Wednesday 29 January 1992

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

Lily Cups Inc

John Icke, president

Township of Lake of Bays

Bill Kowalchuk, planning director

Environmental Action Ontario

Jill Baldwin, member

Susan Griffin, member

Town of Pickering

Wayne Arthurs, mayor

STORM Coalition

Dorothy Izzard, past co-chair

RiverRun Ratepayers' Association

John Portolese, director

Concerned Homeowners for the Environment of King

Hugh H. Sutherland, representative

Canadian Polystyrene Recycling Association

Michael Scott, president

Ogden Martin Systems, Ltd

Harry Olivier, vice-president, marketing

Pickering Ajax Citizens Together for the Environment

Lloyd Thomas, chairman

Steve Parish, chairman, legal committee

Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada; United Food and Commercial Workers International Union

John Lewarne, chair, GPMC working group on the environment

Tim Catherwood, assistant to the director, UFCWIU

Sandra Banks, vice-president, government relations, GPMC

City of St Thomas and Elgin County

Stephen Peters, mayor

Robert Barrett, city administrator

Maria Greifeneder

Philip Environmental Inc

Antonio Pingue, vice-president, environmental affairs

Rivergrove Development Corp

Julia Ryan, solicitor

City of Toronto

Nick Vardin, commissioner, public works and the environment

Roger Higgin, deputy commissioner, environmental services


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 1003 in room 151.


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


The Chair: I would like to welcome everyone this morning. Our first presenter is Lily Cups Inc. Please come forward. Begin your presentation by introducing yourself to the committee. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. All members of committee have received your written brief. If you would leave as much time as possible for questions, we would appreciate it.

Mr Icke: Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen. My name is John Icke and I am president and chief executive officer of one of Canada's largest manufacturers of disposable packaging products. Having operated for over 47 years from two locations in Scarborough, Ontario, we employ approximately 500 personnel who are experts in the production of a wide variety of food and beverage containers utilizing both paper and various plastics as raw materials.

Under the proposed Waste Management Act legislation, we are classified as an industrial, commercial and institutional generator. I have been invited to speak to you this morning in an effort to update the committee on how organizations such as my own are working towards compliance with Bill 143 and my views of the legislation.

We at Lily Cups fully support the concept of diluting any negative impact our products and production processes may have on the environment. Our published environmental policy clearly identifies this, and there is a copy within the deposition. In recent years we have demonstrated our commitment to compliance.

I am therefore delighted to be able to commit to you that Lily will have no problem in achieving the initial standards as laid down by the Waste Management Act. In fact, we will surpass the objectives noted within the time frame allowed.

As a consequence of the increasing criticism focused on our industry in the mid-1980s and specifically from single-interest environmental action groups, we have developed a broad range of initiatives designed to improve our environmental position. A selection of these initiatives includes the reduction of the calliper, or thickness, of beverage container lids by almost 14.1% over a two-year period, 1990-1991, resulting in a reduction of 252.6 tonnes in the polystyrene plastic used, plastic which until recently would have been destined to landfill.

We are a founding member of the Canadian Polystyrene Recycling Association and a key participant in commissioning the first polystyrene recycling facility in Canada. I understand Mr Michael Scott is making a presentation to this committee this afternoon. CPRA cost in excess of $6 million and is situated in Mississauga. It is an 82,000-square-foot facility and has the capability of recycling in excess of 15,000 tonnes annually. CPRA, by the way, is entirely funded from the Canadian plastics industry, and my particular organization has already dedicated over $250,000 to CPRA.

We have introduced reduced paperboard weights for our paper containers on food and beverage products over the 1990-91 period, resulting in a saving of 500 tonnes per year.

We have introduced new Trophy cups, which is a brand name for our polystyrene cup. These cups are 20% by volume less cube than alternative polystyrene beverage containers, thus reducing the volume going to landfill, improving the distribution costs and saving fuel.

We converted from CFCs to HCFCs as blowing agents in October 1988 as phase I of eliminating atmospheric pollution from our manufacturing processes for foamed polystyrene products. Subsequently, in April 1991, we converted from HCFC blowing agents to recycled carbon dioxide, which is created as a byproduct from the manufacture of industrial fertilizers, therefore reducing CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.

We introduced in-plant recycling for all plastic products. To our knowledge, we are the only manufacturer in our industry that has a closed-loop manufacturing process; that is, we do not throw away any of our in-plant production scrap.

Finally, we sell all our paper waste to recycling companies which then turn it into corrugate or tissue products.

Obviously many of our programs as described have been under development for a long period of time. Many millions of dollars have been expended in the development, implementation and management of these programs. None of these programs was forced upon us through government legislation. Our conversion from CFCs, for example, was in October 1988, well before any restrictive-use legislation.

Furthermore, we are currently investing in numerous projects and programs to further enhance our environmental position. For example, in 1992 we are going to introduce a new type of corrugated container which will reduce our usage of cardboard by 30% by weight. We plan to introduce hot and cold paper cups manufactured from 100% recycled material, of which 40% will be post-consumer during 1992.

We are in the process of developing dual or trilaminate plastic manufacturing processes which incorporate both post-consumer and industrial recycled material. We are developing a composting program for paper cups and food containers. Currently, a pilot program is under way in conjunction with the University of Guelph, International Waxes and McDonald's Restaurants of Canada.

We hope the successful conclusion of some, if not all, of these projects will result in further enhancement of our products and manufacturing processes from an environmental perspective.

In short, we do not need incentives to participate in the greening of our society. We are well aware of our social and moral responsibility. Indeed, I believe most organizations of our size and market influence try to conduct business in an ethical, moral fashion. Notwithstanding that, we are delighted to be able to enjoy improved efficiencies, quality and profitability through the instigation of said initiatives. In short, we have learned that the greening of our company is good business from many perspectives.


In order for us to be measured against the Bill 143 objectives in waste reduction, we have commissioned Mr Ray Leach and his organization, Waste Alternatives, to produce a full environmental audit which will clearly indicate our compliance and provide us with the necessary information to issue to the Ministry of the Environment. This environmental audit will cost on its own in excess of $40,000. In addition, recommendations which will be made as a consequence of the audit will obviously carry a cost of implementation.

While we hope many of the initiatives recommended will have a financial payback, some will not. In an ever-increasing competitive world which is geared to open-border trading, this may put our organization at a distinct cost disadvantage. These expenses will not have to be incurred by many United States or other offshore competitors. Is this fair? Is this logical?

Furthermore, while the bill clearly identifies major ICI generators for special attention, it has been our experience with other government legislation -- pay equity, for example -- that smaller organizations will be the companies that will not comply and will not invest the dollars to facilitate positive change. This will continue to give organizations like my own a bad reputation by association as and when noncompliance is unveiled through MOE audits. Could you or would you propose to do something about making the smaller organizations comply?

A further issue to be raised, and one which is beyond the scope of this committee, is the sensibility in introducing such a bill during the current economic climate. Although it is difficult to state exactly how much it will cost an organization such as my own to analyse our operations and then select and implement programs to guarantee compliance with the legislation, we can project that the cost will be material.

Adherence will therefore divert money away from business expansion, new product development, training and development of our personnel, research, advertising, marketing and other positive aspects of business. These potential investment areas are vital for Canadian business. At a time when Canadian manufacturing is on the proverbial ropes, it is an expense we could all do without.

Let me be radical. Let me propose a postponement of the legislation as advocated in Bill 143. Let us have a moratorium on all government legislation of this nature, as proposed by President Bush in his recent statement. A copy of a Wall Street Journal article concerning that statement by Bush is enclosed in your deposition. Let us inject the money saved back into growing business. Let us provide more jobs, more opportunity, more personal wealth and, yes, more profits. Let us remember that more profits mean more tax dollars, which in turn generate more opportunity for further public expenditure.

A committee recommendation to postpone implementation would be radical. It may generate significant criticism from some areas. It would certainly generate huge support from others. It would protect businesses and, perhaps more important, jobs. Remember, our competitors, my competitors from the United States, the Far East and the European Community do not have to comply with Bill 143 and the regulations that are proposed.

To conclude, I do not oppose this bill. At Lily we are prepared to change for the improvement of our environment, but as an Ontario- and Canadian-based manufacturer we are being asked to incur extra costs with a potential zero profit enhancement capability. We are not on an even playing field with our competition. I believe this aspect must be addressed.

Mr Lessard: Thank you for your presentation. I am having some difficulty understanding the real thrust of your presentation because in it you state that the initiatives you have taken, a lot of them positive ones, you have taken without the force of government legislation. You have also said that you have done some of these things and, taking it right from your presentation, you have enjoyed improved efficiencies, quality and profitability through these initiatives. Then you say that you do not oppose the legislation but that we should postpone implementation as a radical idea.

You also provide a copy of an article from the Wall Street Journal, which I have had an opportunity to review, that says George Bush is going to defer regulations with respect to the Clean Air Act. They are thinking about things that might deal with the handling or disposal of wastes that contain relatively small amounts of radioactive material, regulations that cover water purity and superfunding toxic dumps.

What I get from part of your submission is that maybe we should have dirty air and radioactive waste in our landfills and dirty water in the name of some economic incentives to business, because you say that moneys would be diverted from business expansion, training and development, research and things like that, positive aspects of business. Yet you also say that what you have done has been a positive aspect to business, your environmental policies, so I am having difficulty understanding how those two things go together.

Mr Icke: There are two questions. I would like to take them as you said them. First of all, the thrust of my presentation is to illustrate that we are doing a lot of things to the environment that are positive across a broad range of things. We are doing those outside the boundaries of Bill 143.

What I am advocating is that I do not think we should have to incur extra expense, time, money and effort to be able to substantiate that we are developing those types of programs. Even though we have done all those as an organization, I am still going to have to go through a full environmental audit. I am still going to have to spend more money in certain areas to comply with the legislation that quite frankly I would not have to pay if this legislation were not going to come into force. Not only that; some of the things we have done outside Bill 143 are making us a more environmentally friendly company. I am saying we do not have to be bullied or forced into compliance with this legislation, yet I am going to have to incur, for example, a $40,000 cost simply to prove that we are complying.

Mr Sola: I was very impressed with your presentation. It showed that the private sector can take the initiative in environmental concerns. Obviously, from the list of things you showed in your presentation your company and I guess companies like yours are at the forefront, both in recycling and in the "thinking green" area.

I wonder if you would like to expand a little bit on what you said on page 2: "Obviously many of our programs...have been under development for long periods of time," and that they were not forced upon you by government legislation. In other words, when you have seen the opportunity, you have seized it and you have headed in the direction of recycling and conservation. That is why I guess you are opposed to Bill 143 being forced upon you, because you have taken the initiative yourself.

Mr Icke: I would like to pick one of the programs as an illustration: air emissions. We started work on moving away from CFCs back in 1985. Our stage movement from CFCs to HCFCs to recycled carbon dioxide took a four-year period and cost us $2 million. It involved not only the purchase of new capital equipment, but it obviously involved prediction trials and getting various government certifications etc.

