back into an original container. They store well, stack well and have been designed traditionally, and I am sure they still are, to sell at a price that is about 15% below what a new, original full-size package would be.


We estimate through one project alone across Canada -- and I liked the comment about statistics earlier, which is why I never use them, and the other two characteristics I will let you decide about. The fact of the matter is that every kid in every school in this country used to get a pot of glue. For those of us who may be a little older, you might recall they were sort of squatty and the glue was kind of grey and creamy. It had a rubber stopper on it and a little bristle on the end. When you used it up, you threw it away and you got a new glue pot in school. Now the company that supplies a lot of that glue sends a whole kit into the school. It sends in a number of these containers which happen to be filled. It sends in some larger containers that would be what you might call classroom size. Then it sends in a bulk container to be stored somewhere in the school and, one by one, the refilling, reuse, the process of packaging continues through the system. When this is empty, the classroom refill is used to replenish the stock. If the one in the classroom starts to drain down, it is taken back to a central location within the school and refilled. Once again, we think that a million glue containers a year will not reach the solid waste stream through that one project alone.

But all of these things do not come without some price tag and without some choices. We used to talk about Coke bottles as being thick glasses, thick eye wear. This is a replication, by the way; it is not an original. But you would know from looking at these, again some years ago, that they might have three quarters of an inch of glass in the bottom. That is not a particularly good example, as I say, because of the replication. There are thousands of tons of glass now not used every year in a lightweight container used by Kraft General Foods Canada across North America. That one happens to be for a Miracle Whip Light brand that you recognize thoroughly as well.

Even things that used to be of different types of packaging materials are now one. This used to be what was called a spirally wound container. There used to be metal in it. There used to be paper. There used to be plastic. Now it is one single polymer. Again, if you can stretch your thinking a little bit, it could be refilled. There is certainly nothing wrong with the container after it has been used only once. It is available to go immediately into a plastic recycling stream and to be sorted out and put back into good and purposeful life yet a second time.

We hear a lot about thin-walling as a technique both of reduction and of course materials available for recycling. There is still more metal in that soup can than in that soft drink container. One of the choices you have to make has to do with the product inside. If you drop this even lightly, you will put a significant dent in that can. What happens to that can once it has a dent in it? Even if you do it, it goes back on the shelf: "I will get one that does not have a dent in it, thank you very much." I do not know why, it is just our consumer attitude towards it. But you cannot put a dent into a container like this when it is full because the carbonation of the beverage inside maintains the structural strength and integrity of the package as a whole so there can be less metal and metal of a different kind as well.

People always complain about overpackaging and blister packaging. I know it is one of everybody's pet peeves. I have to hasten to point out two things to you. First of all, it is not a packaging system; it is a marketing system. It was an attempt by retailers in the 1970s and the early 1980s to have less service staff in their stores and more flexible, more visible retail displays. They were very successful, except that --

The Chair: I would like to thank you very much for your presentation this morning. You know as a former member of the Legislature and as a former member of the committee how important the Chairman's job is to ensure the committee stays on time. I am going to allow members of the committee to place their questions on the record and to ask if you would respond in writing so that we may hear further presentations.

Mr McClelland, do you have a question for the record?

Mr McClelland: You might have heard, I would think, had you the opportunity of questions being put to you, "If you are ahead of your targets, why worry?" You said on page 2: "We are well ahead of the protocol. Why worry?" I would like your response to that in terms of the certainty required for business and the investment climate and also in terms of the impact that the "Why worry?" question may have on foreign competition.

The other question would be, how much money, what has been the capital investment of your association and your members in terms of recyclable materials in changing the packaging component of many of the products that you have here today?

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you for the presentation. I must say, though, that I must disagree in part. On page 6, you state that --

The Chair: You must place your question.

Mrs Mathyssen: I am putting my question on the record. It states that the proposed regulations in the initiatives paper violate national packaging protocol. Actually my question is to the representatives from the waste reduction office. I wonder if they could explain the national packaging protocol to the committee to clarify that for us.

Mr Cousens: I would like you to give evidence of the point made on page 6 which indicates that Ontario is sending out the wrong signals to industry leaders based on the fact that ministry staff said they were in line with the federal guidelines for packaging. The feeling now from the industry is that the ministry is moving in a path different from what the industry accepts. The incongruity of the two views leads me to believe there is reason to doubt what is being said by one of the parties. If you could give evidence of that, it would be very helpful.

Mr Martin: You mentioned in your brief that many small companies are now doing the 3Rs: reducing, recycling and reusing. You raised the concern about audits. Do you not think there is some instance where audits might be helpful to small industry in pointing out to them the ways they might do that more effectively and therefore be more competitive?

The Chair: The questions that have been placed on the record the clerk will make available to you in writing. We would appreciate it if you would respond to the committee in writing. If we receive the answers prior to February 14, they will become part of the public record. If not, they will be circulated and all members will be able to have a response from you which they can consider part of the deliberations.

We very much appreciate your appearing. I would like to make a special welcome and acknowledge the former member of the Legislature, Mr Robinson and say how much we appreciate your appearing before the committee today.


The Chair: I would like to call next Lyn MacMillan. I would ask you to come forward and introduce yourself to the committee. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We would appreciate it if you would leave some time for questions from members of the committee.

Mrs MacMillan: Yes, I will.

The Chair: You have seen our procedure. At the end, I will ask members of the committee to place any questions they might have on the record, and if you are able to answer in writing we would appreciate it. That is just in case we run out of time.

Before members leave, I would like to point out how important it is, Mr Turnbull and Mr Cousens, that we start promptly. We have run a little late over the lunch hour. I think it would be helpful if each caucus made sure it had a member here so the hearings could start on time. That did not happen this morning and it is important that we not keep our presenters waiting.

Mrs MacMillan: My name is Lyn MacMillan. I am co-owner with my husband, Dr. Robert MacMillan, of a 160-acre farm immediately southeast of the Keele Valley landfill site. I see this malodorous dump every day from my farm gate. Our farm has been in the MacMillan family since 1935. Four generations of our family have enjoyed the property and cherished it, and it is still actively farmed.

I have been involved in garbage for many years: four years at the original Keele Valley hearings, then on the liaison committee writing submissions, having discussions, attending demonstrations, and I also served on the original government Solid Waste Task Force in 1974. I support most sections of part IV of this bill, except section 26, which I will deal with later. My critical comments concern mainly parts II and III of Bill 143.

Part II, as we all know, applies to three specific sites: one in Peel, one in Durham and one in York or Metro. Why does this bill seek to emasculate the Environmental Assessment Act and just pick out the bits it likes and remove others that might ask a few sensitive questions? For instance, the bill states that an environmental assessment is not required to contain any description of or statement for the rationale of alternatives, such as incineration or transportation of wastes -- by rail haul presumably, but we do not know because these questions are not allowed to be raised. Why not? Why close the door on alternatives when we are desperately looking for solutions?

What reasons does the minister give for such arbitrary decisions? All I have heard is that she is against them, that this is provincial policy, and that is that. I can hardly believe it is the same Ruth Grier who was the champion of an environmental bill of rights, of partnership, of public consultation, of open government and of the right to public hearings.

I gather I am not alone in my bewilderment. On 9 October 1991, Metro council appointed a task force on solid waste disposal alternatives as it applies to incineration. Let us please give this task force a chance to show us some of the facts and to get some decent public discussions opened up. Until then, this arbitrary section of part II should be withdrawn and full environmental assessments should apply.


The only reason I have heard Mrs Grier give against rail haul is that to haul garbage to a distant site is unthinkable. Why? It should be equally unthinkable to keep sending it into Maple and piling it higher and higher. Why is that not unthinkable? Where are her arguments, her documentation and evidence?

She is very busy building a wall around her policies and assumptions, and I think it does her accountability great discredit. Walls have a way of falling down and bringing their architects with them. We just have to remember Jericho and Berlin. Full environmental assessment requirements should be necessary for all new sites, not just the bits and pieces that suit her policies, which no one is allowed to challenge. This is the first change that I would recommend to Bill 143.

Part III: Now, this is very close to home, this part, because here we have examples of broken promises, of not honouring previous agreements, of denying the public the right to a hearing under the Environmental Protection Act, of exemptions from the Municipal Act, the Planning Act, the Ontario Municipal Board Act, all done so that the Ministry of the Environment can hand Metropolitan Toronto an extension to the Keele Valley landfill site in Maple on a platter without any strings attached. They can say: "Here is Maple: Fill it up and then go higher. No one will be able to stop you. Best of luck." So much for trust.

Premier Rae came to Maple before the election. He stood with us on the edge of this enormous, horrendous mass of putrefying garbage right in the heart of our town -- it is not somewhere remote; it is right in the heart of our town -- and he told us, he promised us that there would never be an extension without a full environmental assessment hearing if he was elected. What hypocrisy.

Part III in the bill says, in subsection 17(3), that Metropolitan Toronto "shall, maintain, operate, improve, extend, enlarge and alter the waste management system consisting of the Keele Valley waste disposal site..." Then along come the regulations: the Environmental Assessment Act does not apply; Metro would not have to abide by agreements with any municipalities; if Metro has to contravene the Planning Act, forget it -- let it; the Municipal Act does not apply.

The director -- a civil servant in the ministry -- will issue or amend a certificate of approval, then send out notices to the municipality and the public who can send in submissions. But the director will only be required to look at them, and then he decides whether or not a hearing is required. It is ridiculous. There will be no mandatory hearing. This is all left up to his discretionary powers. The director is not required to give any further notice in respect to any decisions he makes, hence the public is not entitled to see the reasons for the decisions nor the documentation that led to those decisions, to appeal them, or to be assured of a hearing.

This is the most hostile attitude towards the public that I have encountered in my very long association with the hearing process, and I have faced many hostilities. It is as bad as Project X. I am sure we all remember that misbegotten attempt by the Liberal government to undermine the environmental planning process of this province.

Part III must not be allowed; it must be amended.

Why has Maple been chosen to bear the societal ills of waste disposal in Ontario? We have done it for 10 years. Now we have no option but to continue to serve an additional jail sentence. We have done nothing to deserve this. It is not a NIMBY reaction -- not in my backyard -- because we already have it here. We have had it here for 10 years. It is in our front yard looking at us, hovering over us, spilling its filthy paper and refuse from the back of its huge trucks, filling our roads with dust, noise and traffic.

We are a green and lovely area. We are proud of our landscape, of our Oak Ridges moraine, because, you know, the Keele Valley is smack in the Oak Ridges moraine. People think it is somewhere remote; it is not. I do not know if any of you have been there, but you should come and have a look at it. We love our woodlots, our streams, which rise in the area of the gravel pit, our ponds and our wetlands. We love our natural and historical heritage. We treasure our quiet lifestyles and our gorgeous, rich fields of crops. We are fighting to defend our right to be heard, to be considered in fact, and -- nobody has ever thought of it -- to be thanked for what we have done, not to be punished by further hostile and uncharitable legislation.

Let us have a fair chance to fight back, to try to raise the social and moral conscience that must be dormant even in the hardest hard-liners among those who seem to be in charge at the ministry and the government at this moment. I believe even Metro is asking for a hearing under the EPA, so I am not alone.

Part IV, order 26, amendment to the EPA, repeal of section 29: Now, this gives enormous powers to the director to order any municipality to do a large number of things, including operating a waste disposal site. The public does not seem to have any say in this process and cannot object or ask for a hearing. This is a very, very dangerous precedent, I think, and should not be approved.

Finally, to sum up. Here is an example of a government with a blind faith in regulations, one which gives discretionary powers to the Ministry of the Environment, the director and Metro, a government that endorses openly the Big Brother concept, a government that breaks promises, plays dirty by pushing people around, although all this conflicts with their so-called platform that we listened to very carefully before the election. This is bound to create a blatant lack of credibility for the NDP.

I am going to close by giving a further example: the question of refillable soft drink bottles. In Mrs Grier's speech, October 1990 at the Recycling Council of Ontario's annual conference in Windsor, she told the soft drink industry in no uncertain terms that it had to clean up its act and obey the regulations concerning the quota of refillable bottles in the stores. Remember, here we have the perfect built-in recycling system that demonstrably reduces the volume of waste. It is a built-in system. She warned the industry that if it did not do so, she would have to prosecute. She gave them until April 1991. Since then, nothing. It was all vain threats, just a joke.

Here we have a government supposedly wedded to regulations to solve our problems which cannot even enforce an existing regulation. How can you expect us to believe the government, support it, or even vote for it? I think Bill 143 is a grave disappointment and disillusionment.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. Mr McClelland, a question? You have two minutes.

Mr McClelland: Mrs MacMillan, thank you for being here. Your reputation is well known as an activist. I may put a question to you. Please feel free not to answer it if you feel it inappropriate. You have not acted politically in the past?

Mrs MacMillan: Have I acted politically?

Mr McClelland: Have you been active politically in the past?

Mrs MacMillan: Not for a political party, no.

Mr McClelland: You have been quite active as a community advocate in terms of environmental inequities?

Mrs MacMillan: Yes, I have fought for the environment now for about 35 years.

Mr McClelland: May I be safe in saying, and please qualify me if appropriate, that you had some considerable hope with the election of the New Democratic Party -- I am not suggesting you are partisan -- in terms of the promise for an environmental bill of rights, a promise in terms of the things you have outlined so well in your brief, the commitment to open government, the commitment to public hearings; and then you end up by saying that this is the most hostile attitude towards the public that you can imagine, a government that breaks its promises and plays dirty. Is that a fair assumption to make?

Mrs MacMillan: Yes, it is. Yes, I felt that. I voted for the NDP. I have never voted socialist before. I come from a Liberal background. My grandfather was a Liberal Prime Minister of Great Britain. I am a Liberal from my mother's milk. But I voted this time for the NDP because I had great faith in Mrs Grier and I felt she had done a great deal for the Niagara Escarpment. I liked the way she spoke in the House. I followed her very closely, and I was very pleased to hear Premier Rae, when he came to Maple, saying, "We'll never allow this." He was most friendly to us. So when someone does this, it is a betrayal. I am not going to put up with it. I mean, I shall have to put up with it, I suppose, but I am going to speak out against things like this. I think we all should.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you, Mrs MacMillan. As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, I have been out to Keele Valley. I noted a great deal had been done in terms of litter control and management. I noted that you were a member of the Keele Valley liaison committee. I was wondering how your committee has managed to achieve input into the running of Keele Valley. I assume you have.

Mrs MacMillan: It has been an uphill struggle. I had to go out and collect the garbage from in front of my property. I had to go on the air. I begged and pleaded with people at the Keele Valley site to come and do some cleaning up. I do not think they believed me. So finally I had to really do it myself. It was hard work. It took three years, really, before they believed there was a problem. I had to take pictures and show them all the stuff that came off the trucks. Finally, after a lot of hard work, we did manage to get some improvements. I am glad to say it has improved, but I can tell you I worked extremely hard to get that. So did everybody else.

I do not find the liaison committee particularly good. For one thing, we have to be very careful with our minutes. Metro does not like us having full minutes in case something Metro says might get into a hearing. To me, it is a very feeble committee in some ways, because we cannot really ask too many questions. We try. I certainly try and I work very hard at it. I am glad there is a liaison committee. I must say the litter has improved, but only because the public has been out there banging on doors and having to go on the air. We had to put up a big fight to get them to realize that it was extremely distressing to have to clean up this mess in front of our property.


Mr Cousens: I am taken by your presentation. There are two points I want to make. Were you there when Mr Rae made his statement?

Mrs MacMillan: No, I was not there, but all my friends were. We all got together afterwards and discussed it at the Vaughan CARES group, which I belong to. We were thrilled with that and it was in all the papers.

Mr Cousens: Tell me what you think he said.

Mrs MacMillan: I thought he said, "I will never allow an enlargement of this site without a full environmental hearing under the Environmental Assessment Act."

Mr Cousens: Was this during the provincial election?

Mrs MacMillan: Yes, when he came up to talk to us. It was in all our papers. It got a tremendous press. We are just desperate for help, so that everything that tries to give us some hope is well publicized. We were delighted to hear him say that.

Mr Cousens: The problem I have is that I cannot get anyone here at Queen's Park to remember what he said and that he said it. I am not allowed to use words like "liar" or "hypocrisy." It is against parliamentary language. I just need more evidence of it, because people are writing this kind of thing in the papers now on Mr Rae, who has totally lost it on this kind of issue. Are you aware that Mrs Grier has announced there may not even be hearings for the expansion of Keele Valley?

Mrs MacMillan: When did she announce that?

Mr Cousens: In her opening presentation to this committee.

Mrs Mathyssen: She did not.

Mr Cousens: "There may not be time for hearings." If you are saying there is not, are you calling me something, Mrs Mathyssen?

The Chair: Order.

Mr Cousens: She interrupted. Come on, the fact is that minister came into this committee and said there may not even be an opportunity for hearings. What an extreme that is from the kind of statement Mr Rae made.

The Chair: I have a request from the parliamentary assistant to clarify on this matter. It might be helpful, Mr Cousens.

Mr O'Connor: Thank you for raising it again, Mr Cousens, and thank you for coming, Mrs MacMillan. The minister shares a lot of concerns that the people of Vaughan have around the Keele Valley site. There is a whole series of studies that have to be done, and what the minister said in this committee room was that if there is time she is committed to hearings happening.

Mr Cousens: And if there is not time, then there will not be hearings. That is the extreme opposite of what was guaranteed by the then candidate for the leadership running for election.

The Chair: You will have the floor in a moment, Mr Cousens, to respond. Do you want to finish your statement, Mr O'Connor?

Mr O'Connor: She said she was committed, that if there was time there would be some hearings. Some of the deputations, perhaps when York and Vaughan were here, seemed to think there was going to be a long period of time before the site reached capacity. Perhaps then there will be time. That optimism can still be there for us to look forward to.

The Chair: Thank you for your clarification, Mr O'Connor.

Mr McClelland: That is why people voted for you.

The Chair: Mr Cousens, you have the floor. Mr McClelland, you do not have the floor.

Mr Cousens: I will just pass to Mrs MacMillan. You must understand the kind of suffering we go through at Queen's Park when you have heard what you just heard.

Mrs MacMillan: Yes, I have never heard anything so absurd in my life. "Perhaps there will be a hearing." "If there is enough time." Of course there is enough time. Get on with it. Why waste time? Come up there and have a hearing. We can get through with it. We have lots we want to say at a hearing. We have plenty of evidence that this should not be done. Why should you interfere with our landscape? Who said you could put it much higher? What right have you? Come and talk to us. We will tell you. This is a waste of time then. If you are short of time, come on up and have a hearing in Maple tomorrow. We will be ready for you. You are afraid of a hearing.

The Chair: A number of members would like to put questions on the record. You have been here for the hearing process. This is to allow them to place their questions and then ask you to respond in writing.

Mrs MacMillan: Yes, I understand. Do I have to take notes?

The Chair: No, you do not have to take notes. The clerk will provide you with a copy of the questions. For the record, Mrs Mathyssen.

Mrs Mathyssen: Yes, I would like to place a question on the record. In your presentation you said the minister's decision to prohibit transportation and incineration was arbitrary. We have heard from several deputants that incineration is extremely dangerous and that transportation is wasteful. I wondered if you had followed the presentations made to us and would care to comment on the kinds of presentations we have heard from other environmental groups.

Mrs MacMillan: I will have to read them. I do not know what evidence they brought before you. I have no idea. They may just be statements.

The Chair: You are not required to respond to the questions that are asked. If you can, that is fine.

Mrs MacMillan: I cannot respond to that.

The Chair: I have Mr McClelland and then Mr Cousens.

Mr McClelland: I do not know if you are in a position to speak on behalf of Vaughan CARES or any ratepayers' association, but was there a public commitment of any ratepayers' group or organization, a public position taken with respect to supporting the government of the day in reliance upon its promises made?

The Chair: Mr Cousens, for the record.

Mr Cousens: Would it be possible to have an affidavit signed by people who witnessed the statements made by Mr Rae as he was within spitting distance from a landfill site?

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs MacMillan. We appreciate your appearing before the committee today. The clerk will make those questions available to you. I am sure you realize that if there is additional information or anything you would like to share with the committee, you may do so with us in writing over the course of our hearings. If it is received before February 14, it will become part of the public record. After that, it will just be shared with committee members. We do appreciate your coming before the committee and taking the time to share your views with us today.

I would like to remind all members of the committee how important it is to have a member of each caucus here at the start of committee time, so that we do not keep deputants waiting. A quorum is constituted when we have one member from each caucus, unless the subcommittee authorizes otherwise. The standing committee on social development will reconvene at 2 o'clock this afternoon. We stand in recess.

The committee recessed at 1238.


The committee resumed at 1403.


The Chair: The standing committee on social development is now in session. I would like to welcome the regional chairman, regional municipality of Durham. Please begin your presentation now. You have a full hour. We would appreciate it if you would leave as much time as possible for questions from members of the committee. It is nice to have you here today.

Mr Herrema: I would like to introduce the people surrounding us who have been very actively involved in matters that relate to handling waste management and recycling in the region of Durham: the mayor of Brock, Mr Don Hadden, who is chairman of our finance and administrative committee; Mr John Aker, who is totally in tune with what goes on in all aspects of waste, and Mr Vik Silgailis, the commissioner of works for the regional municipality of Durham.

I should indicate that we will not be reading this word for word. We will indicate some of the concerns we have regarding the bill. This was prepared before we saw some of the amendments that have been brought in. We will be making comments on that and we will have some comments that relate to the concern of the bill, so I will start on some of it.

The regional municipality of Durham appreciates this opportunity to be here today regarding Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act. As I indicated, we did not know that some changes were going to be made. Fundamentally Bill 143 amounts to a redefinition of roles and responsibilities between the province and the municipalities without full consultation and in isolation from other initiatives currently under way. It addresses both the immediate and long-term waste management issues both in the greater Toronto area and beyond, given its significance to the region of Durham. It is important that the Minister of the Environment and the standing committee on social development seriously consider some of the concerns raised in our submission.

The region has three major areas of concern. The immediate concern relates to part III, dealing with the implementation of the minister's report ordering Durham to build one or more transfer stations. Given that the life of Brock West, which is in Pickering, has been extended, and that Durham may be able to use Metro Toronto's Scarborough transfer station, the region feels the minister's report to Durham should be rescinded. It was not an order, only a report that has been sent to us at this stage, and there has been some discussion, I should indicate.

Second, the minister has taken no responsibility under Bill 143 for the financial impact of the bill on municipalities. There is a general lack of information and direction respecting who is responsible for financing the requirements set out in the bill, who will pay for the activities of the Interim Waste Authority and how it will be accomplished.

Third, there are broader concerns regarding the increased authority delegated to the province in part IV, Amendments to the Environmental Protection Act.

The region's submission will expand upon these areas of concern and provide specific recommendations.

Of primary importance to the region is the minister's report ordering the region to build one or more transfer stations. This submission outlines the events that have occurred since the minister's report was issued in August 1991. Specifically, new information suggests that the Brock West landfill site will close later than expected, putting into question the need to implement the actions of the minister's report. Consequently the Durham region is of the opinion that the minister's report is no longer necessary and should be rescinded.

To provide a context to the region of Durham's response, it is necessary to review the events that have occurred over the last several years in the GTA regarding waste management. Following the background, we provide some detailed comments and recommendations mirroring the structure of Bill 143. A summary of the recommendations is also provided in the brief we have.

The changes in the rules governing waste management and the lack of consultation respecting these changes over the last two years is of great concern to the region of Durham. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the region of Durham to plan for both the operational aspects and the financial aspects of waste management.

The region was an active member of the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee, SWISC, and in 1990 the region had secured both short- and long-term solutions to Durham's garbage problem. A waste management agreement was signed with Metro Toronto on the development and operation of a new disposal site in Durham and the region initiated a long-term waste management master plan.

However, the rules changed in November 1990 when the Minister of the Environment assumed control over waste management in the GTA. The region is still trying to cope with the fallout resulting from this change, including the loss of approximately $4 million that we had spent on P1, which was the Whitevale landfill site, and the master plan projects that have been abandoned with the minister's announcement in 1990 and the need to negotiate a new waste management agreement with Metropolitan Toronto. We are tied in with Metro and have been for a number of years, assisting each other with the handling of waste management in our communities.

We are in a serious dispute with Metro Toronto over the amount of the residential rebate. There is some discussion that we are carrying on briefly with Metro. They are matters you can read about, but if there is not something equitable, we will not be able to finance the 3Rs programs we are attempting to carry out to reduce the amount of garbage going to landfill sites at present. The brief is attached there too.

Bill 143 represents yet another change in waste management requirements the region must follow. It continues to place waste management outside the region's control, yet the region is expected to absorb the financial liabilities that result from these decisions. This is an intolerable situation.

Interim Waste Authority, part I: This part gives authority to the IWA to enter lands, do inspections and expropriate land for the purposes of establishing the three landfill sites in the GTA, without looking outside to see if there are other options. Some of us have been indicating that when there is a willing host such as Kirkland Lake, we should take a look to see if it can be of better benefit to the environment rather than just look to politics.

The province has yet to clarify the extent of the IWA's involvement in future landfill sites. There exists uncertainty as to who will operate the sites and how the activities of the IWA, including the cost of establishing the sites, will be financed. Further, it is not clear who will absorb this potentially large financial liability. This uncertainty is making it extremely difficult for the region of Durham to plan for future waste management.

Recommendation 1: That the bill specify that the role of the IWA is to search, select and establish landfill sites in the GTA only and that its role will not be to operate future landfill sites.

We will answer questions later on that matter should you so wish.

Recommendation 2: That the financing of the IWA's activities, including the costs of establishing the future landfill site, be explicitly stated and explained in the bill.

We have no idea whether it is going to be $100 million or $200 million or what the cost will be and how it is going to be paid for, although we certainly have some suspicions and those really give us cause for concern.

Siting of waste disposal sites, part II: This section limits the area of search for waste disposal sites to the GTA, one of which is located in the region of Durham, and specifies the requirements for an environmental assessment of the sites.

Section 13 specifies that the Ministry of the Environment provide the IWA with written estimates of future waste generation incorporating the efforts of reduction and recycling. There is no mention of consultation with the municipalities respecting the determination of the estimates. The region of Durham is concerned that the estimates provided by the Ministry of the Environment may be more optimistic and may reflect the desired objectives of the ministry rather than realistic estimates. Consequently it is important that the municipalities have an active role in developing these estimates.

Recommendation 3: That the Ministry of the Environment's estimates for waste generation used to determine the future capacity of the landfill site be viewed as one input into the process and that the IWA be required to consult fully with applicable municipalities prior to accepting the MOE estimates.

Implementation of the minister's report, part III: This part deals with implementing the requirements of the minister's report.

Since the region of Durham first received the minister's report, there have been a number of events that alter the circumstances that initiated the minister's requirements. First of all, the available capacity situation for landfill sites is not as urgent as originally believed. The latest information from Metro Toronto indicates that the closure of Brock West is not imminent. It is now expected that Brock West, which is in Pickering, by the way, may be open until 1994 or 1996. This new information belies a need for immediate and drastic solutions, such as spending an estimated $50 million for a temporary transfer station in the region of Durham.

The region has been actively pursuing alternatives with Metropolitan Toronto and feels that an agreement for Durham to use Metro's Scarborough transfer station when Brock West is closed is near. Mr. Aker will probably outline, when we visit that site, why we believe we could come to an accommodation.


Staff of the region of Durham and Metro met on November 18, 1991, and again on December 13, 1991, to discuss the alternatives to the minister's report and other outstanding financial matters between the two parties. The region is encouraged by the positive response from Metro staff respecting the use of the Scarborough station. On January 13, 1992, Durham region requested Metro in writing to allow Durham to use the Scarborough transfer station and to transport waste to Keele Valley when Brock West closes.

The region also met with ministry staff on several occasions in October 1991 and with the Minister of the Environment on October 18, 1991, to explain our position and to request additional time to explore options. The minister's response of December 10 indicated a willingness to discuss other options.

The region of Durham therefore recommends that the minister's report requiring the region to build one or more transfer stations be rescinded and that this section related to the minister's report be deleted. I wonder if you wish to expand, Councillor Aker, on that matter.

Mr Aker: The good news is that the expectancy on Brock West, which is in the region of Durham but is owned and operated by Metro Toronto, now is to close it at the minimum in 1994 and at the maximum in 1996, which is, to us, excellent news.

First of all, we have a very good working relationship with Metro, because often in the area of waste disposal Metro needs the region of Durham and we need Metro. We believe that at the closure of Brock West we will be able to work out an agreement with Metro to use its Scarborough transfer station. We as a committee visited the station recently. It certainly has the excess capacity to take on a municipality the size of Durham region and we think that transfer station would provide us with the gap time until the IWA situates a landfill site in Durham region.

Mr Herrema: Amendments to the EPA, part IV: The region of Durham has not addressed all the specific issues contained in part IV of Bill 143 because we feel strongly that this entire section should be deferred and dealt with in concert with the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs' paper on statutory authority dealing with waste management roles and responsibilities for municipalities, which is to be released in 1992.

The region has three key concerns relating to the proposed amendments to the EPA contained in part IV of Bill 143. First, provincial responsibilities will be broadened and will encroach on the traditional roles and responsibilities of municipalities. The one about the director, I understand, has been taken out so I can delete that one. Finally, the concern is that this broadening of provincial powers and the manner in which it is unilaterally adopted without consulting municipalities could be extended to other areas of municipal responsibility.

The broadening of the definition of "waste management system" to include "arrangements" is also a concern of the region of Durham. This term is too broad and could likely include arrangements such as contracting out services. The matter of contracts should not require approval under the EPA. If we want to have someone truck our waste from a central area to somewhere else, we believe we should be able to enter into that as long as they have a licence under which to operate, rather than be forced to get approval again, which will just delay it and cost more time, in other words, generally build up more garbage.

Recommendation 6: That the definition of "waste management system" in part IV, section 24, be amended by deleting "arrangements."

Subsection 23(2) now grants the minister power to "establish and operate, use, alter, enlarge and extend waste management systems or waste disposal sites." The purpose of granting the minister these rights represents an intrusion into the traditional role of operation of waste management by municipalities. It also creates uncertainty as it is not known whether the intent of the section is to give the authority to the Interim Waste Authority to operate future landfill sites in the GTA. We are concerned that it is vague and we are not sure whether it is just the GTA or overall. It sets a precedent for going into other areas outside the GTA.

Section 33 broadens the province's scope for making regulations relating to waste management. Currently the minister can prescribe "standards for waste management systems and for the location, maintenance and operation of waste disposal sites." Under Bill 143, the province is not only telling municipalities what to regulate, but how the municipalities must implement these regulations. The province would have the authority to prescribe requirements relating to planning, siting and buffer zones; public notification and consultation; operation, maintenance and monitoring of facilities; type of record-keeping and submission of reports to the director, and the discontinuance and closure of the system.

We have a lot of experience in operating landfill sites and we feel this goes into detail such that we will have to go not only by the rules but also by the regulations. The rules we understand, but these are regulations going into detailed bookkeeping and maintenance of the facility that we believe should be identified by the rules and not by the regulations that are also added.

Section 33 also gives the province the ability to direct municipal planning for waste management systems, again potentially limiting the planning functions at the municipal level.

Section 33 is an encroachment on the region's financial management and planning processes. Giving the province the authority to prescribe requirements for planning, zoning and buffer zones intrudes upon the responsibility of local municipal and regional planning. These requirements are unnecessary given the region of Durham's official plan and the zoning bylaws of our area municipalities. The region strongly opposes that. We had to go through a great deal of work on the official plan on which we have just consulted the public by having 10 public meetings in the region of Durham. Waste management had to be in our official plan or we could not have it adopted. We have done that, as we were at the same time working on a master plan. We have since ceased and desisted on that, as the minister took over the authority.

It is not clear what role would be left for a municipality to play if all these amendments were passed. The province would be involved in implementation, operation and program areas that are traditionally our responsibility. These amendments transfer control from the municipal level to the provincial level and further blur the distinction between municipal and provincial roles and responsibilities.

Further, the region is concerned that this extension of provincial authority may be applied to other areas.

With the changes that were made, we can eliminate the item on the new section 29 of the act. I commend the changes that were introduced to you. It is no longer going on.

Lack of consideration of financial issues in the bill: In general, the ministry has failed to address the financial implications for the municipalities of this bill. This creates a great deal of uncertainty, as it is not known which level of government will be responsible for financing the requirements contained in the bill. Further, it represents a financial liability to the region of Durham of unknown magnitude.

Some time back, it did not matter to the public what we did or what we spent when it came to waste management. I have to assure you it matters very much to the public how we spend it, what we spend it for, and in what detail. It has been, I would say, a 200-degree change. At one time people were coming to us and asking us to spend money, to never mind what it cost, to just do it if it related to anything to do with the word "environment." They have come to us and said, "Identify how it assists the environment before you go spending that kind of money." I think that with this there is a large hole they could drive through that we cannot identify. The ministry or a staff person or anyone who is a consultant to them can go on without being concerned about the costs, as they may well be dropped back on the local municipality in the long run.

There is another aspect: Does that impeach our credit rating? What effect could it have on that? We know there is one; we heard a little bit. Some of us were at a place called the lock-up the other day and we know a little bit about credit rating and financial responsibility. We are very concerned that this will have such a magnitude that it may be the minister can do things through this act that will affect us financially and affect our credit rating.


I assure you that our residents, especially in rural areas, are afraid there might be a landfill site. People in the towns are concerned about dollars and they are not quite as concerned about landfill sites, but when you live in a rural area you get pretty doggone concerned where this thing is going to go. They keep hearing a rumour that there are sites, and they sit there hoping they are not at one of the sites. We are fully aware of what will happen and we have invited the minister out when they identify the sites, to go through what some people who are in this room witnessed one time, what we went through. I think Mr Wiseman, MPP, will know all about that one.

It is impossible to make informed decisions regarding waste management and Bill 143 in particular without a full understanding of the financial implications of meeting the minister's requirements. Financial issues are being divorced from the regulation-making process. The ministry has continued to develop regulations and policies even though it has not yet released its initiatives paper on who pays for waste management. This situation is not acceptable to the region of Durham. Last year we had a deficit of $4.5 million in our blue box program, which should indicate to you that it certainly is becoming a very expensive issue. It is very necessary, but as the markets have not been developed and the programs have not been refined, the financial aspects of it are becoming very onerous on the residents of our area.

Recommendation 7: That the Minister of the Environment address the financial impact on municipalities of meeting the provisions of Bill 143 and defer part IV until the minister's paper on who pays is released. I do not know whether Mayor Hadden, the chairman of our finance committee, wants to comment on that.

Mr Hadden: On the whole issue of financing, particularly in the area of waste management, which I guess is near and dear to many in terms of the 3Rs program, if really have been financed by our tipping fees and the rebates we have received from Metro Toronto. Under this whole restructuring process, we are not sure where these funds would flow from, and they would become a direct cost to our budget. It would be a level of cost that we would have great difficulty in financing through the normal channels. As the chairman has pointed out, the uncertainty of the whole thing leaves us in great difficulty in preparing budgets and preparing forecasts for the future. It is of great concern to us.

Mr Herrema: I will deal with recommendation 8 and then turn it over to Councillor Aker on the transfer station.

Recommendation 8: That part IV of the bill respecting changes to the Environmental Protection Act, particularly sections 23, 26 and 33, be deferred and considered in tandem with the release of the provincial paper on statutory authority initiative, which will deal with waste management roles and responsibilities, expected to be released in early 1992.

The way you are proceeding, we expect we may be separate from other communities, counties, local municipalities in some areas or even cities that have some of the responsibilities. We take a look at them, and whether the intent here is to deal with us and set the groundwork for going somewhere else or not, we are not quite sure. We just wonder where it will be a duplication. Is this going to force us to first do ours and then conform with this or is this going to be quite separate? We certainly are not sure of that aspect.

Mr Aker: The region of Durham is of the opinion there is no need to build a transfer station at an estimated cost of $50 million. Our council unanimously would not support the funding. In a recent meeting, an excellent meeting, between our regional chairman and the Minister of the Environment, the chairman advised the minister that, one, we certainly would not be building the transfer station, and, two, we certainly would not want the province of Ontario to fund the transfer station. The need is unwarranted. Brock West expects to remain open until 1994. The region of Durham is negotiating to use the Scarborough transfer station upon the closure of Brock West. This solution represents the best and most prudent use of taxpayers' money. Consequently the region requests that the minister's report be rescinded and the applicable sections of Bill 143 deleted.

The second part of our conclusion is that the absence of information related to financial assistance in meeting the requirements of Bill 143 is of concern to the region of Durham, and we really cannot respond because the bill is fairly mute on that item.

Mr Herrema: There are some issues we could talk about, such as the waste of money and the horrendous upheaval we caused people, not just in Pickering but all over the region. We have as many people in other areas, especially in Newcastle. When you site a site, this is what happens. We were going on our own long-term program. We had spent a great deal of money doing that. We had hired consultants to do what we were supposed to do under the act. We were following the act quite closely and had spent well over $4 million on that aspect to ensure we had a long-term plan. That was the Durham-only master plan we were looking at. The residents of the region of Durham had indicated to us that was what they wanted.