A lot of the programs that involve enhancing new products from a manufacturing concept are not overnight sensations. Most capital equipment, for example, takes anywhere from 12 months to 18 months to be delivered and commissioned after ordering it, so this is a very lengthy program. We got on the environmental theme in 1987 and now we are starting to see the benefits. We conclude that it is good business sense to do this because of the attitude consumers show. A1so, our customers -- we have many household names -- are demanding that we come to the table with initiatives that do not just show them a cost saving, but an environmental enhancement or indeed an improved capability. They are also looking for us to reduce the number of items we sell to them. For example, you will get three different-sized cups but one lid that fits all three cups. Five years ago there was a special lid for each cup. It was great business three years ago.


Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you for your presentation. In your brief you indicate that you have invested a significant amount of money to be a more responsible corporate citizen, and you are concerned about smaller organizations that do not. My question is, will Bill 143 and the regulations that follow it not compel these delinquent firms to be better managers of their waste and therefore create a better climate for you by virtue of a more level playing field?

The Chair: Mr Wiseman, you wanted to put a question on the record?

Mr Wiseman: Yes, I would. The other day we heard from Waste Management Inc. They indicated in two places in their brief a recommendation that the government mandate product content and product regulations in the sense that perhaps we should be looking at not allowing companies that use dirty technology in their production to import or sell those products in our market. I am just wondering how you feel about that, given that you are obviously going down the clean road and that there are still large numbers of people out there doing dirty things to the environment and having a cost advantage that you do not enjoy.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. The purpose of putting questions on the record is to allow you to answer them in writing, if you will, since we do not have any additional time for oral presentations today. Any correspondence that we receive by February 14 from you or from anyone else who would like to communicate with the committee will be included as part of the public record. If it is received after February 14, it will be available for all members of the committee to consider during their deliberations. Thank you very much for joining us this morning.


The Chair: Township of Lake of Bays, please come forward. Welcome. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We would appreciate it if you would leave as much time as you can for questions from committee members. Please begin by introducing yourself.

Mr Kowalchuk: Thank you, Mrs Caplan. I am Bill Kowalchuk, from the township of Lake of Bays. I am the planning director. The township of Lake of Bays is in Muskoka, where it is always sunny, where the water is clear and the forests are green. The communities up there take a great deal of pain to ensure that they continue in that manner.

The township of Lake of Bays has been led for many years by a council and mayor who are very much aware of the obligations for waste management and the best methods of managing such wastes. The council continues to support the concept of disposal within one's community, as opposed to shipping it to other communities for disposal. We do have a problem with the definition of "community" at times, though. However, the council and my own department, which has responsibility for landfill, waste management and recycling, are somewhat concerned with the bill that has been presented to the Legislature for approval.

Just for the record, the township, without assistance from the ministry or from anyone else, undertook with its public, the consumer public, which demanded the service, a recycling system which produces about a 17% diversion at depots. The legislation that is currently enforced by the ministry unfortunately causes us to have a great number of costs which in the opinion of the population and of the council are really unnecessary.

On behalf of the mayor and council, I also want to thank the opposition party and the third party for their strong will in ensuring that further consultations on this very important topic are afforded the public. It seems the current government's election promise to serve ordinary people has been waylaid in favour of consultation with a select few or perhaps even the radical few.

I also want to advise that association in the waste management business has included service to private hazardous waste and recycling companies and transfer stations and also has included consultation with the ministry on the process of regulation 309. I am also mindful that the current minister and the ministry have been attacking very vehemently a large part of that industry in our province, and the result is of course that an ever-increasing amount of this kind of material is being shipped to the United States.

We have to remember that the real impetus for waste management in Ontario began with a truck accident in Kenora. That is where it all started, in 1985. From that day to this day this province, the industry of this province and the people of this province who are responsible for waste management have taken on a far different approach to waste management than they had prior to 1985. As Lily Cups has indicated and as many other companies have indicated they, through consumer-led initiative, have taken great pains to ensure a cleaner and greener company operation. I think the ministry's position has to be assessed in relation to that effort by private enterprise.

One of the things that struck us was that Bill 143 began as a result of a submission by the ministry in early 1991. In the minister's own submission, she advised the Legislature and the people of Ontario that she would be introducing legislation for finding long-term landfill capacity and, doing that, would appoint an authority which would reinforce individual, community and industry responsibility. Now "reinforce" could mean a carrot or it could mean a stick. It is tragic that this government has chosen more sticks because I think carrots, as has been shown by the consumer-led society, have been much more effective.

Recognize the importance of education and communication in achieving these goals: Having stated that, it puzzles our community why Bill 143 was introduced and why there was such a big rush. I am sure that from the political point of view, as I am instructed to advise the committee, it came during a part of an election campaign where really everybody was caught off guard.

Foster social equity and a conservative society objectives: Those are admirable. I think we have all learned to save and we all want to be socially responsible. As Lily Cup has pointed out, in specific programs we have been.

Ensure that new facilities are environmentally sound: I do not think there is anybody in the province who would advocate facilities that are not environmentally sound.

Carry out positive public consultation and involvement: We do not feel the government has been doing that. As an example, I think the council and the district of Muskoka had a great deal of difficulty arranging appointments with the ministry and the minister.

Ensure facilities are operated on a true cost recovery basis: This is a very new aspect for many communities north of Metro and it is going to be tough, but even the township of Lake of Bays, which operates four sites, a transfer site and three landfill sites, has instituted tipping fees and they will grow until they have a cost recovery. Now, a full cost recovery and a true cost recovery I do not know, because we do not know how many millions of dollars we are going to have to spend on getting our next approval. It is going to be a tough thing to decide how to get the money, and it is going to be even tougher to figure out how much to collect for that bag of garbage. Taxpayers in our community would like a mixture: something on their tax bill and something at the landfill gate.

Reinforce the important role of the regions and the local municipalities in waste management: That is an admirable objective. I think my council and many other councils that have spoken to our council feel that consultation is vitally important and we encourage it. We would beg for it and we hope the minister, her staff and her advisers would institute more of it rather than pushing bills through.

The ministry, in interpreting those expectations, has come up with Bill 143. When you measure Bill 143 against the objectives stated by the minister, we as a public and as a partner in the management of solid waste find the legislation is woefully inadequate. It really does not do what the community wants to do and what I think the ministry wants to do.

The committee has heard many representations as to the details of inadequacy from the point of view of the public sector, the municipalities and the activists. I suppose in some ways one might say that since everybody is complaining, it must be a good bill. I do not think that analogy applies. My own concern with the legislation is that it does not do what the minister wanted it to do, and if the minister does permit the bill to go forward in its present form, it will destroy the partnership the ministry is seeking. You cannot have the partnership the ministry is seeking with the kind of big stick approach that the bill and other environmental legislation presents. It will destroy the support of the community for waste management activities.


One of the first questions you are bound to be asked here is, if you do not support the bill then you must be against the environment. Nothing is further from the truth. There are thousands and thousands of people in Ontario who are for the environment and against bad legislation. It is as simple as that. There is always a danger of course that if you attack the environmental legislation you are going to be marked as something less than green. I suppose we have to take that chance in life.

Bill 143 purports essentially to provide the basis for a new waste management authority in the greater Toronto area in its search for a landfill option. I come from a small community which has already expended more than $500,000 in research in its efforts to find increased landfill capacity within its borders -- and I am not talking about assessing whole new sites; I am talking about the process that is under the less-than-1,500 population figure, which is a straight EA approval, and relatively minor expansions of existing landfill sites which have been demonstrated not to have leachate potential, which is a danger, and which are demonstrated to be environmentally safe. We still have to go through many thousands of dollars of expenditure to prove that the site can be expanded.

These are council's words: "I find it appalling that the minister is creating an authority to find a new landfill site and then providing that authority with so many exemptions and powers to do the job, it would make one believe that the current legislation, which handcuffs many of us in many ways, is simply not working."

The other thing we wanted to bring to the attention of committee is positive. On the question of the packaging industry, the legislation and the approach of the ministry recently is to regulate. I think you can regulate, but I do not think you can regulate in the way you are proposing to do it because you just have not got the manpower or the forces and the ability to control international trade.

One of the ideas we have had is, why does the ministry not require classification of all materials as to their recyclability? In other words, reduce, recycle and reuse are pretty admirable objectives. If you attack all of them at the same time -- for example, in the cardboard industry you may have cardboard with glue which would be an A-3 and a cardboard without glue, with staples, which would be an A-1. By simply imprinting every bit of packaging or material that comes into the province for use in this province with a particular registration number you would have a classification system which would then allow private enterprise to set up the recycling facilities and the reuse facilities you need.

The biggest problem you now have in recycling, the reconsumption of what is called "waste," is the fact that many people do not understand whether they are to put this bottle in this bag or that bag. By a series of registration numbers you can do that. One might say that is an infinite set of numbers. I suppose some of us who are a little older can remember the wartime when they registered every material that we ever thought of using by a number. So it is possible. I will leave time for questions.

Mr Sola: You have mentioned that Bill 143 will add extra costs to your township. Who operates your landfill sites, the township or the private sector?

Mr Kowalchuk: The township operates the landfill sites. The extra cost does not come only as a result of Bill 143; it comes as a result of the existing legislation. I am old enough to remember the first time engineers told us that if we buried our waste, every five years we could go to the starting spot to start burying all over again; do you remember that?

Now what we have done with the legislation is, we have prepared part V, and really, whether you are operating a small landfill up in northern Ontario, a dump somewhere, a major landfill in Metropolitan Toronto, an incinerator at Sarnia or a recycling company in Mississauga, it is all the same legislation. It just does not make sense. The cost is the result of the fact that the legislation is the same, and the people who have to administer it are then stuck with it. They have to administer it as if it were big time all the way.

Mr Turnbull: One of the things I am struck with is the fact that we have gone with this legislation with respect to the continuance of the two dump sites which would have ended up as level dump sites when we were finished and they will now be approximately 15 storeys high. We have gone from having maximum public input, which over the years has grown longer and longer and has probably caused an enormous amount of cost to the taxpayer because of the length of environmental hearings, to having no public input in the expansion of these sites from a level site to a 15-storey-high site.

I have always very strongly believed, and I am more and more convinced every day, that the best thing is having definite timetables for public input, but always having public input so that we can never allow governments to ride roughshod over citizens as we are seeing here, and at the same time that we guarantee there is a determinate amount of time. I wonder if you could comment?

Mr Kowalchuk: Exactly. From the point of view of preparing for approvals of any kind, you do not prepare with the facts in mind. You prepare with the idea that somebody with a placard is going to run you off the rails and there is no defence against it. Here you have a situation where the private enterprise, we, or the public enterprise, you, have to go out and produce an EA in order to expand a site. You have to study all options. In doing that, you leave yourself open to attack from all sources. In other words, it is just too rough. You do not define what you are trying to do. What you are trying to do is very simple. You want to build a safe landfill site. What you have to do is prove that you have looked at every possibility of waste management in the world before you decide to do what you wanted to do in the first place. It does not make sense.

Mr Wiseman: Some of what you are talking about is the re-evaluation of the Environmental Assessment Act and the process that is undertaken. There have been initiatives through the Ministry of the Environment to do consultation on that and also on what is called Initiatives Paper No 1, which is to look at the whole process of reduction and recycling. I just wonder if you have participated in that.

Mr Kowalchuk: Yes, we have made a submission to the EAA process. Really, the thrust of that submission was two-fold. One is that the parties of interest to a hearing have to be clearly identified. In other words, if the parties of interest to any hearing were not identified, you would just end up with an open end and there is no telling where the next expert is going to come from. So the parties to the hearings have to be clearly identified as having an interest. They have to demonstrate their interest and they have to demonstrate their questions. The second aspect is that once you have identified all the parties of interest, the consultation between them before the hearing should resolve the issues of agreement.

Mr Wiseman: Would that include the exclusion of items and processes that have been deemed unacceptable? Why put something that you do not like into the process if it takes up extraneous time?

Mr Kowalchuk: You would have to prove why you had an interest in that and why it was important to this hearing. Why is it important, for example, how a Detroit incinerator operates when you consider a landfill in North Bay?

Mr Wiseman: The second part of the question was about the initiatives paper.

Mr Kowalchuk: We have looked at it and we have not made a submission on it. We have an interest and have scheduled discussions in the community about that. The recycling aspect is the greatest. If you look at reduction as including recycling then the objectives of the government for 50% or 90% are -- you know, it does not matter; we can achieve them. But there are a lot of other questions to address. For example, this legislation recognizes that recycling systems and operations should have an easier process of approval. That is smart. But the fact that they leave small and large incinerators and chemicals recycling companies under part V, that is dumb.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate your coming to the committee this morning. As someone who is familiar with the Lake of Bays area, I found your description of it at the beginning was very accurate.

Mr Kowalchuk: Thank you.



The Chair: I would like to call next Environmental Action Ontario. Members of the standing committee on social development have received your written brief. Please begin your 20-minute presentation by introducing yourselves to members of the committee. We would appreciate it if you would leave some time for questions from committee members.

Ms Baldwin: Good morning, Chair. My name is Jill Baldwin and this is Susan Griffin.

Ms Griffin: We are members of Environmental Action Ontario. We are here today as a grass-roots coalition of environmental and community groups across the province. Our mandate is waste reduction through legislation, corporate policy change and public education.

Environmental Action Ontario, with its focus on the problem of excess packaging, is primarily concerned with part IV of the proposed Bill 143, and specifically with the sections which would allow government regulation of packaging and products that pose a waste management problem.

We strongly support adherence to the 3Rs hierarchy of reduce first, followed by reuse, followed only then by recycling. We are in agreement with the concept of a government requirement that industry research and report on the total environmental impacts of the packaging of their products with a view to changes in the nature of future packaging towards minimal or reusable or recyclable materials.

Our organization was originally founded to carry out the excess packaging campaign conducted by a coalition of groups across Ontario during 1990 and part of 1991. The thrust of the campaign revolved around three core goals. The first goal was that supermarkets reduce their excess packaging; second, that fast-food restaurants provide reusable dishes and cutlery for their sit-down customers; third, that the province impose a special tax on disposable take-out containers with revenues dedicated to waste reduction efforts.

After gathering community endorsements from hundreds of churches, residents' and ratepayers' groups, labour unions and other local groups, Environmental Action Ontario coalition members sought endorsements from their local municipalities. Some 57 municipalities in Ontario, including Ottawa, Windsor, North Bay, Kingston, Waterloo, North York and Scarborough gave their written endorsements to our campaign goals. This indicated a high degree of concern with the everyday problem of generating waste through the activities of grocery shopping and consumption of fast food and a wish to see action taken through regulation.

In May of 1991, representatives of Environmental Action Ontario presented the endorsements to the Ontario provincial government requesting changes to existing legislation to bring about packaging waste reduction in the areas of grocery products and disposable fast-food containers.

In tandem with the endorsement gathering for goals support, EAO member groups conducted public opinion surveys in their communities. The first survey, with participation of close to 1,000 people, sought to rank in order the products in grocery stores perceived by shoppers as being the 12 most overpackaged. The results of this survey were communicated to the press, to manufacturers of the products involved and to supermarkets.

A second survey studied attitudes towards the amount of waste generated by fast-food restaurants. A clear majority of the nearly 4,000 respondents in 28 parts of Ontario "agreed," or "strongly agreed," that fast-food restaurants should serve their sit-down customers with reusable dishes and cutlery which would both lessen waste and provide a more pleasant eating experience.

A third survey conducted in the summer of 1991 included questions on the subject of refillable containers for food: 94% of 953 participants felt that refillable, returnable bottles for soft drinks, alcohol and milk were a good idea; 86% felt the government should pressure companies to use more reusable containers through taxation and incentives.

Responses to these unscientific surveys gave an indication of strong public support for government measures to curtail the environmental effects of the current volume of packaging through regulations which would reduce the amount of overuse of packaging in these areas.

In terms of new alternatives for take-out food, we have become aware of research currently being done at Iowa State University in developing a plastic-like substance made of corn starch and corn or soy protein which has the potential of being used in the manufacture of cups, plates and eating utensils. This substance is completely non-toxic, to the point that it would be edible for humans, and is completely biodegradable. We believe that it is important not only to look to the past to find ways of avoiding harm to the environment, but to investigate and encourage new and innovative concepts which will be developed in a climate of sensitivity to environmental concerns in business.

Where jobs may be lost in the manufacturing sector with a shift to increased reduction, reuse and recycling of some types of packaging, new jobs must be created in research, development and manufacturing of new and appropriate substitutes.

Environmental Action Ontario will direct its next campaign, a two-pronged effort, toward public, industry and retailers and to local and provincial governments. This campaign's objectives are to encourage an increase in the quantity of available refillable beverage containers and an increase in public use of them, as a measure which lessens environmental impacts in use of non-renewable resources, manufacturing byproducts and waste disposal.

To promote a reduction in the consumption of throwaway shopping and grocery bags, we will focus on an item which is, in many ways, symbolic of the habitual throwaway behaviour of our society, on the premise that its decreased use could lead to changing patterns of overall consumer thinking about packaging and waste. Our 1991 summer survey indicates that 85% of participants recognize that plastic bags contribute to a landfill problem, and 92% believe that reduction of their use would help reduce our current volume of garbage. We will encourage both the public and retailers to support a move to the increased use of reusable carrying bags for shopping, with emphasis on the environmental impacts of throwaways and in particular non-biodegradable plastic bags. One often-quoted statistic states that Canadians bring home 55 million plastic grocery bags every week. Reducing that figure would be a step in the right direction.

Some examples of types of packaging which we believe can reasonably be termed excessive and which might consequently be examined and/or regulated under such an act, are:

1. Packaging whose primary function is marketing and display of a product, such as toothpaste boxes.

2. Packaging which contains ingredients which have a negative environmental effect, as in the case of aerosol propellants. Even if the effect -- as in this case, that of hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or HCFCs, on the ozone layer -- is "greatly reduced" from previous substances, there is no need for products which exist, or could exist, in another completely harmless form to be marketed in this format. Examples are deodorants, no-stick sprays, frying oils, hair sprays, etc.

3. Packaging which promotes convenience above environmental concerns, in particular single-serving condiment packs, creamers, instant soups in large, multilayer formats, individually wrapped cheese slices, small portions of microwavable foods with disposable serving dishes as well as exterior wrappers.


4. Multilayer packaging such as blister packs for items like hardware, kitchen utensils and toys, all of which could be marketed with a simpler, single material, recyclable packaging or labelling; Tetra Paks are another offender in this category.

5. Coated paperboard milk cartons for one- and two-litre formats, where less voluminous plastic bag containers could be made available in less than four-litre quantities. Alternatively, refillable glass bottles would be welcomed by many members of the public as an option when buying milk: 74% of 953 respondents surveyed would be willing to pay more for bottles.

6. Multilayered packaging added for prestige or to give the impression of greater product content than actually present. This applies to many cosmetics, beauty products and soaps.

These are only a few examples of areas of packaging we feel deserve examination and critical re-evaluation. At the present time the public has little choice when buying essential consumer goods but to bring home with them far greater quantities of packaging than they would wish, thereby contributing to the waste disposal problem which we now all face and which in our area is reaching crisis proportions.

We would urge the government to use the regulatory power expanded under the amendments proposed in Bill 143 to further the concept and availability to the public of fresh produce and other foods sold unpackaged in bulk form to a greater degree in retail outlets. This would allow consumers more choice and control over the amount of packaging materials they need to purchase and dispose of.

Ms Baldwin: Requirements could stipulate that a certain minimum percentage of food retail space be devoted to bulk sales.

As far as consumer education goes, this is important. A vital component of behaviour change in a society is that of education. We have seen the effectiveness of a concerted effort on the part of government and educators, for example in changing attitudes towards smoking. In our society where great amounts of time, research and creativity, not to mention money, are spent on presenting the public with very attractive and compelling advertisements, it is essential to provide the same public with information regarding the impact of their consumption.

That process has begun with the third "R," recycling, and some behaviour patterns are changing with this new awareness. Application of the Environmental Protection Act, however, must extend directly to consumers, to enable them to participate in further efforts to protect their environment, with new and greater emphasis on reduction and reuse.

As concerned citizens of a country which produces more waste per person than any other in the world, we support the amendments outlined in part IV of Bill 143 which would expand the Ontario government's ability to regulate and reduce the amount of waste generated by packaging and disposable products.

In conclusion, we believe the acceptable standards for packaging should be clearly defined according to the minimum amount required for product preservation and safety, and must be based on the imperatives for resource conservation, environmental protection and a new definition of progress as a move towards a conserver society. We call upon our government to share with us the responsibility to plan for the next seven generations and beyond.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. First question, Mr Turnbull.

Mr Turnbull: I want to congratulate you on your efforts. It is so important. I, for one, am a great advocate of mandating in some way that fast-food restaurants use plates and cups for the food that is eaten inside. We have to go in that direction. It is crazy that we have not gone in that direction before. That aspect of things I really believe in. Refillable glass bottles, all of those things I approve of.

I recognize this was not the particular part of the bill that you are here to speak about, but it seems incongruous, given the advances we have made over the years in terms of getting public input into environmental assessments under the Environmental Protection Act, that in one fell swoop we have a minister who has been in power for 18 months who has told us there was no garbage gap, who then comes forward with emergency powers where she is going to extend the life-cycle of two dump sites without any environmental hearings whatsoever and assumes dictatorial powers.

Frankly, I was surprised because, although I was not enchanted at the idea of the NDP being in power, I thought at least Ruth Grier would do a good job as an environment minister, because the state of our environment is a great concern to me, as I think it is a great concern to any informed citizen.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Turnbull.

Mr Turnbull: But can you comment on --

The Chair: No, I am sorry, we will have to just take that as notice. There is no time for an answer to your question. You have used the two minutes allotted.

Mrs Mathyssen: I noted in your brief you said you had a great deal of support from the public to reduce packaging and you had taken that information to the press, to manufacturers and to the supermarkets. What was their response? How did they react to the information you brought to them?

Ms Baldwin: At the meetings held with industry members, very little response was made because they felt they could continue in the manner in which they are continuing, and that was the end of that. This was prior to our bringing our demands to the provincial government.

Mrs Mathyssen: We have had deputations from the industry that say the government should stay out of it, that they can police and regulate themselves. How do you feel about that?

Ms Baldwin: Have you seen any indication of this?

Ms Griffin: To give them credit, industry has certainly made some changes in terms of reducing.