We also sent a letter to the new minister at the time asking if it was a Durham-only master plan, because they did not trust that this would happen that it would be Durham only and not taking any outside waste. We did not receive an answer to the letter. Instead, there was the change of rules and regulations they had promised and the GTA came in with this interim bill.

We were working on the SWISC program at the same time, but our residents were not prepared to look at outside waste if we were to do a master plan. They were quite convinced we were going to use it to do something else. In the short term we had told them what we were doing, but in the long term we said it was Durham only because we also had hoped at that time that we would have an option, that when the region of Durham's master plan was brought forward, we might have an opportunity to look at a couple of other avenues. One, of course, was Kirkland Lake, letting the people of the region of Durham take a look at how that would work environmentally rather than taking 300 or 400 acres of land.

When you live in a rural area and anyone's land is taken, you do not feel very good about it. None of us wants a landfill site but we are all aware there has to be one. The concern is where it is going and how Metropolitan Toronto fits into the matter of that landfill site. So some of their concerns are related to that.

By having that polled, it certainly gave a change of direction. We were working with Metro on the interim site, which allowed us to do some financing of the long-term master plan. All that has been taken away from us. We have now had a loss of $4 million and are back at square one, having many people upset because they know that one of these days someone is going to come down with a number of sites, perhaps targeting their community or their own lands. Until someone has done that to your land, you are not really sure of the magnitude that can have on some of the land, with some people mad but other people crying because it is their century farm that someone is going to take and use. There is quite a difference, living in a community and having it happen and having them finally take your farm.

These are some of the concerns that were going on. We had a lot of public meetings to indicate to people what we were doing. None of us were very pleased at doing it, but we also knew we had to do it.

You will see quite a bit in here related to our financial ability to pay with the interference that came in and with the unknown in Bill 143. While we are still the dumping ground for some of the waste from Metropolitan Toronto, we are unable to come to a satisfactory agreement as yet. We hope to work out the matter with them, which will be beneficial to our residents as it relates to their still using a site that will be extended, we suspect, because their capacity is not going out.

Perhaps you could go towards the end where we have the response to the statement. The minister made her statement to the standing committee on January 20. At that time, she announced some amendments to the bill that are outlined below.

The minister has deleted the section on injurious affection because of concerns regarding the precedent it might set. The region of Durham supports this move. As our submission indicates, we are strongly opposed to this section. Injurious affection, as written, was too broad and had a large, unknown financial liability for the region. We are pleased to see that it has been removed. We had mentioned to the minister that we were concerned about the magnitude of that word, and we were pleased to see the minister come forward with that amendment.

They will amend section 26 of the bill to leave the minister responsible for requiring a municipality to take action on waste, instead of delegating the authority to the director. Further, the minister removed the proposed emergency power in section 26 to order municipalities to assess waste management needs and to prepare plans. As indicated in our submission, the region of Durham was strongly opposed to the delegation of authority to the director under this section. We are pleased to see the minister has amended that. We did not want to see a director. We were afraid it might become dictator rather than director.


The minister is also proposing a five-year maximum limit on any provincial order requiring a municipality to accept wastes from outside its boundaries. The region of Durham feels the bill should clarify that the minister should use this power only after all other options have been fully analysed and after full consultation with the affected municipalities. We have a concern that it might be expedient to impose this on one or another community without consulting the community and the municipalities. It has tremendous impacts, not only in the community but on the municipalities, regarding roads, the financial ability to handle it, whether it is extra waste, the residue from it, the leachate into the sewage plant. It goes much beyond the present state of just saying, "Take it somewhere else," without a total review of the extra capacity ahead of time.

The minister is continuing to discuss other concerns raised by the municipalities relating to the regulation of power provided under section 33 of the bill. The position of the minister with respect to section 33 is unclear to the region of Durham. Her statement included some vague phrases relating to the continued discussions, but it is unclear when these will take place and how and if these discussions will change the bill. The minister says that it is not her intention to remove municipal responsibilities, but that is exactly what she is proposing in part IV of the bill. That is why we recommend in our submission that part IV of Bill 143 be deferred until the paper on statutory authority is released, so that we know we are playing on the same level field in all of Ontario.

The minister has also stated that she is committed to a full participatory process. Unfortunately, she did not follow through on this commitment with Bill 143. Municipalities were not given a chance to comment on the bill before it entered the Legislature. There was not full consultation on this. This leads us to question the minister's commitment to full consultation.

The minister has also mentioned that the Keele Valley and Brock West landfill sites may be open longer than expected. Further, she concedes that this may affect the need for one or more transfer stations in Durham. She also rejects quick-fix solutions that prove in the long term to be environmentally costly and economically unsound.

As indicated in our brief, which I will now turn to, we are of the opinion that the transfer station is not needed given the current landfill capacity situation. We agree that quick-fix solutions are not the answer. The transfer station in the region would be a quick fix that is economically unsound. As a matter of fact, it would be disastrous should we get near those costs. That is why, as indicated in more detail in our brief, the region has been pursuing economically and environmentally sound alternatives. The region has proposed to use the Scarborough transfer station when the Brock West landfill site is closed.

Please note that this is our submission. You might think we have spent a great deal of time dealing with the transfer station, but with the kind of costs that were presented to us by a very detailed consultant, after having reviewed it and visited the Scarborough station, we are fully aware that the original cost we were talking about, $5 million to $10 million, was certainly out of the question. That was a shock to us, but when they came back with the $50 million, I have to tell you it was close to causing an earthquake or a heart attack for the politicians and our staff as well as our residents.

That is why we have put a lot of emphasis on it, because it is in the bill and we get very concerned. We are working very aggressively to change that and to get an agreement with Metropolitan Toronto. The idea that it is being left in gives us concern that somehow we are not conveying the message. I believe staff realize we are working, and we have had good cooperation from staff. I certainly have to indicate that.

We are aggressively pursuing the matter with Metropolitan Toronto. That is why we have physically spent some time to do it. We had seen the site when Metro works committee members had not seen the transfer station in Scarborough, so we were able to make our own judgement to know there is capacity at that site. We did not wish to pursue it further and go to a private avenue that someone else requested we visit, somewhere in York. We would rather stay with the municipality so that we know who controls it and we can deal with both the politicians and the unions that deal with that one.

We have spent a great deal of time on two elements of this. Of course the consultation matter is quite a concern to us, that it not only include those who are in the public but also the municipality, those who must foot the bill in the long run, from the residents on through. With the blue box program, when you lose $4.5 million, as we did last year -- we did not lose it; we spent $4.5 million on behalf of the residents and the environment -- people get concerned about where that might stop. If you ever added the $50 million or even close to it, as mandated by the bill -- although we have had good discussion, we still get concerned that this will get left in and it could be quite a matter on our back. It is still a report, it is not an order yet, but I am sure if it ever became an order or got in the bill, even our financial people would have some concern related to the financial ability and the problems we would have related to ventures in the region of Durham.

We have been through the wars on filling landfill sites. To really tip you off, my lot is 66 feet from one. It is a public one. It is not a very big one. The house is at the front end of the lot. The lot is a mile and a quarter deep, but we know what it is like to have the nuisance of even a small one, never mind a mega one that will have to be found to deal with the problem.

I am not sure whether Mr Silgailis has a comment. Mr Silgailis is our commissioner, who is ultimately responsible for making a recommendation. We will be glad to answer any questions. We have been in the bunker and we know what it is like. It has been through some detriments and some people we know of have used it very well.

Mr Silgailis: I would like to add my comments with regard to the transfer station. We are under a minister's order. We have done everything we were told to do. We responded to it, filed a work plan, filed the report on statutory and legal requirements and filed a community program. Throughout that whole process we realized we had to address the costs. As was indicated earlier, we found out from the consultant what the costs were. We were getting them ready so that we could go and meet with the minister to talk about finances. That was when, as our chairman said, the earthquake hit. We are pursuing other alternatives. It is very disheartening to sit with this order sort of floating around and still have to comply with it. That is why we are asking that this be removed and that we be given the opportunity to finalize our arrangements with Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr Turnbull: I would really like to concentrate on the question of process. I am most concerned at the fact that after a year and a half of this government being in power, after having killed all the interim sites that were proposed, and after, as you alluded to, quite a lot of money being spent by the various municipalities on those sites, in one fell swoop the minister is taking away the whole process we have built up over the years whereby you have public consultation, you have the right to environmental assessment hearings. In one fell swoop the minister is taking away those rights with respect to the two sites that will have their lives prolonged.

At the same time you are losing control of the process and yet the cost will still be given to you. At a time that "disentanglement" is one of the buzzwords we hear all the time, this adds a whole new dimension to downloading. They are completely taking away your control over the costs but at the same time they are going to control the process. Could you comment on that?

Mr Herrema: I met the minister last Tuesday and she said there would be no unloading. You have just summed it up. We had gone through the process. We had done it. We have no control, absolutely none, over the cost of what the interim authority is doing at the moment. It has been indicated to us by the minister, and I suspect that is what will happen, that the cost of it is going to be charged in the tipping fee. That means that when it comes to the gate -- we are not sure who is going to operate it yet -- we will have to pay for something someone else has designed and built. Whatever charges are in it are unknown to us. It is like going and ordering a new car and not knowing what it -- nobody does that, but that is what we are going to be asked to do at the moment. We feel quite remote from it because the impact is going to be on us. Wherever it goes, local councils and residents will ask us of course to turn on it and yet we are going to have to be responsible and accept something because waste management has to be done. We feel we are really done in after spending all the money and now having to do it again.


Mr Turnbull: With respect to the fact that at least they were subject to the normal scrutiny, and yet the extension of the two sites, Keele Valley and Britannia, will not be subject to the normal public scrutiny, could you comment on that?

Mr Herrema: I will give you one. We did have a shortened EA, as proposed by the former government, on the P1 site -- I have to be honest on that -- that was not the full-blown one we were doing on the others. We were criticized very severely by the present minister, who was then in opposition, for trying to short-circuit even one. We were a little surprised, but we understand what is happening.

Mr Turnbull: That is one of my problems. On the one hand you have a government that in opposition was the greatest advocate of the longest possible consultation and public process and now wants to take it away completely. I have a great deal of difficulty with it. I recognize that we have to get to the stage throughout the province, in all aspects, where we have to shorten environmental assessment processes, because they cost enormous amounts of money. I do not believe we should get rid of the process; we should simply streamline it, much in the same way as your process was streamlined. It may not have been perfect, but at least you had a process. Here we go from endless process to no process at all for public input.

Mr Herrema: That was our concern. There was no answer in the old act. Just ask Halton region. How many millions are spent? Everyone could challenge you somewhere else going down the line. There have to be some changes, but it seems that we have gone from no answers and everybody wanted to go all the way to delay and delay -- we just could not get answers to some things. I have been at some hearings. We find it quite amazing that there has been a change, but sometimes that is what happens when you have to do it rather than talk about it.

Mr Turnbull: Briefly, could you describe to me what the process would be ideally and how long it would be?

Mr Herrema: Ideally it would be a two-year process instead of a seven- or eight-year process, because you cannot plan. You have a council that is in for only three years. If you were to initiate something, the way it presently is with the act, it becomes, "Let's twiddle our thumbs and let the next council deal with it." This is what is happening in many cases. The continuity of councils that are driven to do the right thing -- there is not a councillor who does not want to do the right thing when it comes to the environment. There is no limit to it, so they spin it out. The public, the community groups love spinning it out because is gives them time to hope it will go away. It causes tremendous hardship on the community where you do it. It puts a cloud on it for four or five years, up to seven years; I guess it was 10 in Halton. That must be very stressful on a community healthwise as well as on the region or any municipality financially.

There has to be an amended process to what the old one is. There should also be a time element where people have to respond, or you will mentally destroy that community itself. That certainly is not fair when there are perhaps other alternatives. We were invited to go somewhere else. We are just told, "You can't go there." Having visited that site, and being a farmer, I get concerned that I am taking more farm land out of the community again.

Mr Wiseman: It is nice to see you again.

Mr Herrema: Are you sure, Jim?

Mr Wiseman: I came before council a number of times. I have a couple of quick questions. One has to do with the transfer station. When I first saw the accounting of $50 million, it was a one-page accounting. Have you since been given a more detailed brief by the consultant? If so, could we see it? We would like to have a copy of that.

Mr Herrema: You can have a copy. I will let Vik answer that. You can have a copy of everything we have.

Mr Silgailis: We have a consultants' report that is labelled Durham Transfer Station Project Status, which summarizes all the work they did for us. We would be delighted to give it to this committee.

Mr Wiseman: Thank you. My next question is about the Interim Waste Authority and the use of the word "interim." It is deliberate. In your brief you said the Interim Waste Authority should not operate the landfill sites after they are built. What would you see as the desirable arrangement for the managing of the landfill sites?

Mr Herrema: If we were to have our own short-term one that we operate we believe the public could get to the council. With the interim, how do you get to the people publicly where you can get at them? You have reps in your community, Mr Wiseman. They could question Mr Aker or any member of his committee, or Mr Silgailis, who is ultimately responsible? We think it is too remote. How do people know about paper, dust, odours? How do you get at it? People feel very concerned, and they do not like someone sitting somewhere in a boardroom they cannot get to. They like to be able to get at them, whether the local councillor gets at them, and in turn the region. You know our setup very well, Mr Wiseman. At least you can get to someone to discuss. An Interim Waste Authority is so remote. Very seldom do the people who operate them live near them. Have you ever noticed that?

Mr Wiseman: The people of Pickering have made me well aware of the remoteness of Metro with respect to Brock West.

Mr Herrema: So I do not have to explain to you why I am concerned.

Mr Wiseman: The next question also has to do with the Interim Waste Authority and the draft document. As you know, the criteria in the document set aside class 1 to 3 farm lands, especially with crops. Basically what it says is that it is ruling out all hydrogeologically sensitive areas: class 1 lands, the Rouge Valley where the park is designated and so on.

Mr Herrema: Oak Ridges moraine: Let's get that in too. I live up that way.

Mr Wiseman: Yes. What it is basically saying, though, is that it will only consider lands that are within the urban shadow or have already been designated for use other than agricultural use. What I am getting at there is that in your brief you were talking about farmers having an air of uncertainty about where the landfill site is going. If these criteria are looked at, I think for the most part it would give a clear indication that the sites on the top of the list, or the lands that are being considered on the top of the list, would be lands that have already been designated for uses other than agriculture and green space.

Mr Herrema: If you go to Mr O'Connor or Mr Coppa or Mr Picov in your riding, that land is in the urban shadow, there is no doubt about that, easy to be serviced, close to roads and everything else. If you were ever to suggest it, especially for the ones that have been there since 1832, can you imagine how they would feel on that? There is no difference when you use agricultural land, whether it is in an urban shadow or rural. You can service them with sewer and water.

Mr Wiseman: But it says specifically that it is designated for something other than agricultural use.

Mr Herrema: I will remember you said that, Mr Wiseman.

Mr Wiseman: Do not worry. I will remember it as well.

Mr Herrema: What is the length? What is the time? We are not in charge of how long. Is this a 20-year plan? In the urban shadow, you take farm land of any kind --

Mr Wiseman: I believe the designation for the long-term site within the Interim Waste Authority document is a 20-year site, so it is a long-term site the Interim Waste Authority is looking at.

My last question has to do with the public. The people who contact me are extremely interested in the 3Rs. We are hearing a number of deputations and a number of presenters talking about reducing and recycling and reusing, and part IV of this bill talks about this. I wonder if you do not think it is time the province in its entirety made 3Rs programs available to all its citizens so we can reduce the production of waste and and get on with the recycling of waste. We had a deputation just the other day that said: "You politicians, you sit here and you have all these committee hearings. What are you doing? You know what the problem is. Get on with it. Do it."

Mr Herrema: We can cure a lot of problems. Just send us money. I will let Mr Aker relate some things we have done lately.


Mr Aker: Jim, one of the problems we have with our recycling and our composting is that we are fairly aggressive in Durham region and we are at our 25% diversion, but the cost of our program is about $4.5 million a year and the product we sell is approximately a little over $400,000. So we have a 10-to-1 expense-to-revenue ratio. That has not been felt by the citizens yet because we have been using money we receive from Metropolitan Toronto to fund this particular program. When that money runs out in 1993, we project that the citizens will not be anxious to accept about a $4-million increase on their tax bill. Most people support recycling, reduction or conversion from the waste stream, but when the true costs hit home, we are concerned.

Basically our program is at a status quo situation where those who have recycling will continue to have it. Those who have igloos they can use will continue to have them, but as for expansion further --

Mr Herrema: We just did that. We just increased the expansion.

Mr Aker: Starting Monday we are adding corrugated cardboard and telephone books, but I was thinking about expanding it to other types of residences. We are very nervous about it. As I said, we are running at about a $4-million shortfall per year, entirely funded by money received from Metro Toronto. It has not impacted on the taxpayer yet. When it does, I think the reaction will be substantial.

Mr McClelland: I have a couple of quick questions; I hope we can get through a few of them. You raised some concerns about part IV of the bill. I would like a very quick response, if you could. If we were to break down part IV of the bill and specify within the enabling legislation of part IV, the regulations, those that would apply to the municipal operation of waste management and those that would apply elsewhere, would that give you a greater comfort level?

Mr Herrema: That would give us more comfort. We would at least know what we were dealing with. We do not know what is coming down. We know what the intent may be, but we do not know the details of how it is going to be and how it can change from what we perceive may happen and what finally happens in the bill. You have the right to make the changes this committee would recommend. That would certainly assist us so we would know what our responsibility is and what the other side would be.

Mr McClelland: Correct me if I am wrong; otherwise I will just move to my other question. Part of the premise on which I put that question to you is as follows: The role of the municipality and the role of all others is considerably different, yet there ought to be a consultative process in terms of developing the regulations that would flow from part IV, which are very distinct. Business has some very legitimate concerns with respect to part IV. People involved in recycling have concerns -- Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc, by way of example -- with respect to part IV and municipalities. What we have now is a broad stroke of the brush. It raises concerns with you that may very well provide solutions elsewhere. I think that is the difficulty.

I want to move on to something else here. You talked about no consultation. I do not know if it will be of any comfort to you, but we were told yesterday by a member of the committee -- and I will be candid -- Ms Haeck: "Don't worry, you were consulted. Even if you don't think you were consulted, we're telling you that you were consulted, so it must follow that you were consulted." I should let you know that the fact you were not consulted really does not wash because you will be told you were consulted, and you should find some comfort in that, because that will be the response.

In terms of cost and control, what you are going to have here is an organization under the Interim Waste Authority that is going to basically dictate the control and perhaps the siting of a landfill in Durham. Who do you think the people are going to come to when push comes to shove and it turns out the landfill site is adjacent to their farms?