Mr Sola: I would like to commend you on your brief because you have come across as looking at both sides of the equation. Usually you get portrayed as the wild-eyed environmentalist. I would like to commend you where you take into account the fact that where jobs may be lost in manufacturing new jobs must be created in research and development, in new product development, so you are taking away the ammunition from the critics of your approach.

The other thing I would like to commend you on is the fact that you actually detail where industry, and particularly the restaurant industry and the food industry, can reduce the amount of waste produced, because we always hear that if you bury it close to the source as possible it will encourage reduction of waste. But pointing out, as you did on page 5, sections 3 and 4, where the waste is being created -- slices of cheese that are separately packaged and things like that -- I think it is very important to point out that simple things like that can eliminate a lot of waste. I wonder if you could comment on that.

Ms Griffin: You want us to comment on --

Mr Sola: I want you to elaborate a little bit more on where industry, particularly the food industry, can eliminate a lot of this needless waste that is being produced just to make things more presentable, I guess.

The Chair: I am going to ask you, if you would, to take notice of question as well. We really do not have sufficient time remaining for you to be able to go into great detail. Both questions from Mr Turnbull and Mr Sola will if you wish be made available to you by the clerk and you can submit answers in writing to this committee over the course of our deliberations. I believe there are a couple of other questions for the record that some of the committee members would like to place. Mr Wiseman.

Mr Wiseman: Thank you. Other provinces and states in the US have machines that will pay a deposit back on soft drink tins and my understanding is that 78% of all soft drink tins are going into landfill sites, which means that something like 22% are being recycled. What is your stand on the use of deposits and machine returns to reduce this kind of waste?


Mrs Mathyssen: I would request, Madam Chair, a fuller response to the second part of the question I asked.

Mr Lessard: I would like you to supply to the committee a list of the 12 most overpackaged items you found, and any changes there have been in packaging practices in any of those areas.

The Chair: Thank you. All those questions will be made available to you by our clerk over the next few days. I would also point out to anyone watching these hearings that everything is recorded in Hansard and those Hansards are available within a few weeks at Publications Ontario at 880 Bay Street. Thank you very much for your presentation.


The Chair: I call next the corporation of the town of Pickering. I believe the mayor is here. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. I would ask you to begin by introducing your delegation and to leave a few minutes, if you would, for questions from committee members. Welcome, Mayor Arthurs.

Mr Arthurs: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. In particular our member, Mr Wiseman, can certainly bring the perspective of our constituency on this bill. I know he has and will continue to do that.

My name is Wayne Arthurs and I am the mayor of the town of Pickering. Joining me is our acting chief administrative officer and in fact our town solicitor, Mr Tim Sheffield. We have chosen not to provide a written brief. We know that like myself, you have a lot of paper. I was speaking briefly with Jim this morning. He has a stack that you are wrestling with and you will be through that and review it intently.

I hope this morning we can bring a little bit of a community perspective to a couple of concerns we have and also, in answering any questions, the recognition that we are a municipality that has experienced environmentally related issues and landfill issues for a great number of years. I certainly appreciate the opportunity of appearing before the committee.

I guess maybe a little bit of background just on the municipality might help. I listened to the gentleman from Lake of Bays reflecting on his community. Ours as well has a lot of green space, but I think there are some other perspectives that deal with the sense of community and community involvement.

On our western border we have the Beare Road landfill site, a Metro site closed some years ago, and that had an impact on our community. Within our municipality, towards the southern border, we are home, and happy to be so, to the Pickering nuclear generating station and also the Durham-York waste treatment centre, which supplies a service to a broad sector of the community. Towards our eastern boundary was the proposed Brock South site under the solid waste environmental assessment plan by Metropolitan Toronto, which was a predecessor of some of the activities that have been going on. There continues to be leachate drawn off the Brock North landfill site in the town of Pickering on a regular basis. To the north of our urban areas is the Brock West landfill site, which has been one of two major recipients of Metro and Durham garbage for quite a number of years, since the mid-1970s.

Beyond that are some 43,000 acres of lands purchased and expropriated by both federal and provincial governments for new communities and airports. Our community has had a very active involvement in public process and taken an active interest and I think every opportunity to be involved in that way in a very active manner. We are very familiar with the impact that environmental issues have on communities and I certainly commend the Legislature and the government for providing this opportunity for municipalities and communities like ours to make representation.

Bill 143 I think in some ways presents a bit of a conundrum for the town of Pickering in being here. On the one hand, we have consistently been of the view that Durham should be responsible for its own waste and should not receive waste from the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. I think that came about historically more than anything else. We certainly were a willing partner with Metro Toronto in the planning for and opening of the Brock West landfill site during the 1960s and 1970s.

We have benefited financially from that over a great number of years, but I think in many ways it was mismanagement of the site from our perspective that led to the conflicts that we found ourselves in. I think it was the result of those conflicts that drove us into a position of looking at a Durham-only solution, as opposed to looking at a more cooperative solution with other municipalities.

On the other hand, Pickering consistently supported the idea that a full environmental assessment should be carried out in locating and approving any new waste disposal site. We recognize within this legislation the element of protection we have been looking for in many ways and that it would be a Durham solution to the long-term site. On the other hand we respect, and our community respects, the need for that fullest of public processes, and that is the conundrum we find ourselves in, in some ways, in even being here this morning.

I guess we believe in the principle that waste should be disposed of in the community in which it is produced -- the bill certainly recognizes this -- or quite possibly in the municipality that is willing to accept that waste, as we were in the late 1960s and into the 1970s on behalf of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. As I said, it is our belief that we should not preclude the review of all legitimate opportunities for waste disposal where we can find willing players and willing partners.

Within the legislation, under subsection 12(1), paragraph 2 in particular, one landfill site is to be located in Durham, having as its primary function the disposal of waste. At this point it is unclear to us as to what is meant by "primary" and whether that provides any opportunities for the doors subsequently to be opened. The bill as it presently stands does not accept the principle that full environmental assessment should be carried out for these new waste disposal site facilities. In effect, the bill precludes this from occurring in the three proposed sites, one in York for Metro and York, one in Peel and one in Durham.

It is my belief that the investigation of reasonable alternatives is central to the environmental assessment process. Whether that should be to explore incineration, to explore transportation to other jurisdictions or to look at multiple sites, I am reluctant to think we should preclude those if there is a parallel opportunity to explore them in addition to moving forward to a point where we need to resolve some of the more imminent issues in front of us. It may be that optimal solutions may not be found within the context of the current legislation. Good solutions can be found, but they may not be the optimal solutions.

We do have two principal areas of concern I would like to bring to the committee's attention. One is within part III, the implementation of the minister's report, and in particular the transfer station at Brock West. It appears the choice to have a transfer at Brock West was achieved rather arbitrarily. There was no consultation with respect to that and we find it difficult for us, as a municipality involved in the process of public involvement, to find that arbitrary decision being made.

We need and have always desired the right to be heard on any waste disposal facilities that might be proposed. The capital investment -- and I have to defer to our region, which has the responsibility for waste disposal in this regard -- presumably is excessive. It is extremely high, as indicated by the region at this point. Based on that, I can only presume that the transfer station would have an extended lifespan beyond the interim period. We do not know what the plan would be for that at this point and no one is giving consideration to that. I find it hard to believe that the region would expend up to $50 million -- or if that figure is $20 million, $30 million or $40 million, ultimately the $50 million -- that is being projected without some long-term use for a site of that nature. It is not likely to be simply mothballed. We have had no opportunity to explore and input into what that might be until the decision would be upon us, and there would be little opportunity then to be able to react effectively.

Current reports would lead one to believe there are other alternatives that may be better suited. Certainly, Brock West continues to operate at this point. It has been found, as a result of contours sinking and compacting, that there seems to be some additional lifespan available in it. Even further diversion of Metro waste would help to create capacity, and the possibility of using existing systems, the Scarborough transfer station if necessary, may preclude the need for this kind of expenditure or the imposition of a transfer station.

On that basis in particular, I hope the committee would consider recommendations that have been made here by others and by ourselves: that this part of the minister's report might be rescinded and that the imposition of a transfer station in an arbitrary fashion at Brock West might be reconsidered; and if in effect a transfer station is felt to be necessary within the Durham region, that there is a process whereby all the players within Durham region, the area municipalities, would be able to participate in that and find the best site and the best solution in the form of a transfer station for that purpose.

I think we need to avoid wherever possible the sense of crisis management and impending doom. It has plagued us for a period of time. It has plagued us through the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee and it seems to be plaguing us in some instances now as the government tries to react in a positive and productive fashion to the needs it sees within the community.


The most recent data we see coming out of Metro Toronto, with the extended lifespan of the Brock West site, the extended lifespan availability at Keele Valley even without extension of the site, would lead one to believe that there is a still a framework and a time frame available to us in which we can provide for that public input and which maybe will preclude some of these unnecessary expenses, and I do think they are unnecessary in some instances.

Expense is one of the reasons for not going through the process of legal consultation. I had the opportunity to see the representation brief prepared by another member of the municipality in the greater Toronto area. It is very, very extensive and was very well done but obviously at great cost. As a municipality in the SWISC process and with the P-1 landfill site, we expended some $350,000 as an initiation fee, you might say, to get into the game and that was to get into the hearings, that was just to get started. As you realize, these costs are ongoing and excessive. We need to find better ways to expend those moneys and we have chosen in part, because of that, not to add additional paper.

The other question and concern is part II, the issue of the waste disposal sites. I go back to the conundrum. While we support in principle the protection provided Durham from the imposition of waste from the outside, and particularly as the local municipality, we certainly can be accused of being NIMBY, that I tend to think as being and being NIMBY again. There is some element of truth in that, sort of "not in our backyard," but more "again." We want to see and we want to have that protection.

But I am not convinced, I guess, that the current strategy of three sites within regional municipalities will create any greater sense of commitment, on behalf of the public, to being a conserver society. I am not convinced that four blocks, or 400 kilometres, in some cases, make any real difference to people. I think through the process that we are currently into of education, the process of changing value systems, the processes of legitimate legislation through recycling returnable products -- we have all heard on many occasions about the need to return things, bottles, get the LCBO involved as part of that process -- we can do more in those areas more effectively.

I guess I am not in agreement with the minister's statement, in her opening address here to start the process, that there is little incentive to reduce when there is a far-off place to send garbage. I think that may have been true 15 years ago, but I do not believe that it is the basic tenet of the public mood today. I would say that within our own municipality and within our neighbours' we were going through a process of a Durham-only master plan, and within Durham region there was certainly not a large degree of support when five sites were identified within I think four of our member municipalities.

It only took a couple of weeks for three of those municipalities to jump off the ship and say, "We don't want to play." They were not being willing partners even within the regional context. At that time, our municipality chose not to take that action. They chose that position for a couple of reasons: one, we were already involved with the P-1 situation, but two, we wanted to show the other members in Durham region that we are a responsible player and that we all have to be responsible players in that context and that we were not going to be the member municipality that indicated a lack of willingness to participate within our region.

Those are the two primary issues with respect to the bill that I guess affect us most intently. Certainly the transfer station, under the minister's report, is one that has immediate implications, and second, the issue of the landfill sites I guess precluding the continuation, even in a parallel form, of looking for means whereby we can find willing players in a broader sense. As I say, I am not convinced that four blocks or 400 kilometres will make a difference in the public attitude. That will come, I believe, through the process of education, changing value systems and legitimate legislation that will help us to reduce the amount of waste we are getting into the system, which is a far more cost-effective measure than trying to recycle it or even reuse it. I thank you for the opportunity and welcome questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have just four minutes remaining. I thought what we might do is have everyone put questions and then perhaps give the mayor a chance to respond.

Mr Sola: I would like to pose a couple of questions. How does your desire for a Durham-only solution square with, to use your words, the arbitrary choice of the Brock West transfer station by the government? Would you like to see a list of the potential sites for a long-term solution for the GTA?

Mr Turnbull: Very quickly, was it a good idea for the present minister just to kill the existing sites that were in the pipeline?

Mr Wiseman: You have raised the interesting question about willing host. I think it needs to be more clearly defined given the context that Durham has always relegated Pickering to be the willing host against Pickering's obvious unwillingness.

The second part of that question is, within the context of the IWA document on fairness what level of importance would you ascribe to the part of the document that talks about fairness in terms of municipalities that have already taken large amounts of landfill from other jurisdictions and what weight should that be given in the determination process for long-term sites?

Mrs Mathyssen: We have heard some information --

The Chair: Please place your question. We do not have time for discussion.

Mrs Mathyssen: In view of the fact that you have had some problems at Brock West with leachate and the dump falling into Duffin Creek, it seems that in some real ways you have been the victim of a transportation policy in terms of waste. I am wondering how in light of that you can support transportation or say that transportation should continue to be on the table.

The Chair: Mayor, there are about three minutes remaining. If you do not feel at the end of that time that you have been able to fully answer all those questions, please feel free to communicate with us in writing. Anything we receive before 14 February will become part of the public record.

Mr Arthurs: Since Mr Sheffield was taking some very brief notes on my behalf at this point, rather than trying to respond to those in the very limited amount of time, it might be advisable for us to provide a written response.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We will look forward to hearing from you in writing at your convenience.


The Chair: I would like to call next the STORM Coalition. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. Please come forward now, introduce yourselves and leave a few minutes at the end for questions from committee members.


Mrs Izzard: My name is Dorothy Izzard, a past co-chairman of the STORM Coalition, and with me is Joseph O'Neill, an active member of the STORM Coalition.

We are a coalition of citizen groups and individuals whose focus of concern includes preserving the environmental integrity of the Oak Ridges moraine. Within the context of our mandate and with reference to Bill 143, as well as to the draft approach and criteria for landfill site search, we wish to make the following points.

First, STORM totally supports the 3Rs principle as a first, effective and responsible means of dealing with waste quantity.

Second, we find totally unacceptable the closed concept which denies even the study and consideration of waste disposal methods other than landfill sites. Scientific incineration is being used by advanced nations and continues to be researched. The expense of installation can be offset by the production of energy. As for transporting outside the greater Toronto area, a willing host accessible by rail would curtail road damage and air pollution caused by heavy truck traffic through populated areas such as the community of Maple.

Third, part I of Bill 143 gives arbitrary powers to the Interim Waste Authority. The procedure for landfill search being carried out by this authority, presently on hold, is carefully phased and includes environmental studies and public hearings. But any public trust thus engendered is totally destroyed by the terms of sections 7, 8, 9 and 10. It is difficult to believe that civil liberties are not being eroded. The implications are disturbing.

With reference again to the approach and criteria for landfill search, STORM Coalition was most concerned to find the Oak Ridges moraine not listed as a primary constraint area. Our concern stems from the nature of the moraine and its function in the ecological balance of south-central Ontario. The moraine is a heap of mixed rubble, a highly permeable and vulnerable land formation of sand, gravel, stones and streaks of clay. It absorbs rain and snowmelt into a massive filtering and purifying system which either emerges in springs and small cold-water streams to form rivers -- the Don, Humber, Holland, Rouge, Credit and Ganaraska -- or filters further down to replenish the aquifers from which towns such as Newmarket, Aurora and Stouffville draw their municipal water supply.

The significance of the moraine has been recognized by both the previous and present governments of Ontario and by a private members' bill in the House of Commons.

In July 1990, in accord with recommendations in the Kanter report, an expression of provincial interest in the moraine was announced, as well as a two-year study of the moraine with guidelines for its protection during that time.

In September 1990, David Crombie released the interim report of the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, Watershed, in which he gave even greater emphasis to protection of the moraine in order that the waters downstream and into the harbour not be contaminated. Premier Bob Rae and the Honourable Ruth Grier were present at the release of this report and indicated their full support.

In June 1991 the implementation guidelines and the two-year study were initiated by the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Yet the Oak Ridges moraine is not considered a primary constraint area in the search for a landfill site. One single horrendous example should suffice. The Keele Valley landfill site, within the community of Maple, is in the Oak Ridges moraine and on two headwater tributaries of the Don River. Only a clay liner lies between the permeable texture of the moraine and tonnes of garbage. Can that clay liner be guaranteed until 1999, until 2099? What is the potential for toxic disaster downstream, through Metro and into Lake Ontario? What are the long-term hazards of any landfill site established on the moraine? A panic-button approach at the present moment disregards any thoughtful consideration for the world of our children's grandchildren. Surely we must plan beyond a short 20-year period.

Fourth, for a non-profit coalition of citizen groups with common environmental concerns, all of us unpaid volunteers working actively and responsibly to preserve the ecological integrity of our part of Ontario, and all other citizens to be cut off from public hearings in regard to any aspect of the above-mentioned concerns comes as a most regressive and insulting restriction from a government elected on the premise of open consultation.

Thank you for being permitted to be at this hearing.

Mr Turnbull: Yes, I completely agree with you. I was shocked that we would see a government that had campaigned on that basis cut this off.

Recognizing that there is no doubt about it, that ultimately you have to make a decision and that one of the great problems we have in our society is that environmental assessments have stretched on and on -- I am coming to the conclusion -- I want to ask you if you have the same view, that rather than having this issue where there is no public consultation whatsoever, and the other end of the extreme where there is endless consultation and you never arrive at a decision, what would you say is the ideal length of consultation for public input?

Mrs Izzard: Surely a final decision would not be made without public input, after considerable research and environmental study of any site chosen.

Mr Turnbull: What I am getting at is recognizing that this government, like any other government, has the difficulty that it has to govern and that the environmental process has spun to the point that it is costing taxpayers enormous amounts of money because we are extending the process. I am in favour of the process. I think it is absolutely essential that we have public input and that we have the right of appeal, but surely the ideal ground is to arrive at a more determinate period of time. On the one hand, here we have the minister taking away any question of public discussion, which is wrong, and, at the other end of the extreme, we have unlimited discussion. Can you put a time limit on it? I have asked this question to other people who have been presenting.

Mrs Izzard: I do not think it should be extended beyond the point of unreasonable expense. I cannot be specific, but surely there is a happy medium somewhere between no appeal and years of extended appeals.

Mr Turnbull: As far as incineration is concerned, it is quite clear there is a group of people so fundamentally opposed to incineration that just the very mention of it sends them into hysterics, and then there are other people who advocate it. How can we bridge the gap in terms of convincing people that it is not just industry getting a scientist to come forward and say, "Don't worry, folks, there's no risk," because that is the problem if somebody is very firmly against incineration. I wonder if you can respond to that.

Mrs Izzard: We are not wholeheartedly advocating incineration; we are simply asking that it be studied and considered, that it not be ruled out as it is in Bill 143. All alternative methods, besides dumping garbage in a hole, have been ruled out. We are looking forward to the public hearings that have been promised by the Rail Cycle North group.


Ms Haeck: Ms Izzard, I appreciate your comments. I live in the area that is part of the escarpment, and I am not as familiar with your area, so I was happy you gave me a map. Maps are wonderful things. But in looking at it, it is rather expansive. I have heard discussions about the Oak Ridges moraine, but I have not actually seen it described in this way before. Is this a rather broad definition of the moraine? What is included in this diagram?

Ms Izzard: That is the moraine area as defined by the Ministry of Natural Resources. This is their map, in part, from the Kanter report. It is the Oak Ridges moraine area. The area that is covered -- all you have there is the GTA. It extends into Simcoe county, it extends into Dufferin, and further to Northumberland.

Ms Haeck: I see. I guess some areas are deemed as parkland and some areas are deemed as, say, much more sensitive areas hydrologically?

Ms Izzard: We are in process now of a two-year study being carried out by the three ministries, during which time the moraine is protected to some degree by the guidelines that have been drawn up.

Ms Haeck: I see. I understand what you are saying about the nature of the moraine, and obviously that would give people some concern. I know that in the process of discussion around the bill, these very sensitive hydrological areas would be exempted, and I was wondering if you had come across that description.

Ms Izzard: Yes, they are, and also in the waste management primary constraint areas. They do include ANSIs -- areas of natural and scientific interest -- they do include environmentally sensitive areas, but that does not cover the moraine. Many of them are in the moraine, but that certainly does not cover the whole territory.

Ms Haeck: It does not cover the whole territory?

Ms Izzard: No.

Mr McClelland: Thank you for being here this morning. You mentioned that you are representing a coalition of citizens' groups with common environmental concerns and that one of your basic concerns is ecological integrity.

My colleague Mr Turnbull made a very interesting, relevant and significant point. You are not advocating any particular method. What you are saying, as a group of citizens, a group of people who have a common theme, is that you want to ensure that the best, most environmentally sound alternative is arrived at. To do so, you believe you need the participation of the public and the scientific community and any expert testimony and witnesses that can be brought to bear to help arrive at a conclusion that leads us to the best solution or solutions. Is that a fair summary of your position?

Ms Izzard: Yes, it is, Mr McClelland.

Mr McClelland: Is there anything you would like to add to that in terms of your belief that the public and citizens' groups such as yourself and the coalition of groups that you represent -- the important role you feel you have to play, and indeed ought to have to play, in this process?

Mrs Izzard: I think it is extremely important that citizen input is possible, as this committee has made possible at this time, and that it continue to be possible.

Mr McClelland: Do you feel it is fair to say that citizen input and participation is a hallmark, and in fact an underlying principle, of a democratic society?

Mrs Izzard: Absolutely, yes.

Mr McClelland: And would you feel that to deny that is contrary to those very basic principles?

Mrs Izzard: And contrary to the premise on which the present government was elected.

Mr McClelland: A government that talks about democratic, open principles and at one point said it would be prepared to release a list of potential sites in and around the greater Toronto area. Now we have been told very clearly that a list of such sites does not exist, and we accept that because we have been told that by the parliamentary assistant.

We are also curious to know, then, what the Interim Waste Authority has been doing in the meantime. They have given us a good summary of their process and the procedure they undertake. Would you, as a citizens' group, like to have a summary of the consideration and the application of criteria for the various parcels of land in the area you represent? In other words, would you like to have some sense of what they are looking at, where specifically they are looking in your area, and what work they have done on those specific parcels of land in your area? Would that be helpful to you?

Second, do you think it is simply, when all is said and done, fair that they provide that to you? Is that fair and reasonable?

Mrs Izzard: We are very anxious to have that information.