Mr Herrema: They know where Mr O'Connor and I have breakfast and I will bring them there that morning when we get together. They are going to come to us. You know that. They will call their MPP, that is for sure, but they do business in Toronto and they will be lined up at our place saying: "You should have stopped this. It's your official plan. How come you're letting this happen?" We know that. Mr Wiseman can attest to that in Pickering, where they have certainly had their difficulties, and beyond a shadow of a doubt they have had that, yet how do you get at those who are operating? You cannot. The IWA is just too hard to get at. It is like an absentee landlord and I do not think we want it. We do not want that in the region of Durham.

Mr McClelland: On page 9 of your brief you say part of the solution would be shipping to the Scarborough transfer station in the event you run it to capacity at Brock. You are well aware, of course, that solution is out of the question right now, inasmuch as this bill precludes your considering transferring your municipal waste across the boundaries out of Durham. You might as well write that off unless we get some amendments here.

I think it is important to understand that the very basis of Bill 143 says: "We're not prepared to look at other solutions. Regardless of how they may shake down environmentally, regardless of how they may shake down in terms of common sense, regardless of how they may be pragmatic and have impact in the real world, we're not going to consider it because it doesn't fit with our ideology at the present time." I think it is important that people in Durham understand that. A solution arrived at by you and people in council who have turned your minds to it and put considerable money on the table to arrive at solutions is off because it does not fit. If reality does not fit the scheme that has been concocted, then, "I'm sorry, reality doesn't count in this case."

I want to talk about something to pick up on this cost and control issue a little bit. We are told there are not any lists of any sites. The IWA has begun a process. They have taken a list of criteria and they have applied it to various parcels of land that are somewhere in the funnel. They tell us there are no lists, and I believe there are no lists, because we had some honourable people who have put on the record that there are no lists.

The lawyer acting for IWA said: "That's true. There aren't any lists. There are certainly files. There are certainly parcels of land in files and documentation and a tremendous amount of work has been done with respect to arriving somewhere in the process with parcels of land that are somewhere in the funnel that have had criteria applied to them, but we don't have any lists yet. Even though you were promised that list, by the way, in December, we still don't have that list."

What do you think is going to happen when that list comes forward, if it ever comes forward in the manner it was promised, and they come to you, Mr Herrema, as chairman, and say, "Through the scheme concocted by the minister, IWA might be putting a landfill in my neighbourhood"? Mr Wiseman says that Bill 143 is great stuff. "SWISC was terrible" -- it only involved the public process and involved people in the community -- "but this is good stuff." How are you going to respond to that, Mr Herrema, at that time?

Mr Herrema: Mr Aker and I have been there, so we know what will happen. The public will rise up and there will be gigantic chaos and concern. I suggest at that time they will have learned how to organize better, because we gave them a dry run on the same thing and they will be ready. They will probably get Laidlaw to cancel school buses that day and they will bring them all down here. I suggest you keep the door locked.

We know now they think there are some alternatives we are not looking at. They are very concerned. They come to us legitimately because they hear us talking about an alternative in the north, a willing host. They hear talk about incineration, but you have not even tried it. The minister indicated she had no scientific material when she went to Detroit to talk about that in a court case. The minister said, "I don't have scientific proof that it's harmful." She said that in a public court, from what I have been told. People come to us and say: "Why don't you try that? At least, Mr Herrema, go down and tell the minister that, because she's going to be taking our land" -- whether you are on an urban fringe or a rural fringe. In the region of Durham, Mr Wiseman is quite correct, some land is zoned or dedicated in the official plan, but you are going to take somebody off his land who is presently contributing very well.

I am not allowed to swear, but you are going to have chaos when the people come. We know. Mr Aker and I had to have 28 cops to get in and out of a meeting. I got bald and he got grey over that. That is why I carry a cane now. It is not going to be fun. It is going to be a riot. The good part about that is that now we can do like I do with my dog when a cow gets out: sic `em. I can sic `em on somebody else. But that is not the answer. It is unfortunate we are not looking at all the alternatives and are saying: "It's over. We have nothing else. We have to go there and we can do it wholeheartedly." The environment is more important than politics, but sometimes I begin to wonder.

Mr Cousens: I am sorry I was not here for the presentation. I could not resist this opportunity to say a very special word of welcome to Mr Herrema and members of Durham council. I will be reading every word carefully. If I had known you were coming, I would have worn the tie you gave me.

Mr Herrema: Do you remember that tie?

Mr Cousens: I remember. I still have it. It has been worn a few times.

I also want the regional chairman to know that I have appreciated the way in which he has been presenting the case for Durham along the way and representing the people of that area. I want him to know that his views are always highly respected from where I sit. I will be checking this very carefully. I appreciate the fact you are here today and making your presentation. We have a tough time. I will look carefully at the data I know you will be presenting to see if there is anything I can bring in in the amendments I will be presenting.

The Chair: I want to thank you for your interjection, Mr Cousens. There was an interchange between Mr Herrema and Mr Wiseman over whether the remarks would be remembered, and you have pointed out quite rightly that everything is recorded in Hansard and it is there for posterity and for the archives.

Mr Cousens: I do not have the problem Mr Wiseman has --

The Chair: Now, now. That was not called for. Mr Martin, you have the floor.

Mr Wiseman: At least I can still read, Don.

Mr Cousens: Because you know how to read does not mean you know what is going on around this place.

The Chair: Order. Mr Cousens, would you withdraw please.


Mr Martin: As a virtual outsider to some degree to this discussion, being from the north and newly arrived on the scene -- September 6, 1990 -- I was under the impression at that time from things I read and heard about the idea that garbage from the south might be coming north that there was an emergency down here, that there was a huge problem and that nobody seemed to be able to get a handle on it. There was a lot of discussion around it. There certainly were Environmental Protection Act hearings going on and processes in place, but there did not seem to be an answer.

Certainly this legislation was based on the premise that we had an emergency. Mind you, that emergency has diminished somewhat because of the recycling, reusing and reducing initiatives, and the the recession, the fourth R, and also the unacceptable shipping of garbage to the United States. We have had groups come before us that tell us that we still have an emergency and that we need to be concerned about that. Perhaps you might want to comment about that.

Mr Herrema: I think with the present process there is an emergency. You will not get a greenfield site through the present process. If you shorten it, it is going to take you eight or nine years to get it done. There will still be an emergency. We are looking at the north as an option, but we are also keeping our own option. You will find it is going to take five years to spin through even the new act. We will then probably get there. We will do more recycling, but it will get closer; every week we are a little closer to the emergency. It is not tomorrow, but I say you are now three years away from even getting to anything concrete. There is urgency -- not an emergency -- that we proceed very diligently in finding a longer-term waste site for the region of Durham or the GTA or all the other areas too. We should not forget that the GTA has a problem, but they have megaproblems outside the GTA when it comes to the act and trying to find landfill sites, because I tell you the Philistines rise up in a hurry.

The Chair: Chairman Herrema, we appreciate your coming before the committee. I have reserved two minutes, if you wish to use it to sum up.

Mr Herrema: We have indicated our gigantic concern; the $50 million is a great concern. We are prepared to provide any and all documentation. Our staff will be prepared. We have had some discussion with the minister, which has been helpful, but it is not reassuring when we still see it in the bill. We also see the restricting of it only to the GTA. We know you are going to take somebody's farm land. I hope you do not take mine because my sons would become irresponsible. When you take somebody's land like that, that is what happens. We do not want that. We have seen that, Mr Aker, Mr. Silgailis -- we just promoted him. The other guy, we had to give him early retirement, he was so worn out. So these are things that happen.

We want to thank all of you. This is not an easy job you have. You have taken it off our back, but you have put it into our pocketbooks and that worries us as much because if we cannot survive financially in our community it will be a detriment to all of us socially, environmentally and economically.

The Chair: I know I speak on behalf of all the committee when I say we appreciate your coming before us today. If there is additional information over the course of our hearings that you think would be helpful, please feel free to communicate with us in writing.


The Chair: I would like to call now McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Ltd. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We would ask that you begin by introducing yourselves for members of the committee, and if possible leave as much time as you can so members of the committee can ask you questions. The procedure I have been using is to try to reserve a couple of minutes at the end for members to put questions on the record that they may not have had time to ask during the presentation. Then you can respond in writing to anything asked that we have run out of time to be able to answer today.

Ms Kitts: I am Maureen Kitts, director of communications and government affairs at McDonald's Canada. I am also a member of the Ontario government's Waste Reduction Advisory Committee.

Mr Gregory: Good afternoon. My name is Hal Gregory. I am vice-president, environmental affairs, McDonald's Restaurants of Canada, as well as national director of purchasing. So not only do I defend our packaging; I buy it. I guess that is why I am here today.

I would like to thank you for allowing McDonald's Restaurants the opportunity to speak today on Bill 143 and the bill's legislative ability to enact such regulatory measures as necessary in order to achieve Ontario's waste reduction targets.

We commend the government of Ontario for its sincere efforts to address the need for waste minimization in this province through the efforts of the Ministry of the Environment, the newly formed waste reduction office and the Waste Reduction Advisory Committee, which collectively will help direct Ontario residents to achieve the climate of conservation that we need to protect the environment.

McDonald's Restaurants is represented on WRAC, the multistakeholder committee that works to develop recommendations to the minister on difficult environmental 3Rs policy issues. Through the work of WRAC, we have had the opportunity to see first hand how challenging it can be to develop policies and programs that satisfy the interests of divergent sectors, while achieving the results necessary to solve real problems.

I would like to tell you that the responsibility of waste management and waste minimization has always been a part of our McDonald's management policy. Frankly, it makes good business sense. In more recent years, as waste minimization has become a more global concern and one all levels of government have challenged both the public and private sectors to address, I wish to assure you that McDonald's is committed to being in full compliance with all environmental regulations. If anything, we are committed to meeting and exceeding environmental regulations before targeted compliance is in effect. As an example, we have publicly stated we are committed to achieving waste diversion targets over and above the 50% goal of Ontario's Minister of the Environment, and that, a full five years ahead of schedule, by 1995.

Equally important, as a customer-driven company, we have an opportunity to demonstrate this commitment to the communities in which we do business, through both operational and public awareness programs.

Let me now give you a summary of our past actions and current initiatives. To determine the ways in which we could identify and put into effect operational procedures to meet our waste minimization goals, it became clear we needed to conduct a detailed analysis of the solid waste we generate in our restaurant operations. To this end, we conducted our first fully detailed waste audit in August 1990.

Based on these results, we initiated further source reduction, reuse and recycling demonstration programs. This allowed us to measure results and their ability and flexibility to become standard procedures in such diverse restaurant operations as an Eaton Centre location, an urban standalone restaurant or a restaurant location in a small northern Ontario community. I can tell you that through these first-year demonstration results, we have been able to expand existing 3Rs programs. Some have now become Canadian system-wide operational procedures.

Our second follow-up waste audit in September 1991 has allowed us to decisively critique and evaluate progress while identifying further 3Rs initiatives. More importantly, these efforts are allowing us the ability to work with our operations team, our owner-operators and our McDonald's suppliers to target full implementation of reduction, reuse and recycling programs on a national and international system-wide basis.

Clearly waste audits that have been recommended as a standard compliance procedure in the minister's October 1991 initiatives paper, Regulatory Measures to Achieve Ontario's Waste Reduction Targets: Initiatives Paper No 1, have demonstrated to McDonald's not only 3Rs benefits, but operational and cost-saving benefits as well. In the past year, packaging costs have been reduced by over 15% in our Canadian McDonald's Restaurants.

Our comments regarding Bill 143: In reviewing Bill 143 and its ability to regulate, I would caution this committee that taken to the extreme there are specific measures that could have far-reaching implications on our ability to do business in Ontario. For example, section 29 of the bill states: "No person shall use, offer for sale or sell any packaging, container or disposable product or any material for use in packaging, containers or disposable products contrary to this act or the regulations." This section of the bill essentially grants the minister the power to ban the sale of any packaging that is seen to pose a waste management problem.

At the same time, we understand the need to enact enabling legislation that can provide government with the ability to ensure that waste minimization goals are achieved. Keeping this in mind, we will continue to proceed on the assumption the ministry will not utilize all of the far-reaching powers contained in Bill 143. Based on our review of the initiatives paper, we encourage you and the ministry to continue with the spirit of recognizing the importance of a careful balance in the roles and shared responsibilities of both the public and private sectors in achieving waste minimization targets.


We trust that the government will consult with those of us who are working to meet the ministry's targets by providing it with sensible suggestions for changes in ministry regulations. For example, the initiatives paper states that our industry should initiate an aluminum recycling program. Our waste audit clearly showed that this material represents less than 1% of McDonald's solid waste. We would therefore recommend allowing us to proceed with our present plans to divert organic wastes, which account for fully one third of all our waste.

Effective waste reduction programs need the flexibility to tackle waste reduction where it will have the most impact to meet targeted compliance goals. That same flexibility will also allow us to develop the necessary waste diversion, reduction, reuse and recycling programs for, say, Toronto, versus those we implement for the unique needs of our northern Ontario restaurants.

We believe that the concrete results needed to achieve Ontario's waste reduction goals will come from a situation where all sectors are given clear targets. Critically important will be each sector's ability to find the most practical, realistic and successful methods for achieving these targets, based on their individual knowledge and in-depth understanding of their businesses.

At McDonald's we are proud of our ability and commitment to meet waste reduction targets. We believe our knowledge and extensive research and development efforts will make it easier for other, perhaps smaller industries to learn from our waste reduction programs and adopt them accordingly. Overall we are satisfied that Bill 143 will to some extent establish more of a level playing field in our industry and other business sectors, while achieving Ontario's waste reduction targets.

In closing, may I summarize some key points: Ontario needs results and solutions to our waste reduction targets through actions that address real problems, not perceptions or myths. We encourage you not to tie our hands to excessively restrictive regulations when we can meet shared targets through clear guidelines. Most importantly, I would like to thank each of you for the opportunity to be here today, and wish to reassure you that McDonald's welcomes the opportunity to continue to build a cooperative, productive working relationship with the government of Ontario so that collectively we may achieve our mutual goals. We will open it up to questions.

Ms Haeck: I really want to commend McDonald's for the efforts it has made in waste reduction. I am heartened to see your comments on the first page about waste management and waste minimization making good business sense. One of the concerns that has been raised by other deputants and by members of the opposition is that somehow profit cannot be made from waste reduction. I am wondering if you have any other examples of the financial benefits you refer to on page 2, which says you have reduced your packaging costs overall by 15%.

Mr Gregory: I think through the years McDonald's has perhaps overpackaged our products for many reasons. Marketing might have been one of them. Now we have come to realize we can no longer afford to do this from an environmental standpoint, so we have taken a look at reductions wherever we can. There are some tremendous cost savings there. In reuse, going with plastic totes instead of cardboard boxes coming into restaurants, there are dramatic savings. I mentioned our English muffins. We instituted that just over a year ago. I think our outlay with our supplier to buy the reusable totes was something like $61,000. In the first year alone we saved almost $250,000.

Ms Haeck: I cannot argue with that.

Mr Gregory: These things are pretty much ongoing. So far, we really have not come up against anything that is so expensive we cannot afford to do it.

Ms Haeck: Do you have a team in your head office working on ways of saving money with regard to packaging?

Mr Gregory: Full-time.

Ms Haeck: I had a sense that you basically have some good relations with the ministry and possibly the waste reduction office. Are you involved with the national packaging protocol in an ongoing discussion on the issue of packaging?

Ms Kitts: I would like to answer that. Yes, we have had an opportunity, representing our industry through the Quick Service Restaurant Council, and even prior to its formation, to make deputations to bodies similar to yours at the federal level. Very often McDonald's has been called in because they know we have had a awful lot of research and development, not just on our packaging but our entire waste stream, which we would like to think this deputation addresses as well.

We try to make ourselves available to various standing committees to share with them some of our more recent and up-to-date initiatives. We would also like to think, as we have said in this paper, that we have the ability to do some of this research. For instance, I will just mention the reusable totes for the shipment of, say, major meat, potatoes or whatever. If McDonald's has the ability to get that proper container designed, it can then be used by much smaller industries, whether a meat supplier or chicken supplier that might be sending chicken to hospitals, institutions or whatever. We would like to think there are far-reaching benefits from some of our initiatives.

Mr Gregory: Once our waste audit was completed we were so impressed. We had used the company that helped us with environmental concerns for years. We directed them to every one of our suppliers across Canada to do internal waste audits.

Ms Haeck: You at least passed on that information.

Mrs Sullivan: I am very interested in the work McDonald's has done in the past, and there is one particular area I would like to focus on today. That relates to the move away from polystyrene clam-shell containers to paper-based sandwich wraps for many of your products. I know you have been substantially involved in the development of the polystyrene recycling plant. Personally, I was disappointed that the encouragement at the political level was not such that the plant was up and running before the corporate decision to change had been made. I felt that with a 100% recyclable product there was an environmental benefit to result from that corporate merging of experience. I would like to hear your comments on that.

I would also like to know what you are doing with the paper-based wraps. Are they completely going into composting as part of the organic refuse stream? Where is that being done and how do you participate in those composting efforts?

Mr Gregory: I will start with the first part of your question. We were and still are heavily involved with the Canadian Polystyrene Recycling Association. Your comment was right on. It is unfortunate that we got started with too little, too late. As I mentioned earlier, we are a customer-driven company and our customers clearly want us out of polystyrene packaging. We did an Angus Reid poll right across Canada and when we saw the depth of concern for polystyrene we felt we had better take another look at our position.

Environmentally there is a saving in switching to paper wrap from polystyrene. In some cases, if you are talking about paperboard polystyrene, I think there are advantages to polystyrene over paperboard that I do not think there are over paper wraps based on studies we have had done.


We continue to be involved today with the Canadian Polystyrene Recycling Association. In terms of products in our restaurant, all our breakfast packaging, our platters, are still in polystyrene, as are our coffee cups. New technology has been recently announced by Lily Cups. One of the major concerns we had was the HCFC usage, or pentane or butane used to blow the polystyrene to expand the cell walls. That is now being done with CO2 gas, as with our products. I think that has eliminated one of our big concerns.

Today our paper wraps use a combination poly-wax coating on them. We think they can be composted. We are working with the University of Guelph today doing composting tests on them and we should have the results of those tests within the next six weeks and look at composting our paper wraps.

We have to do something in the restaurant to get our customers involved. Right now, the things we have been doing are back of the house, not front of the house.

Mrs Sullivan: Until it is compostable, that material is now going 100% to landfill.

Mr Gregory: That is correct, except in stores on pilot programs.

Mr Turnbull: Thank you for an excellent presentation. It is nice to see you, Maureen. Over the years we have seen each other at church and never actually spoken to each other.

With respect to part IV of the bill, specifically section 28 which suggests the repealing of section 74 of the act -- I refer you to clause (b), "the reduction of waste from packaging, containers and disposable products and the reuse or recycling of packaging, containers and disposable products;" I think we would all agree that the idea of reducing by 50%, the goal expressed by the minister, is admirable and we should all say we will work in that direction. I have had comments that unfortunately that type of ruling is blind to organizations like yours that have been more assiduously working away at the process than other people who had made no effort. If you have a base of being very poorly in compliance with any kind of recycling and reusing, you start with a much higher amount of waste, and if the same 50% is applied it is somewhat unfairly applied to people who have been good corporate citizens. Could you comment on that?

Ms Kitts: Thank you for bringing that up, David. I know we have brought this up an awful lot at the national packaging protocol level too, with their base year of 1988, and all our figures are based on that base year. I guess we can say to bodies like yours that there are many organizations both in the public and private sectors that have respected that base year and are working very diligently from that year on with our reduce, reuse and recycle.

One thing I think you have to look at, which we cannot get a clear answer on, is new product introductions, expansion of businesses. I will give you the example of Toys R Us. It maybe suddenly has brought on 20 new lines. How do you start measuring the waste that generates with a baseline year of 1988? I think this is where both the public and private sectors and people like ourselves need to sit down, share with you some of those thoughts and say, "Let's work together to see how we can expand on those measurements."

Mr Turnbull: Yes; one last question that has always been very near and dear to my heart.

The Chair: Mr Turnbull, you can put it on the record, but you cannot expect a response. Do you want to put the question on the record?

Mr Turnbull: I will put it on the record right away. I would like to hear your thoughts with respect to using reusable plates, glasses and cups in your restaurants and generally in your industry.

The Chair: Mr Martin, question for the record?

Mr Martin: Yes. You have commented on page 3 about the unique needs of northern Ontario restaurants and it gives me an opportunity to ask something closer to home than what I have been --

The Chair: Question?

Mr Martin: Perhaps you might share some of your initiatives there and what the concerns are around --

The Chair: That is not a question. Mrs Mathyssen, question?

Mrs Mathyssen: I do indeed have a question. First, I want to say it is very commendable that you have made this effort to divert waste because McDonald's has a certain appeal in the public. It has a lot of popularity and I think you have a lot of influence, so it is important that you are leaders. You said in your brief that less than 1% of McDonald's solid waste is aluminum. What would that actually be? How many pounds, tons or whatever?

The Chair: Question, Mr Lessard?

Mr Lessard: We look forward to working in partnership with people like McDonald's as well. You make a statement on page 3, "We would recommend, however, to allow us to proceed with our present plans to divert organic wastes, which account for fully one third of all our waste." I wondered what you meant by our allowing you to proceed.

The Chair: The clerk will provide you with a list of all the questions that there has not been time for you to answer. We would appreciate it if you would answer in writing. If we receive it by February 14 it will become part of the public record. If it is after February 14 it will be shared with all members of the committee. We appreciate your coming before us today and sharing your concerns and interest in this legislation.


The Chair: I am going to call next the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We ask you to leave enough time for questions from members of the committee. If you would begin your presentation by introducing yourselves to members of the committee, we would appreciate that as well. Please take your seats at the microphone.

I remind all members of the committee that the time for placing a question on the record is just to place your question. If you want to have a conversation with the deputants, you are welcome to do that outside the room but we do not have the time for speeches.

Mr Lyon: Good afternoon. My name is Ken Lyon. I am the chair of the environmental quality committee of the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto.

We are grateful for this opportunity to make our presentation to you today on behalf of the 15,000 businessmen and women who comprise the membership of the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto. As the largest business association in the GTA, we are compelled to highlight the concerns of the private sector with respect to Bill 143.

Unlike many of the other deputants who conducted a clause-by-clause assessment of Bill 143, we will express our concerns with the underlying implications of the bill and conclude with three recommendations.

First, let me start by giving you some background information by listing a series of events that preceded the introduction of Bill 143. Over the past few years, a number of unnecessary restrictions have been imposed or contemplated regarding the disposal of waste in the GTA. Here are some examples that have increased the cost and reduced the options for efficient waste management in the region.

The province, without consultation with either the municipalities or the private sector, eliminated interim landfill site proposals in the GTA, proposals to export Metro waste to willing host communities outside the GTA and any consideration of waste treatment technologies such as energy from waste.

At the same time Metro Toronto, also without consultation with the private sector, introduced rapid increases in disposal rates. When Metro was faced with a potential gap in landfill capacity, it introduced proposals to ban some materials from landfill sites which have little immediate potential for recycling. Metro even introduced a proposal to ban all industrial, commercial and institutional waste from its landfill sites.

In 1992 we are faced with Bill 143, which continues the trend towards inefficient management of waste. The board of trade is concerned that enactment of Bill 143 will not improve the operating environment of the private sector and will not benefit our environment or our economy.


With respect to part II of the bill, we are concerned that arbitrary elimination of viable options, such as incineration and the transportation of waste from the primary service area to any other area, will ultimately lead to an overall increase in the cost of waste management without necessarily offering better environmental management. This additional cost will have to be paid by the taxpayer.

The board is also concerned that implementation of part IV of the bill will affect the competitiveness of Ontario manufacturers. For example, the proposed regulation in the initiatives paper focuses on packaging manufactured in Ontario rather than all packaging sold in the province. These regulations would place additional compliance costs on domestic packaging manufacturers and impede their ability to compete against foreign and out-of-province manufacturers. The board feels strongly that these measures are unnecessary at this time because the packaging industry is confident that it will meet and exceed the reduction targets of 25% by the end of 1992 and 50% by the end of the year 2000. These are packaging reduction targets agreed upon by all provincial governments and the federal government as well as the packaging industry and the national packaging protocol.

The board believes it is the role of government to consult with other government authorities as well as with the private sector in order to establish optimal solutions for the management of waste. This consultation should lead to the establishment of a clear and consistent legislative framework within which the private sector can operate.

We have listened to some of the deliberations at these hearings and we have read Bill 143, and it is not clear to us what the role of the private sector will be with respect to waste management if this bill is enacted. We have heard from previous deputants that the private sector can operate waste management facilities more effectively and more efficiently than the public sector. We concur. The cumulative budget of the Ontario Waste Management Corp is one example of government inefficiency. We believe private industry must implement its own programs in order to meet government objectives and guidelines. Based on our concerns, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto has three recommendations.

1. Ontario waste management regulations be developed in partnership with federal and other provincial authorities as well as with private and public sector stakeholder groups. This approach would foster development of a clear legislative framework within which the private sector, along with the public sector, can accelerate the 3Rs initiatives for the good of our environment.

2. All viable options must be considered in solving the solid waste management problems, including the export of waste and waste treatment technologies, such as energy from waste. Too much emphasis on one or two options will result in an inefficient allocation of our environmental and economic resources.

3. The province of Ontario should conduct a cost-benefit analysis, with life-cycle accounting of all proposed regulatory measures that have significant tax implications to both consumers and businesses. Although we recognize that environmental factors should be foremost in the development of waste regulations, we believe there are less expensive ways of achieving good environmental management than those ways proposed by Bill 143.

Ms Haeck: We thank you Mr Lyon for your comments. I would like first of all to make it clear that I am from a riding that is outside the GTA. One of the areas actually immediately adjacent to me would probably be receiving any toxics produced in Ontario. It is going through an environmental assessment hearing, but the local residents definitely have great concerns about exactly the exportation of all Ontario's toxic wastes to Lincoln county. They are not particularly happy thinking that they are going to pay for your wastefulness. That really does raise some issues.

But I want to address page 3 of your comments relating to the national packaging protocol. We should make it clear that the regulations based on the initiatives paper will be consistent with the national packaging protocol. In fact, there will be a model for the regulations to implement the protocol, so the waste reduction office has really indicated that the regulations will apply for all packaging sold in Ontario. I believe that deals with the competitive aspect, which I believe you raise here on pages 3 and 4 of your submission. Could you please give me your reaction to the question on packaging?

Mr Lyon: If I can clarify something, you said Ontario will follow the model regulations.

Ms Haeck: Yes.

Mr Lyon: Then why was Bill 143 tabled, if those regulations have not been developed yet?

Ms Haeck: It is all enabling legislation, which means all this gives legislative clout to all the regulations. That is the phrase, "enabling legislation."

Mr Lyon: The board of trade's primary response is that it believes the role of government, in consultation with the stakeholder group, should be to set standards and objectives, and it is the role of the private sector to design programs to meet those standards and objectives.

Ms Haeck: Would you not think that the national packaging protocol is the standard?

Mr Lyon: The standard or the objective of the protocol is to achieve certain reductions in packaging. The board of trade believes that, in consultation, the private sector should develop the programs to achieve those standards rather than be faced with the scenario under Bill 143, which would enable the provincial government to design reduction programs to define specifically what are wastes, what packaging would have to be reduced. I am not sure that --

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Haeck.

Mr McClelland: What we see here is essentially the problem the business community has in Ontario. We have a minister who says, "We are going to lead the country. We are going to step out of sync with the rest of the country," and who says, "Mark my words: Ontario will be at the forefront of packaging legislation and we will have regulations that are more progressive than any other jurisdiction in the country." In fact, she says that internationally. She goes to the United States and boasts that Ontario will lead North America.

Then we come back in committee -- no disrespect to the backbencher for St Catherines-Brock who says: "No, the minister is not quite right. I will qualify the minister's statement. We're going to be in sync with the national protocol."

Here is the problem when you come to page 4, "a clear and consistent legislative framework within which the private sector can operate." That is the nub of the problem you have hit on. Currently, with the provisions of Bill 143, part IV, which you refer to, in the general scheme of it there is no assurance of where the private sector fits in. There is no sense of consistency in terms of the drafting of the bill. But even within the context within which it was drafted we are getting mixed messages. I would like you to comment again about a clear and consistent legislative framework in which the private sector can operate.

Mr Cousens: Are you starting to support Bill 143? I think he is starting to fall in line with the New Democrats.

The Chair: Mr Cousens, I am deducting the time from your caucus time.

Mr McClelland: We do not know what is happening because of the uncertainty about what is happening. I would appreciate your comments in terms of your concerns for the private sector. What you are saying here is that there is no clear, consistent, legislative framework. Are we with the national protocol or are we with what the minister has said, that we are going to lead? Do we have the private sector waste management companies involved or do we not? They say they do not feel comfortable. We hear the communities saying, "We want you here. We are not sure where you fit in, but we want you here." What kind of the message is that sending to the business community generally in Ontario.

Mr Lyon: With respect to the environmental issue, the message it is sending to the business community is that the proposed bill will not necessarily offer better environmental management, and we are looking at two reasons for that. Number one, especially in 1992, we believe something like Bill 143 will compete excessively for scarce budget dollars. Number two, we believe Bill 143 as it is proposed will impose an artificial definition on 3Rs markets.


The Chair: Thank you. Mr Cousens.

Mr Cousens: Madam Chairman, I was teasing my honourable Liberal friend because I am hearing him --

The Chair: You are only permitted to tease, Mr Cousens, when you have the floor.

Mr Cousens: I know, but I am just coming back to say that Mr McClelland is a very eloquent spokesman against Bill 143, and the fact that he was saying those things -- I was just trying to pull his leg.

It is just tragic. We have real problems with the bill. I represent a few people in Ontario who are concerned about Bill 143. You raise in your third point, "The province of Ontario should conduct a cost-benefit analysis with life-cycle accounting," and I would like to put this question to the parliamentary assistant to the minister for the greater Toronto area and ask him whether or not the ministry has done any such thing. We have touched on the other two points you raised, but that third point has not specifically been addressed to the parliamentary assistant and the Ministry of the Environment. I wonder if they have or have not, or do they understand the point?

Mr O'Connor: I believe questions have been asked before and we are waiting for the ministry officials to put together written analyses of your request, but it is coming.

Mr Cousens: That is a given then. So this question that has been raised by the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto will be answered. Will it come before we have completed our hearing?

Mr O'Connor: It will be part of the process we are going through.

The Chair: I think that is a reasonable question, if you could ask the ministry officials. Will the question Mr Cousens asked be answered before we finish the public hearing component of our deliberations?

Mr Merritt: It would be useful to get clarification of your question. The question we are preparing to answer was Mr McClelland's question regarding studies we had done on the effects of costs on the private sector. If that is consistent with the one you want to ask, then we will be bringing that forward.

Mr Cousens: I defer to the board of trade on what they are asking for us. Maybe you could just clarify what it is, a cost-benefit analysis with life-cycle accounting, and if that indeed is going to be coming. Maybe you could explain to him just a little bit about what it is you are asking for in point 3, because I am going to take that question and ask that they answer it specifically.

Mr Lyon: The board supports the notion that we want good environmental management. There usually are a number of different ways of achieving that. No one has sat down and figured out what the different proposals are going to cost. If we can achieve the same thing by doing it less expensively, let's take that approach.

The life-cycle accounting refers to doing the cost-benefit analysis over the lifetime of a material or over the lifetime of a waste. For example, with a bridge or a road, you do not just look at how much it is going to cost to build it. You also look at how much it is going to cost to maintain it over the lifetime of that structure.

Mr Cousens: Does the ministry understand what it is that has been suggested in point 3?

Mr O'Connor: We understand it. To get a further clarification so perhaps the deputant can get a better understanding, we should ask Drew Blackwell to give a brief synopsis of the initiatives paper and how the whole process comes together and how it effects the national protocol. I think that will answer your question.

Mr Blackwell: Under the national packaging protocol, there are different steps involved for establishing any regulations across the country. In the first case, what we need is to make sure that all users of packaging are identifying to the best of their ability what packaging they were using in 1988, what changes have been made and what changes are intended to be made over the upcoming period.

After this identification has taken place, which is simply to make sure we can measure accurately whether or not the targets are being met, there will be discussion among all stakeholders on whether or not there can be sectoral targets established within specific sectors. At this point there are no sectoral targets. If such sectoral targets are established, then the question will arise whether or not it is necessary to pass regulations to bring those who do not voluntarily reach those targets into compliance. That question has not yet been addressed. Perhaps it will not have to be addressed if the targets are met without the need for it.

The regulations that are proposed in Regulatory Measures to Achieve Ontario's Waste Reduction Targets: Initiatives Paper No 1 are of the first kind. They only deal with the requirement to undertake an analysis of packaging that is in use and the plans for reduction of that packaging. It is true that as the regulations are presented in initiatives paper 1, they only address manufacturers of packaging within Ontario. We have received many comments that this is a fault with the regulations, and I indicated on Monday in my opening comments that we have already agreed within the context of the National Packaging Task Force to make sure that change takes place. We will be working with the regulatory subcommittee of the task force to make sure that our regulations become the model regulations for jurisdictions across Canada. There is a commitment within the task force to work in that direction.

The Chair: Thank you for the clarification. I hope everyone is ready to proceed and move on. I have one minute left for questions. Did you have a question you want to put on the record, Mr Cousens? Just the question.

Mr Cousens: Perhaps the board of trade could elaborate on what it means by life-cycle accounting and a cost-benefit analysis as it pertains to the way in which the ministry just answered the question. If there is anything further that could be helpful in having that cost-benefit statement, I would be very interested in further feedback from yourselves to this committee so that we can get that kind of balanced answer.

Mrs Mathyssen: You suggested that transportation and incineration is an inexpensive way of dealing with the garbage. We have heard that an incinerator can cost up to $500 million to build. How can that possibly be cheaper than 3Rs and a well-thought-out waste management strategy?

The Chair: Is everyone happy? Thank you very much for your presentation today. The questions that have been placed on the record will be provided to you by our clerk. We would appreciate it if the board would respond in writing so that the committee can consider it in the course of our deliberations. We appreciate your coming before us today.


The Chair: I would like to call next the Canadian Environmental Law Association. Would you please come forward and begin by introducing yourself for the committee. You have 20 minutes, and we would appreciate if you would leave as much of that time as possible for questions from committee members. Would you please begin your presentation now.

Mr Makuch: Good afternoon, committee members. It is always a pleasure to be dealing with our elected representatives when it comes to environmental initiatives. At the federal level there has been very little of that lately, so of course we are looking to the province to take a leadership role. Looking around the room, I think there are a couple of people I would like to single out for their exemplary work on 3Rs initiatives with the minister's office: Mr Drew Blackwell, and Ms Linda Pim, who has been very helpful on waste management issues.

The way I would like to conduct this session is not to read something to you, because that is boring and it often loses some of the detail that you can catch simply by reading the brief. I would like to speak in a more informal fashion, identifying five or six points and then leaving as much time as I can for questions. I expect that after I blabber on for about 10 minutes or so, we can engage in some kind of dialogue or discussion.

The way my presentation is structured is as follows: I will let you know a little bit about what CELA does and what we have been doing specifically with respect to the Waste Management Act and the draft regulations, and then I will speak about the key points, basically, in the Waste Management Act and make a few comments about the draft regulations themselves.


Our organization is an environmental law organization that has been in existence for 20-some-odd years. Basically there are two streams to the work we do, one of which involves working in the public interest, representing citizens' groups or individuals in court before various tribunals and so on, basically protecting environmental rights or sometimes upholding legislation when governments are reluctant to do so. The second aspect to our work involves what I am doing here today, namely, consulting or advising or lobbying with respect to environmental law or regulations in the hope that the environmental initiatives and our perspective are generally bought by our elected representatives.

As far as our involvement in the Waste Management Act and specifically the draft regulations is concerned, we have been very busy. We were consulted on a couple of issues early on, before the legislation came forward, one of which we had some success with and another which we did not have success with. I will complain about that again today. With respect to part II, we hope to secure the protection of citizens' rights and to guarantee a more public process around the three sites mentioned. We have attempted to do that by way of having the designation of those three undertakings under the Environmental Assessment Act. That is something the province has obviously agreed to do, although we would like to see a formal statement to that effect in part II.

Second, we discussed the interim expansions at Keele Valley and Britannia and did not have very much success in translating our perspective into some form of legislative or regulatory recognition. I will speak more directly about that in a minute. Essentially we argued several months ago that the interim landfill guidelines, which are the MOE guidelines for the expansions that are taking place at Keele Valley and Britannia, should have been observed.

Logically they ought to end in an Environmental Protection Act type of hearing. Our sense at that time was that both Keele Valley and Britannia should have been subject to that set of guidelines. We have our doubts about how that might happen with respect to Britannia now, but it seems the time lines and capacity allow for some consideration of the guidelines in terms of the Keele Valley processes that will take place. In essence, we are after at least an Environmental Protection Act type of hearing with respect to Keele Valley.