Mr McClelland: Why do you think the government is not prepared to release that, and why do you think -- and I will use the word -- they are hiding it or trying to withhold that information from you and citizens' groups like yours across Ontario?

Mrs Izzard: We are involved in the Interim Waste Authority committees in three regions. We have expressed our willingness, at their request, to serve on such committees. We have also received correspondence indicating that the long list will not be released so long as -- implication: citizens like ourselves are delaying the process by fighting Bill 143, that Bill 143 must come through first.

Mr McClelland: I would like you to expand on that, because you have said something very important and I want you to repeat that for the record. Let me put it in context.

We were told by the government House leader, "Cooperate with us" -- ie, the opposition, Mr McClelland, Mr Cousens -- "and we will release that information to you, first of all, in November." We said: "No, we are not going to cooperate in the sense that we will let this bill pass before the House adjourns. People deserve to have input and this is wrong." They said, "Well, cooperate with us, give us at least part of it, and we will give it to you in December." We said, "No, we want public hearings on this." They said, "Two weeks." That is the context in which this came, and I am relaying that to you.

I had a memorandum from the government House leader that said: "Do this, this and this, and we will give you the list. Don't do it and you won't get the list."

The Vice-Chair: Excuse me.

Mr McClelland: I think the witness should be able to conclude. I want you to repeat, if you could, that point you made.

The Vice-Chair: You will have to take that as notice and put it in writing. As long as we get that by February 14, I guess it will be part of the public record.

Mr McClelland: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I wonder if you could provide that for us as soon as possible -- possibly tomorrow -- and I will read that into the record.

Mrs Izzard: I can get a copy of that letter.

The Vice-Chair: There are two minutes left for the NDP caucus.

Mrs Mathyssen: The powers for site inspection in this bill are quite reasonable and appropriate and are consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Do you not think that public agencies acting for a valid public good should be able to gain access to land to make sure that we get the best and the safest possible site?

Mrs Izzard: Not at the implied risk of accusing anyone who resists of a criminal offence.

Mrs Mathyssen: That is not what it does.

Mrs Izzard: In sections 7, 8, 9 and 10.

Mrs Mathyssen: No. I think if you look at that carefully you will see these particular powers have been designed in order to protect the rights of the citizens and, in many ways, are less onerous than the current rights of municipalities in this regard.

Mrs Izzard: Could I point out first of all that if "prepaid mail" -- I am presuming this means a stamp -- "shall be deemed to have been received on the fifth day after the date of mailing of the notice," the author of that point does not live in the real world.

Second, if we go on to subsection 11(4), which I did not quote, "Any person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence," presumably punishable by law.

Mrs Mathyssen: But by virtue of the fact that in order to find a good site, in order to ensure the public safety and in order to ensure that the site chosen is the best that can be found, is it not incumbent upon the inspectors to make sure they have the kind of access they need in order to find that site?

Mrs Izzard: Surely not in such a confrontational manner.

Mr McClelland: On a point of information, Mr Chairman: I am just wondering if Mrs Mathyssen is offering a legal opinion that is contrary to that of every legal opinion that has been rendered before this committee. Is that just a personal opinion, or is it a legal opinion contrary to those offered by Mr Lederer, counsel for the region of Durham --

Mr Wiseman: This time should be removed from the next deputation. That is frivolous.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Wiseman, you can put your question on the record, and anybody else who has questions for the record.


Mr Wiseman: My question has to do with your second section, which talks about "a willing host." In the region of Durham, the municipalities -- there are seven or eight of them; I could go through the list but it would take too much time -- have all agreed that Pickering would be the willing host for the P-1 landfill site which the Liberals were going to do under an Environmental Protection Act greatly scoped, with no consideration for refusal.

Could you supply us with what you mean by "willing host" and how that would be defined?

Mrs Izzard: Not on the spur of the moment.

The Vice-Chair: That will be for the record, the same as the previous question, which the Liberal member posed. As long as you bring it before the committee or send it to the committee before February 14, it will become part of the record.

We thank you for your presentation. As you know, if you have any additional information, you can always send it in to the committee. As long as it is in before February 14, it will become part of the record.

Mr McClelland: I have a question for the parliamentary assistant, for the record. I wonder if it is the position of the parliamentary assistant or the government that the impact in terms of civil liberties and the rights of citizens is in fact a trivial matter. I would like your comment on that at some point, on the record, Mr O'Connor.


The Vice-Chair: We go to our next deputation, which is the RiverRun Ratepayers' Association. Would you begin by identifying yourself. You have 20 minutes. We would appreciate it if you would leave some time at the end for questions by the various parties.

Mr Portolese: My name is John Portolese. I am here representing the RiverRun Ratepayers' Association, which comprises approximately 2,000 homes. Its borders are the Credit River to the north and west, Creditview Road to the east and Eglinton Avenue to the south.

On behalf of the RiverRun ratepayers, I would like to express our serious reservations about the sweeping provisions of Bill 143. In trying to pass Bill 143, this government has broken faith with the public by breaking election promises that no dumps would be expanded without public hearings. The decision to expand the Britannia landfill site was made without any public consultation or environmental review. The NDP, who continue to preach open government and public consultation as their guiding principles, have shown us another example of this by making the decision to expand Britannia and then consulting with us, and only after a considerable effort on our part.

By far the most disturbing part of this bill is the emergency powers the Minister of the Environment has granted herself under the Environmental Protection Act. Emergency powers might be necessary if it were truly an emergency situation, but we who live around the Britannia landfill site know at first hand how an emergency can be created for political and not just environmental reasons. For those who do not already know, Britannia was supposed to close this year. When the site was first selected, legal documents and agreements were signed by all levels of government guaranteeing Britannia would close after 12 years or when its contours had been reached. Residents who lived around the site at the time were given assurances that the garbage problem was being handled responsibly and equitably by the governments of the day.

We all create garbage, we were told, and it was only fair that we take our share of the unpleasantries and inconveniences associated with its disposal. Britannia, we were told, was state-of-the-art and could safely take the amount of garbage it was designed for. The citizens of the area, like unsuspecting sheep, believed what they were told -- after all, there were signed agreements -- and went back home believing that a difficult situation was being handled responsibly, intelligently and fairly. Meanwhile, the region of Peel went about selecting the next site in the Brampton area because it had the agreement with them that we would take turns taking each other's garbage. Mississauga was and is doing its part.

All was going well in the region of Peel until Ruth Grier became the Minister of the Environment and, bowing to NIMBY pressures from Brampton, stopped Peel's search for the next landfill site. With Britannia scheduled to close, this caused a garbage emergency. Ruth Grier was then able to use her emergency powers to force Britannia to remain open. Her decision to extend the life of Britannia was made without mention of any environmental study to see if it was safe to do so, and without any contingency plans in the event it might be found unsafe.

We around Britannia were told this decision was made to protect the environment, but whose environment is being protected, we would like to know. Britannia is just over six miles from Lake Ontario and is semicircled by the Credit River less than one mile away. Carolyn Creek runs through the site's southern portion, which in turn feeds the Credit River and Lake Ontario. I cannot understand how some environmentalists feel justified in piling garbage higher at Britannia in order to save other areas.

It is interesting to note that the riding where Britannia is located did not vote the NDP in during the last election. We might understand better if the minister had just halted site 6B in Brampton for environmental reasons if she was committed to finding a new site. But no, she stopped the search completely, thereby wasting millions of dollars spent by the region of Peel on waste management, and left us hanging high and dry with no powers of our own. "We are now in a garbage crisis," she said, and could therefore use her emergency powers to force Britannia to stay open. She in effect interfered with another level of government which had been responsible, forced it into an emergency, and then decided to save us all by using her emergency powers to expand Britannia. We say to you that her so-called difficult decision was politically, not environmentally, motivated.

To put it another way, when Ruth Grier took office, with very little deep thinking she scrapped entire systems that were in place, such as the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee, and could not or did not replace these systems with something new or workable immediately. By so quickly scrapping these systems she wasted millions of dollars already spent and committed the region of Peel to spend millions more to fix things. I say to you if an executive in private industry acted this irresponsibly at her employer's expense, she would have been thrown out on her ear. Even if I believed her motives to be pure, I would still have to criticize her methods. The sad thing is, what is to stop the next Minister of the Environment from scrapping her systems and starting this all over again? If you are thinking that would not happen, just think back to when Ruth Grier overturned the previous government's decision and signed agreements concerning Brampton's site 6B.

The point I am trying to make is that the emergency measures are a double-edged sword and many areas and people who are in favour of this bill may be cut by the other edge of the sword in the future. That is probably one of the major reasons this bill is being introduced before a list of potential dump sites will be released. By removing people's democratic rights because of an emergency situation, which is what this bill is doing, you are opening the door to totalitarian forces. Many of the past ruthless dictators felt justified twisting laws here and there for what they convinced themselves was the common good. Ruth Grier, we believe, created an emergency so she could use her emergency powers. This bill will further sanctify emergency measures and remove the democratic rights of many to object.

The Minister of the Environment stated she would not expand "if I had my druthers," but in order to find an acceptable long-term site, which will go through a full review, it is necessary in the short run to make some unpalatable and difficult decisions. I find it ironic that this government has terminated the search for one site in Brampton because it was exempt from a full environmental assessment but is willing to expose our community to potential health and safety risks while expanding the Britannia landfill site without so much as an environmental protection review, let alone a full environmental assessment. Can this government guarantee the safety of our community?

I am surprised that the provincial government is taking total control and responsibility of the waste management issue while graciously allowing the municipalities to pick up the cost, when at the same time the government is limiting its handouts to the municipalities to a 1% increase. Meanwhile the region of Peel has already spent over $8 million of taxpayers' money to find an interim landfill site which would have allowed Britannia to close on time and as per signed agreements. This would have avoided any possibility of compensation to the developers around Britannia, as proposed by Bill 143. But what are a few more dollars and all this time and money wasted, considering we are further behind today than when the NDP took office?

Now the province wants the region of Peel to spend another $1 million to conduct some studies to see if the expansion of Britannia is feasible or even safe. Nowhere have I seen what contingency plans are in place in case these studies prove to be inconclusive or even prove that Britannia would be a health and safety risk if expanded. Where will our garbage go then, and who will pay for hauling it somewhere else? Anyway you look at this crisis, the taxpayers will have to pay for whatever decisions are made by this government.

The Ministry of the Environment talks about a 25% waste diversion from disposal by 1992. How does this government propose to do this, when Mississauga is thinking of banning all plastics from its blue box recycle program because there is currently no market to handle the tons of plastic that are being stockpiled? Why is this government not spending more time and resources on building this market, instead of trying to pile it at Britannia?


Not being a politician or a lawyer, I am not qualified to discuss all the merits or shortcomings of Bill 143. I have neither the time nor the resources to change the outcome of this bill. However, I feel there are certain parts of this bill that affect not only us residents living near the Britannia landfill site, but every resident of Ontario. How can we, as citizens, ever have faith in any level of government when what we are experiencing with Britannia shows that one level of government can interfere with legal and binding agreements of another and can do so without any recourse for those affected? How can the minister go to a proposed new site and convince its residents to accept the landfill site when any agreements can be overruled so easily?

Even with the passing of this bill, what will happen if this government or a future government is unable to meet the proposed target date for finding a long-term landfill site? How many years and how many more lifts will the minister force on Britannia with her emergency powers? Does this mean Britannia could be doomed for even more lifts and a closure date of well into the next century? We in Mississauga are clearly the scapegoats for this government.

I just wanted to add some comments that are not part of this. Our association had something to do with a six-point action plan, along with two other associations. To date, we have not heard any response. All we want to do is discuss the outcome of our community. Just to make an observation, I have been watching these proceedings on television the last few days and I have been overwhelmed by the number of negative comments that have been made about Bill 143. I am surprised we still have to go through all this. The bill should be taken back and reworked. It should be made fair for everyone. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you for your presentation.

Mr McClelland: I will start by prefacing that I did not know we had any influence in Brampton any more, that there was any response to any NIMBY pressures from Brampton. I did not think that was part of it, but I am interested in your observation to that end.

I think it is also interesting that you note the ridings most drastically affected -- Vaughan, Mississauga, Peel and those areas -- were not politically or electorally friendly to the New Democratic Party. I am not sure that one can draw any inferences from that, but I certainly think it is very interesting.

In the two minutes we have, I would like you to pursue the issue of fairness, and the things that you talk about on the second full paragraph on page 2. One who is sitting opposite on the government side would say that is a fairly -- if I can presumably use the words -- outrageous and inflammatory statement, that some people justify some things they do because they believe it is in the common good. How do you respond to people who say, "We will do whatever we want to do, because we know best in all situations; we happen to know what is right"? How would you respond to that as a citizen and as a ratepayer?

Mr Portolese: As citizens, as ratepayers and taxpayers, we are very disappointed in the way the minister has handled this by creating these emergency powers and not giving us a chance to even comment on any part of the bill or any of her decisions. She has basically created this situation herself, without taking the time and effort to consult with all kinds of people, not just the residents, but legal and political and environmental people, in coming up with this bill. Just to reiterate, we feel she is basically twisting some of the rules around in her favour so that she can take advantage of them.

Mrs Marland: First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your presentation. You do not ever have to apologize for not being a lawyer etc, because you have been very articulate and have made an excellent presentation.

When you talk about Britannia originally closing, and the signed agreements, I think it is important for this committee to know that those agreements were signed by the city, the region and the province, and approved by the Ontario Municipal Board. When you refer to the minister scrapping the systems, she also has scrapped the systems which she supported in opposition. I know you are very much aware of that. You are also aware, I know, that she signed a secret cabinet document agreeing to two lifts at Britannia. That is why your group and the residents in my riding are sceptical about this one lift request.

You have brought with you your six-point request from the area residents. I am aware that that is the same proposal you gave to the minister when she attended your public meeting. Have you had any response from the minister or her staff on that proposal, which was presented to her three weeks ago?

Mr Portolese: Not to my knowledge. I know the Peel regional council asked for a meeting within 14 days -- and that was a few days ago -- to discuss this with her. We have not had any response yet.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to make just a couple of comments. First, when Mayor McCallion was here, she indicated that site 6A was the preferred site for Peel and that it was undergoing a process until it was cancelled by Jim Bradley, implying some connection to the Ronto Development Corp. Then that created the necessity for site 6B, which the Liberals had put under an Environmental Protection Act hearing, similar to the P-1 site, which was under an EPA hearing in Pickering. Groups had already formed to have court challenges both under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and under the Environmental Protection Act and the Environmental Assessment Act. It was highly unlikely that either of these two sites would have been available for tipping or landfilling by this year. My question to you is that since Britannia was supposed to be closed by June of this year and presumably site 6B and any other site would not have been up and running by now, where would the garbage have gone?

Mrs Marland: But 6B was five years ago.

Mr Wiseman: Well, 6B was still not up and running, and it was still undergoing an environmental assessment.

The Chair: This is not the time for debate. A question has been asked; please respond.

Mr Cousens: We have to have accuracy, and he does not have accuracy.

Mr Portolese: To comment on that, I believe Mayor Hazel McCallion mentioned that through SWISC they made some arrangements to cover any garbage gap that might happen if Brampton was not ready in time.

Mr Wiseman: So it would go somewhere else.

Mr Portolese: It would go somewhere else, but for the short term. Right now it has no place to go. It has to go to Britannia. That is one of the reasons we, being responsible citizens and residents and not wanting to pay a lot more in taxes to take our garbage somewhere else, came up with this plan. It is just that we want a guarantee that it will close some time and not remain open indefinitely, which is the way it sounds so far. We are looking at 1997-98, and that is if she passes this bill, I assume, and amends the Environmental Assessment Act as well.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. We appreciate your coming before the committee.

Mr McClelland: When is the parliamentary assistant or his office going to provide all members of the committee, particularly Mr Wiseman, with a summary of what happened with 6A and 6B so that it would be understood that 6B is in fact part of 6A, that they are an overlap? I think it is important we operate from a common, factual base and that it is understood.

The Chair: That will be noted as a question on the record for the parliamentary assistant and the ministry.

Mrs Marland: My question also is to the minister. Can we have a response to this very reasonable six-point proposal -- which, incidentally, agrees that they will accept one lift? They are not saying, "No garbage at Britannia." We would like a response from the minister to that proposal.

Mr Cousens: I would like to have a list of all the questions we have been asking so I will just know what I can expect to get answers to. When could I have a list of questions? That is another question that I would like to have on the record.

The Chair: The list is available in Hansard. Hansard is available through Publications Ontario for anyone who is viewing and watching these hearings. For you, Mr Cousens, Hansard is available in your mailbox downstairs.

Mr Cousens: But there should be a summary.

The Chair: Are you requesting a summary of all of the questions?

Mr Cousens: That is right.

The Chair: I will ask our research people to see if they can pull out a summary of the questions which have been asked.

I have a request from the parliamentary assistant to respond. We just have a moment.

Mr O'Connor: Just in response to the six-point action plan, I realize that you have not received your answer yet, but it is being looked at right now and reviewed and responses should be prepared and forthcoming at some time in the near future. That is just to say it has been received and we appreciate your patience. Thank you for your presentation today.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate you coming before the committee this morning.

Mr Cousens, I have asked research, and they will provide all members of committee with a list of the questions that have been asked of the ministry to date.

Mr Cousens: Thank you very much.



The Chair: I would call next Concerned Homeowners for the Environment of King. Please come forward and introduce yourself to the committee. You have 20 minutes for your presentation.

Just speak right into the Hansard microphone. Everything will be picked up, and everything is on the record. Please leave a few minutes after your presentation for questions from committee members.

Mr Sutherland: I understand. This presentation will be without any documentation. It is basically off the top of my head and from the bottom of my heart, I guess. It will be in three parts. First I will credentialize myself, second, I will try to give a broad overview and, third, I will take a little tiny portion for NIMBY.

By profession I am a geological, mining and environmental engineer. I am representing a group of home owners in King township who have been situated with a landfill site problem in the past and are facing one in the future.

I graduated from the University of Toronto in 1952 in mining, engineering and geology, taught at the university subsequent to that and then went into the consulting market. In 1970 I got involved with the government of British Columbia for environmental determination of placer mining in the streams in the Cariboo area. I worked with the government of Dominica in the West Indies developing forestry, mining and industrial park environmental concerns, because they have a primitive rain forest and are very at risk on soil erosion factors. I worked in Africa with the government of Guinea regarding placer mining in a water-depleted area so there would be adequate water and unpolluted areas in that district. I have worked with a number of concerned citizens' groups regarding landfill sites and other environmental matters. I am currently negotiating and working with the government of Newfoundland to develop an environmental climate regarding reforestation. I live in King township, and my interest is both as a home owner and as an environmental engineer.

As an environmental engineer, I am not a pragmatic, all-at-once environmental person. I must take issue -- and I am going to step on a few sacred cows, I am afraid. I hope you will find that my presentation is non-partisan, non-political. Hopefully it will affect everybody in the mind and in the heart.

It is basically the fact that we must make every effort to cut back on pollution in any way possible. I take issue with the environmental groups -- and I will name two, Greenpeace and the one here in Toronto, Pollution Probe -- that in my opinion want only a soapbox, because they are not prepared to take partial solutions. Mankind must take steps at a time. You cannot start running when you are born, you have to go slowly. You have to learn how to do things, and let's learn how to do them, instead of saying, "You must have this done completely or we won't even consider it." Let's take these first steps.

The whole concept of Bill 143 is, where are we going to put waste? If you put waste in the farm lands surrounding the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, you are doing three things. First and foremost, the people who live in those areas do not have city-piped water. The majority of them have wells or local water systems and most of them grow some food crops. By putting in a landfill site -- and it has been proven that it does do it -- it will pollute the aquifer systems, the surrounding water systems that these people depend on, on top of which it is removing from the food chain what we will perhaps not need today, but your grandchildren will say: "Hey, we've got no farm land to grow food. We've got to bring in food from Pennsylvania or Florida or Mexico."

We have some of the finest farm land in the world around Toronto; why should we dig up perfectly good farm land and residential land for landfill sites? If you want to put a landfill site somewhere around this area, put it under Toronto, because we do not draw water or food from Toronto. Put it under the pavement of Toronto. Toronto is paved. You could stick garbage under Toronto and it would not pollute anybody or anything. If you want to get a real spot to put it, put it in the Don Valley brickyards and watch Rosedale scream. There is your thinking.

If you have to go that route, and I do not think you should, science and the technology of today, the engineers, can take a gravel pit that is normally an eyesore, line it with either clay or vinyl liners and use it as a waste fill site. I think if you go out and spend millions and millions of dollars on new sites, like the ones proposed in the forthcoming plan, you are going to be developing and spending a lot of money on a technology that five years from now may be totally wasteful. You have gone and spent the money. You say, "Hey, we've got to keep on doing it because we spent the money," and you cannot go to the new technology. I think that is foolishness.

We have to find something to do in the interim. If we took the system that was proposed and accepted by Kirkland Lake and the northern communities to rail haul the garbage to the mining communities and put it in the old mines, we know for a fact, and your own departments of Mines and the Environment will tell you, that the majority of the mines in the pre-Cambrian Shield are sealed, are resistant. As a prime example in my experience, there was a property on the shore of Porcupine Lake. The shaft was no farther away from the lake than I am from Madam Chair, yet the water in that mine was 30 feet higher than the lake and when the the Environment ministry tested it there was absolutely no seepage, which indicates that those kinds of pre-Cambrian mine shafts are competently sealed and there can be no pollution seeping out of them.

But what happens? We send trainloads of garbage up to Kirkland Lake and those trains come back empty. If you took that system and had those trains coming back with goods manufactured in the northern communities -- in other words, if you initiated a low-cost rail corridor, because you have to send the garbage up anyway and you have trains coming back empty -- it would then take the factories and industrial sites out of, again, the prime farm land we have around Toronto, put them in the northern communities where you cannot grow anything but scrub timber on rock, and you could develop a beautiful economy in the north that would keep them happy. You would keep the north country happy and it would provide a low-cost interim settlement for waste disposal, effective today. That way, you are creating new jobs, you are creating new industries and you are showing foresight in the location of industrial and manufacturing sites. The only thing that makes people put plants here is the cost of shipping it to markets, because we have a country 3,000 miles wide and 100 miles deep, and that is bad economics when you are trying to ship manufactured goods back and forth. But if you have that low-cost corridor, which is already paid for by the empty trains going up, then you have the capability of providing a very low-cost transportation system that would bring the goods down. To me, it makes a lot of sense to think on that basis. It is intelligent, I think.