As far as the draft regulations went, the Canadian Environmental Law Association was very active in creating a multistakeholder committee at the Metro Toronto level around waste reduction initiatives, and came out with a report entitled It Can be Done: 50% Diversion by 1993. Our feeling is that much of what is in that report is now reflected in the regulations, and for that reason of course we support it.

Finally, I have put together a few documents myself critiquing Bill 143 and the draft regulations, which were circulated to 100 environmental groups across the province. Some 35 of them have since signed on to those comments and they have been forwarded to the waste reduction office.

As far as the key points go, let's go through each of the parts one at a time. I will identify my most significant concerns. As something of a preamble, let me state for the record that the Canadian Environmental Law Association made it known publicly that it is absolutely opposed to incineration as something of an alternative to the 3Rs processes when it comes to dealing with waste. There are a number of reasons for that. It came out a few minutes ago that it is economically troublesome to begin with. Studies have indicated that even in test burn situations, which use optimum conditions, incineration has produced the kinds of ash that are very toxic. Our experience in the east-end community representing various groups has been that middle-aged people are developing asthma all of a sudden, and I think that can be linked to incinerators.

Beyond that, on the export issue, like the incineration issue, we are concerned that both those options create an out-of-sight, out-of-mind mentality when it comes to dealing with our garbage. Our perspective is that communities ought to deal with their own garbage and that we should not transport our problems to other areas of the province.

Now that this is clear, let's go directly to the legislation itself. We do not have much difficulty with part I. We understand some of the concerns raised by Liberal critics around expropriations and so on. We do not share those concerns. We are concerned, however, about parts II and III, which raise the most difficulty from our perspective, especially part III.

Part II is something that troubles us only to the extent that we would like a statement saying that the three undertakings will be subject to an Environmental Assessment Act type of process, with the caveats that are already mentioned in the legislation.

As far as sections 13 and 14 of part II are concerned, we are not very clear whether the Interim Waste Authority will be doing any independent work on 3Rs analysis in terms of establishing capacity and so on. My sense of it is that we should encourage that sort of thing simply because the numbers on capacity seem to fluctuate so much from one source to the next.

As far as subsection 14(2) goes, that is where you have the no-export provision. I have a concern about the way that may be contradicted by section 29, because it seems to us that the minister can make orders of an export nature. There has to be some clarification of the intention of subsection 29(2), our sense being that it is not really the intention of this government to engage in any wholesale export of waste. I think that may be something of an interim measure, given the garbage gap situation.

As far as the section with respect to participant funding is concerned, there needs to be some further clarification of the law here. We know the central thrust of that statement is to give public interest groups an opportunity to be more involved in the decision-making processes, but there is no mention of what sorts of procedures will be involved in providing participant funding. The clarification we would like to see is that the Intervenor Funding Project Act procedures be used for the determination of that type of funding, and second, that the proponent of course would be responsible for the funding.

Then on to part III; the point is an essential one. If you review the interim guidelines, you will know there is a set of established processes through which various bodies must travel to ensure that the health and safety of residents close to landfills are protected and that the environment is protected. We are very concerned about the integrity of the environment when it comes to Keele Valley and Britannia. We feel there should be some fuller process of public involvement, indeed empowerment through a hearings process, rather than simply a consultative one. I think that is completely feasible with respect to Keele Valley. I have concerns about the obvious time lines on Britannia, but this government should be taken to task for not having engaged the guidelines at an earlier period in time.

With respect to section 29, I understand that it will not be the director, an unaccountable bureaucrat, making decisions on the emergency powers provisions use, but that this will be kept with the minister, That is certainly an amendment we support. It is important that elected and politically accountable officials make those decisions. It is inappropriate that a bureaucrat with less accountability should be given that kind of awesome power.

As far as part IV goes, as I said a few minutes ago, we had a good deal to do with the development of those ideas and concepts. Even though I am aware of the concerns of industry, especially with respect to the waste reduction and packaging audits, my sense, from speaking with people like the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada and their constituents, is that this is not cost-prohibitive. Likewise, when it comes to source separation in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector, after speaking with politicians and making various presentations, it becomes clearer that many of the municipalities already have some source separation projects under way. My sense is that if residents have to do it, why should not the ICI sector? This is not necessarily cost-prohibitive, even in a recession.


I suppose that aside from giving my qualified support to these initiatives, it would have been preferable if the economic structure, the economic instruments were laid alongside the initiatives paper. I look forward to seeing what the waste reduction office proposes with respect to product stewardship issues, creating or enhancing markets for recyclables and using other economic instruments to make these kinds of environmental policies viable.

That essentially covers off what I wanted to say to all of you, so I invite questions.

Mr McClelland: We are very limited for time, so I guess we will have to focus our questions and exchange comments on one or two matters. We have just been told we have two minutes, so I suppose we will limit it to one.

You mention on page 3 that you have some concerns with respect to part II, that there is no explicit clarification for a long-term site selection process being designated under the Environmental Assessment Act. One of the great concerns that was raised initially when this legislation was first introduced in the House was that very point. It is important to recognize that. I do not want to add a sense of value judgement to your statement, but during your presentation it was sort of, "By the way, they've left it out." I would like your comment on that. I feel, and we in the official opposition feel that this is vitally important. I do not want to prejudice your position with that, but my sense was that you saw it as a bit of a problem. I would like to know what weight and what import you put on that.

In your appendix, in point 2.1 on page 2, you say, "It is remarkable that a government committed to public participation and open forums for decision-making should make `streamlining the current approvals process' synonymous with removing public participation and public accountability from decisions about all aspects of recycling sites," and so on. That is essentially the flaw in the whole scheme in terms of parts I, II and III, quite frankly, the fact that it tends in my view to overrule all the fundamental laws of this province, the history, the evolution of law that has supported citizen participation. I would like your comment, please, with respect to the impact of Bill 143 in terms of overriding the Municipal Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Protection Act, and all the other acts, and the catch-all phrase that says "everything else in case we've missed it."

Mr Makuch: My first comment addresses the first question you raise. The reason I was rather matter of fact about designation of the three undertakings under part II is that we have received the assurance that this government shares your concerns in this matter and that those three sites --

Mr McClelland: The people at Keele and Britannia received a lot of assurances too.

Mr Makuch: All right, that is a separate section and that is --

Mr McClelland: It is the principle --

The Chair: I have to ask you to take Mr McClelland's question as notice. If there is time at the end of the other questions, you can answer. If not, it will have to be answered in writing. Mr Cousens, you have the floor.

Mr Cousens: Was your group at all involved in consultation with the Ministry of the Environment prior to the release of this bill? One of the concerns we have had throughout our discussions on Bill 143 since it was released on October 24 -- the minister wanted to have it passed on December 19 -- is that there had been very little consultation prior to its tabling in the House for first reading. The minister was even reluctant to have it come out for public hearings. Had it not been for the combined forces of both opposition parties, we would not be here today. I just want to know, because of your involvement in environmental matters, the degree to which you were involved with the ministry prior to its release.

Mr Makuch: To the extent that we were working on export and incineration issues at the same time the ministry was, and that we made certain public statements about that, they were very aware of what our position was going into the development of the Waste Management Act. I share your concern about the attempt to push this legislation through by December 19, but it seems to me that we have achieved the necessary opportunity for a fuller public consultation and these hearings basically deal with my concerns in that regard. I am satisfied that what is taking place at the present time is much closer to my idea of how we should proceed with this kind of legislation than one of trying to get the legislation through by December 19.

Mr Cousens: But you had no involvement with the ministry in the development of the bill or in discussions.

Mr Makuch: I think the ministry was aware of the environmental community's concerns around part III.

Mr Cousens: Because of your legal background, do you have any suggestions on how the Environmental Assessment Act can be changed and improved? Have you ever done any studies on that? I would be most interested. I know we are running short of time. We have such a rough Chairman. But if there were something on that, that happens to be an area -- I am really interested in seeing how we could approach it to --

The Chair: I have to ask that you take Mr Cousens' last question as notice and perhaps give us a reply in writing as there is not sufficient time to answer that question verbally.

Mr Wiseman: I am going to try to get my question in very quickly so I can hear the answer. Thank you for your kind remarks about the government providing leadership in the area of waste management.

You advocate an EPA hearing on the extension of the Keele Valley landfill. I know the minister has thought about this and has put a lot of time and effort into working that through. Have you any idea how a hearing could be done? Sometimes they can be really short and other times they can be dragged out for ever. What kind of comments can you give us in terms of that kind of background, not to mention the length of time it takes to get a bill through the House?

Mr Makuch: My sense of it is that because a lot of scoping takes place and because a lot of studies have already been done with respect to those two sites, a hearing could take as little as a month to six weeks. The biggest problem we have had so far is securing the participation of the municipalities as proponents in cooperating with the province on doing the studies and facilitating that dialogue. That is where we are running into a logjam. My appeal is to the municipalities and the province to work together to ensure a more public process, one that empowers communities to deal with these issues in an open forum like a hearing, and one that protects the integrity of the environment in a way the present approach probably will not do sufficiently.

The Chair: Did you have another question you want for the record?

Mr Wiseman: I was just going to say that this lack of cooperation and dedication to a common goal is what holds up a lot of these hearings. It is very difficult to get that kind of cooperation to do that kind of consultation.

Mr Makuch: I recognize that difficulty. I think the province has taken on this responsibility because the municipalities have dragged their agendas and have postponed any action that is effective on both disposal issues and, as well, waste reduction, so it is to be rewarded for that kind of courage.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. If there is additional information you think would be helpful to the committee, we would certainly look forward to hearing from you in writing. The questions that have been placed on the record as notice will be made available to you by the clerk. If you can provide us with a written response before February 14, it will become part of the public record. If it is after February 14, it will be distributed and considered by all members of the committee.


The Chair: I would like to call Vaughan CARES next and ask that you come forward. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. All members have received a copy of your written brief. If you would begin your presentation by introducing yourself, we would appreciate that. Please leave as much time as possible for questions from committee members. Please begin your presentation now.


Mr Ferri: My name is Mario Ferri and I speak before you today as the president of Vaughan CARES, the Committee of Associations to Restore Environmental Safety. We are a group of residents, ratepayers and environmental groups that reside in the city of Vaughan. Our concerns, however, are the concerns of the responsible residents of Ontario.

Our message today is simple and direct. Bill 143, part III, is in violation of environmental rights and protection and as such it must be removed from Bill 143. As it currently stands, Bill 143, part III calls for the extension of the Keele Valley landfill site while completely disregarding all legal rights and protection that citizens of Ontario have come to expect.

Much to our dismay, we learned of this pending piece of legislation through a third party in the middle of a municipal election. The contents of the bill struck much fear and horror into the hearts and minds of those in the near vicinity of the Keele Valley landfill site.

This bill, if approved as presented, will deny the citizens of Ontario, and indeed those of Vaughan, any legal recourse through existing legislation such as the Environmental Assessment Act, the Planning Act, the Municipal Act and the Ontario Municipal Board Act.

From the perspective of many, this bill as introduced is perceived as an act bordering on environmental terrorism: Disregard legal contracts, dispose of any certificates of approval, and in order to comply that consent or approval shall be deemed to have been given. These, in paraphrase, are the directives of Bill 143.

Living with a 30-year history of dumping in our community, we have suffered from the numerous negative social and environmental effects of Keele Valley. Over the past five years, however, Vaughan CARES, in association with its many members, has struggled to regain some control over our community life. Today, with much resolve we continue this fight. Not only have we chosen to speak for the residents of Vaughan, but for those Ontario residents who are not directly affected yet. Many are not before you today, for they do not know the hell of negotiating a community life next to a megadump. They know little of what it is like to face upwards of 1,400 trucks daily, spewing tonnes of intoxicating exhaust fumes, regular spillage of garbage on roadsides, graduating and irritating noise levels, breathing on a regular basis the cloud of dust blanketing the community, the rampage of seagulls swarming and squealing throughout the community, the mental anguish and psychological stress of wondering what health risks we expose ourselves and our children to, the rampant, menacing and migrating rodents that move about freely, the fear of this cycle never ending, and now, adding to this, the knowledge that under this bill no legal recourse, no rights and no place of legal refuge exist where we can seek shelter.

The prospect of a government edict clearing the way to site a megadump in the midst of their community without legal recourse or appeals would, I am certain, cause many residents of Ontario to rise up with great resolve and anger to demand justice and protection, as we undertake today. We call upon the committee members and the members of the NDP government, who prior to their election enjoyed the title of champions of environmental and social justice, to reconsider Bill 143 and omit part III. In rewriting the bill, I hope you will consider the following principles and entitlements which the people of Ontario aspire to:

1. Restore public trust in the process of public consultation. Demonstrate that the government of Ontario is not prepared to set this very dangerous precedent of stepping on the rights of Ontario municipalities and individuals, by withdrawing part III and thus clearly displaying that you have listened, that you have heard and that you have acted on the advice received through this committee process and public consultation.

2. Enshrine social equity in the rewriting of the bill. Demonstrate that no one community is expected to be burdened by the responsibility of accepting garbage and disposing of it with little or no regard for social, environmental and economic impact.

3. Commit to environmental integrity. Demonstrate your acceptance that our ecosystem provides the framework for all forms of life and requires protection and enhancement. Political expediency must not override the need for effective environmental assessments and processes to ensure the health and wellbeing of our residents, wildlife and natural ecology.

4. Adopt a preventive approach and reduce remedial initiatives. Demonstrate your commitment to avoiding the need for landfilling by expanding your commitment to waste reduction through mandatory source separation by all waste generators of raw materials that can be reused, composted or recycled; storage of used materials for which separation recycling facilities have yet to be established; introduction of appropriate and overdue legislation pertaining to returnable bottles, cans and other materials.

5. Assure a legacy of safe and stimulating environment for future generations. The citizens of Ontario have a right to expect protection that is fundamental to everyday life. This bill in its nature ignores fundamental rights, allocates an exorbitant amount of power to bureaucrats and prevents citizen involvement in a public process. Surely this is not the legacy we wish to leave our children.

Members of the committee, as prudent politicians I ask you on behalf of the citizens of Ontario to recognize the impact this bill will have today and in times to come. I ask you to remove part III from this bill and rewrite it in the context of what you have been hearing from the various presenters throughout this process. It seems ironic and contradictory to me that it is here in Ontario that citizens must come out and fight for basic and fundamental rights to protect their environment, to protect their communities and to protect their valued way of life.

Mr Cousens: Mr Ferri, I appreciate your presentation. I think it is a very impressive presentation on the way in which the people of Vaughan have constantly and consistently stood up for what they believe and on the way they have expressed it. I also want to compliment you on the outstanding presentation made by the mayor and legal counsel for Vaughan, who were representing the interests you are speaking of so well on today. I want you to know that it was an outstanding statement. As well, the region of York came with Chairman Eldred King and his council and gave us a presentation.

We had a presentation this morning that also touched our hearts and minds, by Lyn MacMillan. She referred to the time Mr Rae visited -- and she mentioned Vaughan CARES -- and she said, and I am quoting from her report and I want you to comment on this: "Premier Rae came to Maple before the election. He stood with us on the edge of this enormous, horrendous mass of putrifying garbage right in the heart of our town and promised us that there would never be any extension without a full environmental assessment hearing if he were elected. What hypocrisy." I am wondering whether or not you could verify that statement of the pre-election promises made by Mr Rae and the New Democrats as to what they were going to do with the Keele Valley site, and whether or not you feel they have lived up to those expectations.

Mr Ferri: It is a very well known fact that this was an event that took place. In fact, the Premier made two trips to this particular site, announcing that there would be no expansion or extension without a full environmental assessment and we were overjoyed by that promise. Of course, it was short-lived. A month after this happened there was a motion to begin proceedings to expand Keele Valley, so we were terribly disappointed. It is that public trust we are asking be reinstated through the amendment of this particular bill. We were heartened by the commitments made, not only by the Premier but also by the minister.

Mr Cousens: You met with Mrs Grier, too?

Mr Ferri: We met with the minister well before the election on two occasions and she assured us that under their leadership this travesty would not be allowed to continue and we took heart from that as well, and so you can see that there was a double --

Mr Cousens: How much longer do I have?

The Chair: You have two minutes.

Mr Cousens: I am going to pass the time to Mrs Marland. Is there anyone who was there when Mr Rae and Mrs Grier made these statements, so that I could have some kind of proof that it was said? It seems to be hearsay and I have not been able to get the evidence from Mr Rae that he ever said it. He will not admit to saying that.

Mr Ferri: The commitment to the environmental assessment was made by then-candidate, now-Premier Bob Rae with the local candidate.

Mr Cousens: Were you there?

Mr Ferri: I was not there at the time it was made.

Mr Cousens: I cannot find anyone who was.

Mr Ferri: The candidate who ran in that riding was there. She made that remark to me and confirmed the fact it was made, so that would be another way to get that.


Mr Wiseman: I want to begin by saying that this decision within this bill is not one any of us have taken lightly. It was a very major decision and it represents some considerable angst on the part of a lot of us. I do not know if you can recognize that fact. As a founding member of Pickering Ajax Citizens Together, or PACT, in 1987, I have been confronted with a similar situation as you have with the Brock West landfill site, and prior to that the Beare Road landfill site since 1962.

The devastation you describe in your community is felt throughout Pickering in an equal amount. There are days when the seagulls land at the Pickering town centre and cover the parking lot from one corner to the next. The number of trucks that go in there have averaged one a minute for 15 years. There are evenings when you cannot sit in Pickering, even as far away as southern Ajax where I live, when the Brock West landfill site will not disturb your enjoyment of your own property.

It is not easy for me to sit here and make this kind of decision. But at the same time as I say that, the region of Durham put Pickering back on the table with the P1 site under the Environmental Protection Act, which would again subject the people of Pickering to that process. The township of York used Keele Valley as its interim site under the same short-term circumstances. So I can sympathize with you.

But the one thing in this process that I have a great deal of faith in is the section of the Interim Waste Authority draft document that says consideration should be given to municipalities and towns that have already suffered the long history of landfills and that this fact should become one of the major criteria in the siting of any long-term sites. If this bill fails, that fails too. I would like you to make some comments on that part of the process.

Mr Ferri: With respect to the approaches to the bill and so on, I am not familiar with how it works. However, our contention is that if you remove part III and continue with the other parts, it may not require that to happen. I am not familiar with whether that is possible under your procedures.

But the fundamental issue here is, do we have rights and do we have recourse to legal processes or not? The bill clearly states that we do not. I think that is the overriding issue. I am not prepared to give up the right to appeal, the right to intervene in a way that is fair and equitable to residents of Ontario. I am not prepared to give that up.

Mr McClelland: Let me start where you concluded. It seems ironic that we are here fighting for some fundamental rights, and that is what you said. I might suggest, sir, and to those who might be watching, that unless people like yourself come out in force and make their displeasure known, I am afraid that based on what we have heard so far from members of the government caucus you had better be prepared to live with the impact of Bill 143.

I agree with you that it is fundamentally unjust. As was so well said this morning, it is contrary to everything that was promised. As you so well pointed out, it is a complete reversal of the "principles and entitlement which the people of Ontario aspire to." They were principles that were enunciated as you say, by the then-candidate for Premier. Basically the message is, "We have principles, but if they do not fit we will have other principles, and if you do not like those principles, we will have other principles, and whatever principles we want, we will act on." There is no consistency whatsoever.

You say, sir, in your brief on page 2 "but for those Ontario residents who are not directly affected yet" the implications of Bill 143 are very evident. I congratulate you for pointing that out.

We heard representation from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario that the government will say, "We won't use that authority," but the authority lies within the bill to impose by regulation the draconian measures of Bill 143 anywhere in the province.

I would ask you, and the people of Ontario, to respond to a government that would say: "We won't use that authority and we won't use that power. Don't worry. Trust us, because we may not even have to go ahead with the lift on Keele. We may find a way to proceed and give you a full hearing." This morning Mrs MacMillan said that is, to use her word, "rubbish"; no pun intended. That is exactly what it is. Given the potential impact of Bill 143, how do you respond as somebody who represents Vaughan CARES to the assurance given by this government to the people all across Ontario ultimately: "Not to worry. Trust us. We have principles"?

Mr Ferri: It is difficult to accept the fact that already we have a certificate of approval, which represents a legal document, that is about to be scrapped. We have promises that were made to us during the election. We have a number of other commitments that have been made to us, but there is very little evidence of this actually coming to fruition. We stand by the notion that we must have legislation to protect, and ways of enforcing the legislation, that will be equitable across Ontario. I am not satisfied with the promises. I am not satisfied with the potential of it not being used. I am fearful of those kinds of commitments. As it is, we have grown to doubt even existing legislation, because it too can be overridden with the stroke of the pen at a very easy pace, and we are fearful of that.

We hope the committee and the government will recommend enforceable legislation so that we can reassure our residents that there are protections and ways of recourse and appeals in the event that those are not upheld.

Mrs Marland: You were talking about the promises made by the now Premier and the now Minister of the Environment. It is hard for you to say how you recall hearing that they stood and made these promises at that time. They did the same thing in Peel. Certainly I know there are television clips available. Does any of your group have access to those news clips that show them making these promises? They did it in Marmora as well, beside the pit.

Mr Ferri: Unfortunately we did not request a copy of that for our files, thinking that this is potentially the Premier of Ontario and that his word would be sufficient. We were unfortunately of the belief that would be sufficient. We did not request it. We have been searching that out. We have not as yet been able to secure that, but we will continue the search.

The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you very much for appearing before us today. If there is additional information that you think would be helpful to us, you can submit that in writing over the course of our hearings. Do you have a question for the record, Mr Wiseman?

Mr Wiseman: Yes, I do. Actually I have two. If the extention of the Keele Valley landfill site does take place, what would you recommend as the minimum public consultation that should occur? There have been proposals for community involvement and for a shortened hearing and what are your thoughts on that? The second question is, if this section of the bill were to be deleted and the garbage gap appears, how would you suggest meeting the need for a landfill site in the future?

The Chair: Do you have a question for the record, Mr McClelland?

Mr McClelland: I do and I want to give credit that the genesis of this question lies with Mr Cousens. Mr Ferri, would you, as president of your organization, canvass your membership to determine which individuals, if there are any individuals, were present and can give a firsthand accounting of what they heard spoken by the now Premier and the now Minister of the Environment with respect to promises you have referred to. If you would be good enough to canvass your membership and advise both Mr Cousens and myself, and indeed all members of the committee, we would appreciate that.


The Chair: The questions that have just been asked will be given to you in writing by the clerk and we would appreciate it if you would answer in writing. As I have said before, if we receive them before February 14, they will become part of the public record. If it is after February 14, it will be shared with all members of the committee.


The Chair: I would like to call next W. J. Palmer Consultants Inc. Please come forward. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We ask that you begin by introducing yourself to the members of the committee, and if possible leave as much time as you can for questions from committee members.

Mr Palmer: My name is Bill Palmer. I am the president of W. J. Palmer Consultants Inc. We do environmental management consulting. My firm operates out of and I live in St Catharines in the beautiful Niagara Peninsula.

Ms Haeck: That it is.

The Chair: Ms Haeck agrees with you.

Ms Haeck: That it is beautiful.

Mr Palmer: First, I would like to thank the committee for accepting my request for an appointment, allowing me the opportunity to convey to you my thoughts regarding Bill 143.

My background in waste management and the environmental field extends over a period of 12 years. From 1980 to 1990 I was employed by one of Canada's leading waste management companies. My responsibilities included dealings with private sector waste generators, municipalities, and regional and provincial authorities. Dealing with non-hazardous waste during those 10 years, I am very familiar with the process of collection, landfilling, incineration, blue box, reduction, reuse and recycling. Two years ago I formed my own company and as a consultant on environmental issues I continue to deal with the same classification of clients previously mentioned, as well as waste management companies of all sizes.

I am very familiar with terms like "corrugated cardboard problems," "old tires," "newsprint glut," "reduction in the prices of recycled commodities," "refillable bottles" and the "garbage gap." As an individual who is seriously concerned about the environment and its effects on our future generations, I hope to leave you with some thoughts for your consideration.

I would like to make a simple one-line statement that the four parts of this proposed legislation, in my opinion, are of such a serious nature that personally I would like to have seen them dealt with in four separate bills. That is a comment, with no further discussion of that on my part.

With regard to part I, the Interim Waste Authority, I am gravely concerned when I read subsection 10(2) and see words like "force," "execute," "warrant" and "police officers." This proposed legislation does not give the property owner any rights, and the property owner can very easily become, and I quote, "guilty of an offence" under subsection 11(4).

I find these measures archaic and am very concerned that inspectors would be given such power to obtain entry to private property. I respectfully ask this committee to revisit this proposed piece of legislation and keep in mind that many foreign countries have recently fought hard for and won a battle to obtain the basics of civil rights. Please consider the consequences this legislation could have.

Regarding part II, the criteria in long-term site selection process, I find this section extremely confusing and too open-ended. Based on past practice and what is happening today with regard to the alternatives for waste disposal in Ontario, I would like to have a comfort level that the ministry has a game plan, when under subsection 14(1) the bill allows the agency to eliminate any options to landfilling other than the 3Rs. I am a strong supporter of reduction, reuse and recycling, but it would be fundamentally wrong to eliminate alternatives such as incineration and the transporting of waste outside the areas where the waste is generated.

To add to the confusion -- to my confusion anyway -- subsection 14(2) says the GTA will not be allowed to ship waste, yet section 29 of the act will allow directors to order other municipalities to ship or accept waste from other municipalities. I feel very strongly that this is not fair to the GTA and it also has the distinct possibility of causing serious problems between municipalities. The GTA is not the only area, in my opinion, that has a crisis. There is a serious garbage problem throughout Ontario and I would like to see all the regions across the province work together to solve this serious problem.

A week ago tonight, Premier Rae was on television and shortly after announcing what the increases would be to the hospitals, schools and universities, he sent out a challenge. He asked for cooperation. He urged hospital boards and school boards to get together to try to come up with some unique initiatives in order that they would be able to use common denominator areas and minimize their costs. What better opportunity do we have in this province of Ontario right now than to get all the regions together and to work on this serious problem that we have?

Tongue in cheek, I suggest that maybe the thousands of Ontario residents who visit the GTA each year should bring a green garbage bag with them and take back home the waste they produce.

Under subsections 13(1) and (2) I am again extremely concerned. Subsection 13(1) says the MOE will tell the agency the tonnage diversion from landfills as a result of the 3Rs programs. Subsection 13(2) says the agency will use estimates provided by the minister when determining capacity for each of the landfills. I believe the agency should conduct its own research and determine its own diversion and capacity estimates, thus eliminating the possible conflicts.

Under part III, the implementation of the minister's report, I would simply like to make two comments. Since nowhere in this proposed legislation is the private sector mentioned, perhaps when searching to establish emergency facilities as ordered by the ministry, municipalities should be encouraged to negotiate with the private sector to set up and operate such emergency facilities. I feel there would be substantial economic benefits to the municipalities when dealing with the private sector waste management companies.

My second comment is that before exercising the power to override the various pieces of legislation such as the Environmental Protection Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Ontario Municipal Board Act, the Planning Act etc, the minister must be satisfied that emergencies in fact do exist in view of the lower landfill volumes. They have been and will continue to be affected by the economy, by shipments of waste out of the province and by recycling initiatives. As well, a close survey should be taken to examine private sector sites, particularly those in the process of an expansion application now. If it is deemed that there is still an emergency, then the government should go through the Environmental Protection Act to establish the feasibility of expansion.


With regard to part IV, the amendments to the Environmental Protection Act, I would first like to comment on section 22, which amends section 2 of the current EPA, and I quote the following subsections.

"(2) No action taken under this act is invalid by reason only that the action was taken for the purpose of the protection, conservation or management of the environment outside Ontario's borders."

"(3) Subsection (2) applies even if the action was taken before the coming into force of that subsection."

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, there has been a great deal of discussion recently within the private sector waste management companies as to whether or not the Ministry of the Environment is going to close down the Ontario borders to waste exporting. In view of the fact that the minister and the ministry have turned a blind eye to the export of waste from the GTA, for obvious reasons, it is imperative that this section be clarified. Is the minister going to close the borders to the exporting of waste, and if so, when?

I believe there are well over one million tonnes of waste being exported annually from the GTA. In view of the glut and the gap, etc, what will the ramifications be if this tonnage is suddenly on the doorstep? Does the ministry have any idea what the private sector waste management companies have committed to in order to export waste out of Ontario? I believe the minister should concentrate on the problems in Ontario and not on what are perceived to be problems outside Ontario. Until such time as Ontario is in a position to handle these wastes, the legal export of garbage to properly licensed and operated sites outside Ontario's boundaries should be permitted.

Further to part IV, I am concerned about the amount of control without accountability the directors could have over the waste management activities in the municipalities. The government wants the authority but has not made it clear how it is going to use the legislation. As mentioned earlier, there appears to be no consideration or inclusion of the private sector waste management companies in this legislation. Am I to interpret this to mean that waste management issues are and will be strictly between the ministry and the municipalities?

In Ontario, there are between 300 to 400 waste-hauling companies employing thousands of people. Where is the private sector involvement? I get the feeling that the government does not know the private waste management sector exists, yet the private sector has been a pioneer in many unique initiatives in waste management.

I would like to comment briefly on the regulatory measures to achieve Ontario's waste reduction targets. Section 29 states what will be prohibited under the amendment with regard to the waste generator, and I quote:

"77(1) No person shall use, offer for sale or sell any packaging, container or disposable product or any material for use in packaging, containers or disposable products contrary to this act or the regulations.

"(2) No person shall use, offer for sale or sell any product that is declared in the regulations to be a product that poses waste management problems contrary to this act or the regulations."

As there appears to be no definition of the term "waste management problem" in this legislation, I can see serious problems when trying to consult future clients on this issue since there can be many different opinions by the ministry as to what product poses a waste management problem. I simply ask, how will this section apply to imported goods that come into the province? Answers and clarification are needed on this issue.

As time is running short, I would like to conclude my remarks by thanking those responsible for these hearings. It would have been a tragedy if Bill 143 was allowed to receive third reading and royal assent without your having heard from the witnesses who have made presentations to this committee. Having followed these proceedings as closely as possible in the time allowed, I urge the committee to seriously consider the remarks made by the presenters and to quickly assess the common denominator factors.

Consider that the power that is proposed to be given to inspectors is far too reaching. Alternatives to landfills and the 3Rs must not be ruled out. There must be public input when dealing with the GTA gap. Transportation of waste out of the GTA to other provincial regions must be given proper consideration. A thorough review of existing landfill sites in the province that are well engineered and well managed and are seeking expansion approvals must be considered.

Clarification is needed on the minister's position on the exporting of waste out of the province. Acknowledge the private sector waste management companies and let them become very much involved. Clarify the position on products that will pose a waste management problem. Last but not least, we must all continue with the education and public awareness programs that will allow us to achieve the goal of diversion of 50% by the year 2000.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. I am going to permit only questions for the record and ask you to respond in writing because of the shortness of time.

Mr Palmer: Of course, Madam Chair.

Ms Haeck: I want to raise the question of incineration and transportation outside the GTA. I was wondering if you were advocating, in light of your comment on page 9, that possibly Niagara should become a repository of GTA waste.

Mrs Mathyssen: Since the provisions in parts I and II of the act are consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, do you feel that the much broader powers that are currently available to municipalities and other government agencies should be removed? Second, is it not legitimate that agencies acting for the public good be allowed access to lands? We heard from the mayor of Mississauga that she encountered a great deal of problems siting a landfill site because they could not access land. I wonder if you could comment.

Mr Cousens: It is hard to ask a question after such an excellent presentation, but the question has to do with the quantities of waste being shipped outside the province. I have a hard time getting information as to how much and where, so if you have anything on that, I would be -- even myself alone, but with the whole committee, I do not care.

The Chair: We appreciate your appearing before the committee today. The clerk will make available to you those questions members have posed. If you wish, we would appreciate it if you would communicate the answers in writing. Further, if there is any additional information that you think might be helpful to the committee, we would appreciate it if you would communicate that to us as well.


The Chair: I would like to call next the Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario and ask that you come forward and begin your presentation by introducing yourselves to the committee. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We would appreciate it if you would leave as much time as possible for questions from the committee members, but as time is short, as you saw with the previous witness, if that is not possible, I will ask the committee members to place their questions on the record and you can respond in writing at a later date. Please begin your presentation now.

Ms James: My name is Erica James and I am vice-president of the Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario. I have with me Joseph Castrilli, one of the prime authors of our submission, together with Marilyn Lee and Dickson Wood.

We are very proud of the efforts the Canadian Bar Association is able to put into its submissions. We are in a somewhat unique position because we are able to combine the input of both those who have to practise within the confines of the law and those who have the duty to uphold the law from the other side as the prosecution. With that I would like to hand it over to Joseph Castrilli.


Mr Castrilli: I will attempt to be as brief as I can, recognizing the lateness of the day.

The focus of the Canadian Bar Association examination of Bill 143 centres on the impacts the bill may have on several key environmental statutes as well as on the institutional arrangements between provincial and municipal governments, the private sector and the public in relation to protecting the environment in the field of waste management.

In this regard, the comments and submissions of the bar association on this bill can really be divided into two main concerns: First, what does this bill do to the future role of public hearings which have historically played a significant part in waste management and environmental decision-making in this province? Second, what does this bill do to the future role of municipal governments as managers of domestic waste?

On both points it is fair to say that Bill 143 introduces confusion into the law where confusion did not previously exist. Moreover, the degree to which it can be said that this bill has the potential to cause erosion of both public and municipal involvement in waste management law and decision-making in this province is where we believe the standing committee will have to devote considerable attention in the coming days.

To assist the committee in its endeavours with respect to these two issues, we would like to provide you with several brief examples from the bill that illustrate the potential problems, which are outlined in more detail in our written submissions.

First, with respect to the issue of the role of the public, it can fairly be said that section 30 of the Environmental Protection Act is one of the cornerstones of modern public involvement in environmental decision-making in the waste management field. It is one of the first sections of its kind in the environmental law area in Canada and has now served the province very well for the last two decades.

As you are aware, section 30 makes it mandatory for the director to require the Environmental Assessment Board to hold a hearing where the director receives an application for the establishment or extension of a waste disposal site to accommodate the waste of the equivalent of 1,500 or more individuals. It is this section in particular at which part III of the bill takes direct aim.

As the committee is aware, despite section 30 of the Environmental Protection Act, under section 18 of the bill the director may issue or amend a certificate of approval for a waste disposal site or system without requiring the Environmental Assessment Board to hold a hearing, if the certificate is being issued or amended to enable a municipality to comply with section 17 of the bill. As the committee is undoubtedly aware, section 17 requires compliance with a section 29 report of the minister directed to extension of one or more specifically identified landfills in the bill itself.

Other provisions of section 18 of the bill allow written submissions to be made by any person to the director, but the director, while he is required to consider those submissions, is not required to hold a hearing or to give any further notice in respect of any decision he or she may take. These amendments are a far cry from the situation under the existing section 30 and they illustrate the degree to which great confusion and uncertainty has been introduced for the public with respect to its entitlement to a hearing.

The bar association has recommended that the ministry clarify the circumstances under which Bill 143 could result in a hearing taking place, particularly since there is a 1989 Ministry of the Environment policy on using the Environmental Protection Act hearing requirement with respect to interim expansion of landfill sites where the project may otherwise be exempted from the Environmental Assessment Act.

It should also be noted that if there is no hearing under the Environmental Protection Act, then the ability of any person to make submissions to the director under section 18 is substantially undermined because he will not have access to intervenor funding under the Intervenor Funding Project Act. Without funding assistance very few members of the public will have the financial resources to assist in making meaningful technical submissions to the director under part III.

It should also be noted that participant funding under section 16 of the bill, which is really directed to part II, does not appear to cover the issue of submissions to the director with respect to part III. I think it is fair to say that participant funding is not required under part II of the bill; it is simply being recognized as something that may voluntarily occur.

There are a number of other examples with respect to the issue of public entitlement to influence waste management decisions that I just briefly want to refer you to. The first is section 15, which states that the minister may establish policies for the purposes of part II, which as you are aware is with respect to long-term expansion of sites under the Environmental Assessment Act. The section is silent as to what public consultation will precede the release of such policies. The section, in our view, should outline the ministry's intent in this regard.

Section 33 is another key section in this regard. It states that regulations may be made "deeming a certificate of approval to exist in respect of a waste management system or waste disposal site." The bar association was very unclear as to what the ministry intends with respect to this section. It is a very unusual section and authority in this regard. Normally a certificate of approval for a waste disposal site can only be issued after a public hearing under either part V of the Environmental Protection Act or indeed under the Environmental Assessment Act itself.

Section 33 creates potentially great confusion with respect to several existing sections of the Environmental Protection Act; for example, section 27, which says that no person can establish a waste management system or waste disposal site without a certificate; section 30, the mandatory hearing section I referred you to earlier, and section 32, the discretionary public hearing section for non-section 30 situations. Nothing in Bill 143 appears to clarify the relationship between section 33 of Bill 143 and the sections I just mentioned to you. It is our view that the committee should clarify this situation.

Let me briefly turn to the role of municipal government. You have undoubtedly heard quite a number of submissions in the last week and a half about the role of municipal governments with respect to waste management decision-making in this province. I will not repeat any of that. I just want to refer to a couple of key sections of Bill 143 which have the potential for creating some degree of uncertainty and confusion with respect to the future role of municipal governments.

Section 26 is probably the key one in this regard. As you are aware, it adds to the requirements of the existing section 29 of the Environmental Protection Act. Section 29 provides the minister with broad authority to issue reports to municipalities with respect to the establishment or extension of waste management facilities; the amendments in this regard simply extend that authority to the minister.

Historically section 29 has been a comparatively little used section in this province. However, in light of the ministry's renewed interest in this section and its proposed amendments, it would appear to be a timely moment for the committee to examine what the future expected use of this section may be and what its relationship to municipalities may be, given the section's potential for significant impact on municipal waste management authority.

The section as amended could, for example, be used to require municipalities to collect waste that they have historically had no responsibility for, such as institutional, commercial or industrial waste. In addition, the section does not appear to contemplate appeals from a minister's order and appears to adopt inconsistent policies with respect to the issue of waste export and waste import.

Moreover, in light of the ministry's renewed interest in section 29 of the Environmental Protection Act, it is unclear whether municipalities are to be deprived of the rights they might otherwise be entitled to under both the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Protection Act. This is a significant section on which the ministry should clarify its intentions.

I just want to refer to one other section of the bill and then I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. Section 24 redefines a "waste management system" as including any "arrangements" carried out for the collection, handling, transportation, storage and disposal of waste. The bar association was uncertain what is intended by the word "arrangements." The section has the potential for requiring a municipality that merely collects waste to apply for a certificate of approval under the Environmental Protection Act. It is unclear whether this is the ministry's intention and should be clarified so that some degree of certainty can be provided to those who may be required to apply for a certificate and at this point in time are uncertain as to that under the bill.

We have noted in our written submissions, both with respect to the issue of the role of the public and the role of municipal governments, greater detail with respect to these sections and various other sections that we directed our attention to. We look forward to assisting the committee in developing Bill 143 further. We would be pleased to answer any of your questions at this time.


Mr Cousens: Could you clarify how your association links with the Canadian Environmental Law Association? We had a presentation earlier this afternoon from the Canadian Environmental Law Association -- they are all members of the bar -- and now from yourselves. There is quite a difference in the approach and the philosophy of both groups.

Mr Castrilli: There is no relationship between the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Environmental Law Association, although members of the Canadian Environmental Law Association can be members of the Canadian Bar Association.

Mr Cousens: One of the questions that came up in the presentation by the region of York when Eldred King made a presentation, and it was referred to as well in the city of Vaughan's presentation, had to do with charter provisions where under the Charter of Rights there might well be challenges to this bill on the way in which it intrudes on individuals' rights. Have you any sense on that?

Mr Castrilli: I have had the opportunity to listen to the comments of Mr Lederer in this regard. I believe he was the counsel for the city of Vaughan. I really cannot add to any of the comments Mr Lederer suggested to you at that time.

Mr Martin: You have provided a very thorough analysis of the Waste Management Act. The minister's report, referred to in section 17, sets out public involvement programs for the extension of the two landfills. This would provide early and ongoing public input into the environmental studies. Have you reviewed these reports, and if so, what is your comment?

Mr Castrilli: I think the focus of the bar association's initiatives with respect to this package has been directed to Bill 143: What does Bill 143 authorize? What does it permit? What does it require? On the face of Bill 143 itself, we have concerns, the concerns we have outlined in our submissions to you. What may occur beyond the scope of Bill 143 is not really something we have yet had an opportunity to direct our attention to.

Mr McClelland: I wonder if you might clarify something. Mr Cousens ran out of time. You said you have nothing to add. Do I take it from that that you essentially accept the submissions made?

Mr Castrilli: I am sorry if I was unclear about that. Yes, I do.

Mr McClelland: So you find them to be well-founded in terms of interpretation of law. Elucidation of his position, you say, requires nothing further in as much as it is fairly comprehensive.

Mr Castrilli: What I am suggesting is that Mr Lederer's response to the question put to him at the time is one I concur with, to the extent he dealt with the matter that was raised.

Mr McClelland: As members of the CBAO, one of your concerns certainly is in terms of making life easier for practitioners, so we know what we are dealing with. Do you see Bill 143 in terms of its practical application as problematic, where the profession in the day-to-day life of providing legal services to -- whether it be municipalities, other government levels and/or the private sector?

Mr Castrilli: I think it is fair to say that those of us who reviewed this bill had a concern about the degree to which the bill confuses precepts that had, as far as we were concerned, been well established under the existing law, and about the degree to which the bill had the potential, in bringing forward new issues, to make the understanding of those who might be directed to undertake various actions under the bill more complex and confusing. From the standpoint of a practitioner, it would be somewhat more difficult to provide advice to a client under the scope of Bill 143 than perhaps is necessary. I see the opportunity to appear before this committee, and indeed the committee's opportunity to look at Bill 143, as an opportunity to clarify those concerns.

Mr McClelland: In practical terms, the law is for the most part -- although those who are not lawyers would probably disagree -- founded on the basis of providing as much precision and certainty as possible. Do you feel that Bill 143's reliance on undertakings given by the minister, the expression of policy in the future, the assurances, to use some of the words that have been floated around, are a sufficient basis upon which you can render any kind of meaningful opinion to clients?

Mr Castrilli: In this area of the law, one almost always must take cognizance not only of the plain words of the statute and the plain words of any regulations that might exist, but also what policy documents may exist that flesh out gaps in the legislation. One must always have regard to those matters. But in the first instance, I think it is important that the statute get the precepts correct, get them clear to a degree that it is open to anybody reading the act to be able to provide advice to his client in a reasonable way; that is to a substantial degree what we have been concerned about with respect to Bill 143.

The Chair: I know you have been here for a little while so you will know I have said to other presenters that if there is additional information you think would be helpful to the committee, we would like you to feel free to submit it to us in writing. At any time over the course of these hearings, any information we receive in written form prior to February 14 will become part of the public record. We appreciate your appearing before the committee today.


The Chair: I would like to call next Glen Shields Community Association. Please come forward. Have a seat. Speak into the microphone. Hansard will pick up everything you say. The Hansards are available within a couple of weeks, correct?

Clerk of the Committee: Give or take a few days.

The Chair: The clerk says give or take a few days. They are available at Publications Ontario at 880 Bay. All the proceedings of these hearings are covered word for word and are available for anyone interested in purchasing them. Would you please begin your presentation now. Introduce yourself and leave a few minutes for questions if you would.

Mr Bottero: My name is Dino Bottero. I am president of the Glen Shields Community Association. The community association represents some 4,000 ratepayers in the Dufferin-Steeles portion of the city of Vaughan.

As a community association we are very concerned with both the contents of Bill 143 and the revisions being considered. I am here today to address issues of fairness, equity of process, morality of decision-making and the impact on the people of the city of Vaughan. While the Keele Valley dump site is specifically in Maple, all citizens in the city of Vaughan are affected.

Residents of Maple and elected leaders of the city of Vaughan had agreed to allow accelerated dumping in the Keele Valley site. By agreement, the site was to close in the year 2000 when a defined contour level was achieved. The residents of Maple put up with an accelerated time frame for dumping, hoping that the dump would be closed in 1992. They tolerated 1,400 heavy-duty garbage and associated trucks ripping through their community per day. They have tolerated the debris, high levels of dust in the air they breathe and pungent odour, which on summer days is spread over wider areas. They tolerated this because they knew and believed that the provincial government and its agent, the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, would cease landfill operations by the year 1992 or 1993 or when the contour level would be attained.

What do they get in 1992, when the contour line is now fast approaching? They are told that the life of the dump will be extended. It is slated to go higher: higher so odours can be spread over a wider area; higher so more strain can be put on the liner, whose status, from most accounts, is uncertain; higher so it can be seen from a more distant area. On top of all this, the landfill slated for closure is now to take Peel's and Durham's garbage. The garbage that comes from the south will now also come from the east and west.

What do the residents of Vaughan, and more particularly those in Maple get for their suffering? They get nothing. Bill 143 does not introduce any measures to offset the impact of dump expansion on the people in Maple.

Bill 143, in section 19, introduced the concept of fairness through injurious affection. It at least recognized some obligations of the government, since its actions would impact on land owners and those who live in the area. It seemed eminently proper, reasonable and consistent with principles of fairness that injurious affection would be recognized and distributed to those whose properties were being affected negatively by the sudden expansion of dumping.

On the first day of hearings on Bill 143, I was disappointed to hear the minister say it was her intention to scrap the injurious affection provisions because it would set a precedent. I ask, what precedent? Yes, the precedent of fairness and responsibility. I urge the committee to leave in the provision for injurious affection, since property owners and home owners will be denied recourse. The few remaining options would be for litigation, which unfortunately is beyond the means of most people.

I understand Metropolitan Toronto has in the order of $200 million in its reserve account for garbage. A good portion of this has come from tipping fees earned at Keele Valley. All this money goes to Metropolitan Toronto. Why does not some of this money remain in the city of Vaughan, more particularly to be set aside as a fund to establish some benefits for those in the Maple area? Many things can be done. These can include the rerouting of traffic, the providing of a golf course, offering rebates on property taxes and a host of other things.


The bill proposes to eliminate our rights, which we enjoy under the Planning Act, the Municipal Act, the Ontario Municipal Board Act and a series of other acts. We have heard so much about protecting the environment. What about protecting the people? Liaison committees to deal with the public are a nice gesture, but they will have lost any meaningfulness unless specifically given rights and powers in the bill.

We have more recently noticed increased volumes of garbage-related vehicles along Dufferin Street adjacent to the Glen Shields area. What recourse do we have, since acts, including the acts which created the city of Vaughan, have been suspended in dealing with this issue? Our local leaders will have become voiceless and I fear our actions only toothless.

I submit that Bill 143 represents an irresponsible document since it does not introduce or enshrine safeguards for the residents of the Maple area and the city of Vaughan as a whole. It permits for unparalleled intensification of dump activities from Metropolitan Toronto, along with the regional municipalities of Peel and Durham. I would suggest that the minister devise a plan of compensation for the people of the Maple area and that the provision for injurious affection be retained in the bill.

In summary, city residents, and more particularly those in the Maple area, have had to suffer. They were told that a facility slated for closure is now being expanded. The municipality had gone ahead in good faith and made certain planning and land use decisions based upon closing of the dump. Families moved into the area with assurances by virtue of an agreement signed by the city, the region, Metropolitan Toronto and the province that the dump would be closed at an anticipated date. Now the dump is going to be expanded and in fact go higher, which is an eyesore, a visual contaminant and a potential environmental disaster, given the state of the liner.

There is nothing wrong with compensation. This is only fair and consistent with responsible government. I see nothing in the bill that would introduce any measures to help offset the impact of the dump on the people of the city, nothing at all. We find it to be a very high-handed measure that does away with many of our safeguards as citizens.

We urge the committee to amend the bill to reflect these concerns and to introduce mechanisms to compensate those in Maple and the city as a whole.

Mrs Mathyssen: I was quite interested in the questions you posed at the top of page 4. It is my understanding that the original agreement regarding Keele Valley was an agreement between York region and Metro. Your questions at the top of page 4: Basically there is $200 million. Why does all the money go to Metro? Why can some of it not remain in the city of Vaughan and be used for the benefit of people there? Have you asked these questions of the York council and of the Vaughan city council?

Mr Bottero: I am sure the city of Vaughan council would love to have some of that money come back to them. Have we specifically appeared as a delegation to ask that of city council members? We have not. The only thing is that it seems to me, since it is a brand-new ball game now, perhaps some of these issues could be addressed.

Mrs Mathyssen: Okay.

Mr Cousens: I want to congratulate you for an excellent presentation. I think the people of Glen Shields are well represented by their president today.

Mr Bottero: Thank you.

Mr Cousens: I would say that the sincerity that comes through is very meaningful. An earlier presentation, Vaughan CARES, was here today. We have had the mayor of Vaughan make a presentation, as well as the chairman of the region, Eldred King, and legal counsel for both sides. I want you to know that you have been very well served. Their presentations are certainly remarkable, by the preparation and thought that went into them, as with yours.

We had a presentation by a Mrs MacMillan today. She had a number of points to make that had to do with the guarantees, as she interpreted them, from a campaigner during the election campaign leading up to September 6. At the time, Mr Rae was the Leader of the Opposition and was near the Keele Valley landfill site and made a number of promises. It is attributed to him that he said there would be a full environmental assessment and public hearings before there would be any change to that site. I understand as well that the present Minister of the Environment, Ruth Grier, made similar statements to people. I wonder whether you as well have heard some of those statements made by the man who is now Premier and the woman who is now Minister of the Environment, prior to their taking office.

Mr Bottero: I have never heard them directly.

Mr Cousens: There is a certain feeling within the community of betrayal by a politician who makes statements prior to an election and then does something different afterwards.

We are concerned. Certainly I am, and my colleague from the Liberals, Mr McClelland. We are trying to confirm exactly what was said by Mr Rae and Mrs Grier on that. If they said they would do everything they could to fight the expansion of Keele Valley before the election, your submission today should not be required by virtue of that.

I am concerned as well with the trucks you talk about going up Dufferin. Have you been in consultation with York regional police and other officers within York region to see what we can do to stop them from going up there? I think you are raising quite another important issue I had not been aware of. That kind of traffic creates another set of problems. I thought there was an approved route they had to use. Is there anyone tracking those trucks to see if they are going to the landfill site? Is there any further action that maybe we can help you with through this committee?

Mr Bottero: Our community association has not really undertaken anything formal, only the things we have noticed over the past couple of months -- an increase in truck-related traffic. Part of the difficulty is that the clay itself is being trucked in from Whitchurch-Stouffville. When there are 1,400 vehicles a day, I am sure you will always get a few that are going to spill off and maybe not go by the approved route, if somebody wants to take a shortcut. With the increased dumping that will occur there, or from more sources, we are very concerned that the amount of truck traffic will increase, and we are very concerned about what recourse we will have.

Mr Cousens: Could I ask if the Ministry of the Environment staff would have any comments on trucks and vehicles using routes other than those that were established, and what action could be taken either by yourselves or the community to respond to that concern?

The Chair: Mr Cousens, that will be taken as notice.

Mr McClelland: On page 3 of your brief you talk about "principles of fairness." I would like to pursue this with you for the few moments we have. I guess it flows in part from the question put by my colleague Mrs Mathyssen. She talked about the fact that it would be very nice if York had some of that money and you were the beneficiaries of it. One of the difficulties with Bill 143 is that what it essentially says is that the province will control and dictate what is to take place, but the municipalities will bear the burden. I think that is something in terms of fairness. It is for that reason that, in part, I support what the municipalities have said, that they do not like section 19, which you support.

Let me put this question to you in the context as follows: The municipalities do not like section 19 because they say they do not have any control over this, yet are the ones who might have to pay the cost in terms of injurious affection. Do you think in terms of principles of fairness that section 19, if it were to remain, would appropriately leave the responsibility with those who are dictating, in other words the province or perhaps the Interim Waste Authority? They are the ones, after all, who are dictating the policy. Why then should the municipality have to pay the cost? That is the question the municipalities are asking. That is why the minister said, "We will withdraw that section."

Mr Bottero: My understanding is that the regional municipality of York has asked the committee to keep injurious affection. Personally I think having it in would at least acknowledge some of the obligations, because my reading of the bill was that any moneys that could be paid out in injurious affection are to come from tipping fees, which I suppose reinforces the government's idea that it is a user-pay situation. Any of these funds would not come from the public purse but strictly from tipping fees, and the money earned in that source would stay in that area.

Mr McClelland: I just wanted to put that in context for you to understand where the other municipalities are coming from. They are saying, "We find this very difficult to live with, inasmuch as it is the government of Ontario through the IWA that is imposing this solution, and yet we will be held responsible for the cost."

Mr Bottero: I believe it was Metropolitan Toronto that wanted it out because it felt it was not limited enough in scope.

Mr McClelland: And the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and Peel region and so forth.

Mr Wiseman: My first comment is by way of a piece of information. I do not know if it is the same in Maple as it is in Pickering, but in the early days of the Brock West landfill site, Pickering was allowed to dump in there at reduced tipping fees and perhaps Maple has the same deal. Along that line of financing, there is a rebate program in place for Durham region to dump in the Brock West landfill site and get a rebate from Metropolitan Toronto based on the tipping. What is ironic about it is that the Durham Board of Education pays full fees for tipping in the Brock West landfill site and Metropolitan Toronto's board of education does not pay anything at all.

My comment is on your 1992 projections in terms of closing. In Pickering we had 1989 dates. Why did you think it would be a 1992 closing? Do you have the contour maps and stuff like that?

Mr Bottero: That is based on various discussions with staff and political people at the city of Vaughan who indicated that the agreement called for dumping until the year 2000 or until a certain contour level was hit. In 1989, if a person was buying a house in the Maple area and they inquired at the municipality when the dump would be closed, he would have been told it would more than likely be in 1992, perhaps some time in 1993, because based on the accelerated dumping that was occurring, certain decisions were made.

To answer your other question about municipalities getting rebates back, I do not know about that. I do know that if I put five bags of garbage out in front of my house, the garbage man will always leave one. The maximum they can take in the city of Vaughan is four. I do not know if that translates itself into meaning anything, if the municipality is getting a rebate back at the dump source itself.

Mr Wiseman: That is an interesting comment. I did not know that.

The Chair: Any questions for the record?

Mr McClelland: I might just add, as Mr Cousens said, that you are to be commended for your presentation and for being here today. We thank you.

Mrs Mathyssen: Madam Chair, I have a request. Mr McClelland paraphrased my comments inaccurately and my request is that he leave me to express myself by myself. I do not need him to interpret for me.

The Chair: Hansard will record your comments.

Thank you for appearing before the committee today. We appreciate your coming. If you have any other information or comments over the course of these hearings, please feel free to communicate with us in writing.

Before we adjourn for the day, I would like to point out to committee members that there has been an accommodation at the request of Mr Wiseman for the Recycling Council of Ontario. They have been scheduled, and please note it on your agenda, for Wednesday, February 12 at 5 pm. Listed on the agenda at that time is TRAC-M, which has agreed to appear on Wednesday, February 12, at 9:40, so please change your long-term schedule. They presently are appearing on the agenda at 5 pm on February 12 and in its place, at 5 pm, for one hour, will be the Recycling Council of Ontario. I am pleased we have been able to accommodate that.

The standing committee on social development stands adjourned until 10 am tomorrow morning.

The committee adjourned at 1725.