That is the overall basis of it. I guess the NIMBY part is that I live in a beautiful section of King township. Two of the potential sites are located less than a mile apart in the northwest corner of King. We have proven the one site, through the ministry. The ministry ordered it closed because it was polluting the aquifer which leads to Holland Marsh. If that site had continued and if the new site goes in, there is a very good chance that Holland Marsh could become polluted and no longer capable of producing food, which would be a terrible detriment to the agricultural economy of Ontario and of that community. Again, we would be destroying part of the food chain.

The two sites also feed two other water sources. They feed into the Nottawasaga River going up to Lake Couchiching, and obviously the one going into the Holland Marsh is from the Schomberg River. At the other end there is a lake and swamp area -- wetlands -- that feed into the Humber. So you see the potential of polluting three water sites in the NIMBY area is very strongly there, because it has been determined already by tests by the ministry and by ourselves that, although there is a clay base, it is permeated with vertical sand seams and there is no competent clay layer between the aquifer and the surface, so you would get a lot of pollution going from any site into the water systems. Those water systems feed a huge community of over 100,000 people: York region, Simcoe, Peel.


I just do not feel that there is a heck of a lot of sense in destroying future potential for quick short-term fixes. Let's think ahead. You have to remember that when you put garbage in a landfill site it decays. In many cases it decays in five years, 10 years, 50 years, 100 years, depending on what it is, but the decay releases pollution into the soil, into the water and into the atmosphere. If you take that same garbage and burn it under controlled conditions with the technology that exists today, you are creating exactly the same pollutants. You are doing the same thing. All it is is a fast conversion of the decomposition process, but with the fast process, there are enough controls and scrubbers and technology on the market today to produce a clean effluent.

So what do you do? Instead of building a burning station, you build a station that provides heat for the Parliament Buildings, low-cost housing. You burn this garbage, because basically the majority of the stuff that will go into the landfill site will burn, and use it to heat. Do not waste it. There is recycling of your first order.

I just cannot understand the technology that says incinerated garbage is less polluting than a landfill site, because the pollutants are exactly the same. All you are doing is controlling the pollutants. With the technology that is going to be developed in the next three years, you can probably use a lot of those waste products that come from the stacks. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you.

Mr Martin: You certainly make some really interesting and valid points. I do not think anybody around the table at this committee would disagree with your concern re the impact of the the garbage problem on some of the very arable and valuable lands of southern Ontario. Certainly this piece of legislation is an attempt, perhaps imperfect, however, to move that agenda forward, the emphasis on the 3Rs, so we might in fact reduce some of the garbage and then ultimately recycle and reuse some.

I do not know if you know, but I come from Sault Ste Marie. We have a difficult time with the attitude that it makes sense to solve one group's problem by creating one for somebody else. We would be interested very much in further discussion about the possibility of industrial development around the resource that waste often is and certainly would want to invite some further discussion with you, even beyond this committee, around that question. Perhaps you would want to comment on the comments I have just made.

Mr Sutherland: The comment I would make on that is that I as an environmental engineer have offered my services to many of the municipal and governmental bodies, not on a contract basis and not on a cost basis but on a basis of a concerned environmental expert, I would say, using the term very loosely, because X is the unknown quantity and a spurt is a drip under pressure.

I would be more than willing to provide as much input as I can. Problems have got to be solved, and I think they need people who have the mental capability, the mental agility to solve these problems. Not everybody does and not everybody wants to. I am very fortunate in that I do seem to have a bent for solving problems, coming up with answers that seem to work. As such, I am certainly available. I think, as you say, the concept is flawed. Let's try to unflaw it.

Mrs Fawcett: Thank you very much for coming this morning and making your presentation. I can certainly say I agree with many of the things you have said. I find it absolutely shocking that this government that prides itself on its care of the environment could not see its way clear to send one person to the major press conference all the farm groups had this morning, committing themselves to environmental farm plans. I just find it very strange that not one member was there. Really, on where we put garbage, on farm land, I think your points are well taken.

I am wondering if you could comment on the inspectors who will now be allowed, with police backup and warrants, if they are needed, to come on to your land and test, or any land anywhere and test. Do you have any comments?

Mr Sutherland: Yes. My comment on that is very simple. It is one word, "shocking," because to me it is a police state. One of the functions of government is to work for the people and work towards making a better life for the people. I do not think any form of legislation that forces the people to do something they do not want to do -- I guess I am an old-fashioned person; I believe a man's home is his castle. If somebody else goes out there and spends $1 million or $500,000 or $200,000 building himself a home then he has the right to casual enjoyment.

Just apropos of that, the most important way of stopping garbage is to stop people making it. Recycling, remodeling or anything else like that are nice words, but they do not make people work. If you stopped collecting garbage in the city of Toronto except once a month for the first year, once every two months for the second year and once every three months for the third year, and if they had to store it on their own premises, people would make a heck of a lot less garbage. That is something people should think about.

Let's give the people a push, because if it is not dumped in their backyard -- everybody knows the NIMBY effect -- they are not concerned. Only the ones that have an environmental bent or are stuck near a waste fill site or some form of garbage dump really get up and scream. The majority of people who appear before you have some kind of a thrust that way. So let's put the pressure on the public to stop. If they have to hang on to the garbage for a while, that is going to make them stop. That is going to cause the manufacturers to produce less wasteful packaging and it is going to cause the household users to think twice about what they buy, which includes I might add using locally grown food products instead of importing them in packages from other parts of the world.

Mr Cousens: I want to compliment Mr Sutherland and thank him for his presentation. You know, there is something good about someone who is not wasting more paper on the committee. We will get this printed up in Hansard and see it. I really mean it. When you can come and speak genuinely and sincerely as you have, I think it reflects a caring person.

I want to come to some solution on this, though. I am worried by the legislation. In Bill 143 the minister has said she does not want to have garbage shipped out of the Metro area and she also excludes the possibility of incineration. She has made these policy decisions. What we are trying to raise, and I sense that the Liberals are in the same position as our caucus -- we are not saying we are in favour necessarily, but let's expose it to an environmental assessment. Would that make sense to you from where you are coming from? We are not just saying you have to incinerate. We are not just saying you have to ship it, but at least subject those issues to a broader assessment to consider the pluses and the minuses. Could you comment on what we are talking about, because we are saying something a little different than you, maybe. I would just like you to critique it.

Mr Sutherland: One of the things I wanted to try to avoid when I got here today was being partisan.

Mr Cousens: I am not trying to put you in that box.

Mr Sutherland: No. I mean, I am an observant person. I sat in the back there for a few minutes and I know there are political shots being taken and I think that is only natural in the environment we are in. Whether I approve of them or whether I disapprove of them coming from any party position is neither here nor there.

There is enough knowledge, technology, caring and interested parties that are not going to go out there and say, "I want a fee of $20,000 to do this and $50,000 to do that." We are studied to death, first and foremost. Let's get a think tank on this of people who know what the hell they are talking about, not people who are coming from a political position and not somebody who is coming from a soap box like Pollution Probe. Pollution Probe is going to hate me, but I cannot help that.

Actually, just as a small aside, I went to Pollution Probe one time and said, "I would like to work with you," because one of my friends was the founder of it. They came back to me and said: "Sorry, you don't think the same way we do. We want everything done immediately. You want to take too long. You want to talk to business and reduce things that way." That turned me off that group.

If we get a lot of very serious, knowledgeable people -- the funny thing is, people in the mining industry take one of the biggest knocks in the world as polluters. But they are the first ones who are environmentalists and they are the first ones who have done environmental research and set up ways -- every mine is almost as big a polluter as the city of Toronto, but they have their tailing ponds and they have their chemicals neutralized. They have everything done.

A mining engineer is a jack of all trades. He has to have every discipline at his fingertips purely and simply because he has got to find the minerals, he has to design the town, he has to design the mill, he has to do the chemistry, he has to do the water tables, he has to do the electricity. He is not an expert, but he is a master of many trades. Go to these people who, because they live with the environment, care for the environment.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate your coming today. A couple of questions for the record. Ms Haeck, question?

Ms Haeck: Thank you, Mr Sutherland. You have raised some interesting points throughout your presentation. Because of your engineering background --

The Chair: Question?

Ms Haeck: Using changes that have occurred in how we deal with waste and obviously the projected reductions around using the 3Rs and some of the ideas you have also raised, would you comment on whether landfills really, with only the small amount that would be going to them, would be a sound alternative?

The Chair: Question, Mrs Mathyssen?

Mrs Mathyssen: I take it that you support the 3Rs. I wonder how you would respond to the comment that after all the recyclables are removed from waste, the BTU value of the material left would not be enough to support energy from waste facilities?

The Chair: Mr Sutherland, we appreciate your coming before the committee today. Our clerk will provide you with a copy of the questions that have been placed on the record. If you wish, you can respond to them in writing. If we receive the response by February 14, it will form part of the public record. If it is after that, it will be made available to committee members for their deliberations and considerations during these hearings. If you choose not to respond, that is your right as well. Thank you very much for coming today.

The standing committee on social development will reconvene at 2 pm.

The committee adjourned at 1222.


The committee resumed at 1401.


The Chair: The standing committee on social development is now in session. I would like to welcome the Canadian Polystyrene Recycling Association. Please come forward and begin your presentation by introducing your delegation. I believe you have 20 minutes for your presentation, and we would ask you to please leave as much time as possible for questions from members of the committee.

Mr Scott: My name is Michael Scott, and I am president of the Canadian Polystyrene Recycling Association. Our organization, which represents all facets of the Canadian polystyrene recycling industry, has just opened in Mississauga this country's first recycling facility dedicated to the recycling of all types of polystyrene, and one of North America's largest recycling plants.

At this facility, which cost our member companies almost $6 million to put into operation last fall, we recycle polystyrene collected from manufacturing plants, cafeterias, restaurants, schools, hospitals and sports complexes across southern Ontario. We recycle this material by turning it into small pellets, which I have here with me today, which in turn are used to manufacture a wide range of durable consumer products such as video cassette holders, letter trays and this pencil holder, which was manufactured from the first pellet produced at our plant by Eldon-Rubbermaid here in the Toronto area.

CPRA demonstrates what product stewardship is all about and what various measures contained in section 4 of this bill are aimed at achieving if we are to move to a conserver society. I suppose one could argue that CPRA does not really need this bill. We are a reality. We have built a plant and established collection systems and can utilize our member companies to successfully market our product.

Getting here has not been easy. We have faced difficulties and challenges, many of which we fortunately have been able to resolve, but some of these same difficulties may be insurmountable to others unless the broad regulatory powers granted the minister by Bill 143 end up supporting rather than hindering those who may follow us.

In the few minutes available to me, I would like to tell you what we have learned from this experience and what I believe this committee and the government should pay particular attention to in evaluating and implementing the measures contemplated in section 4 of the bill.

I want to emphasize at the outset that we are working with staff in the waste reduction office and appreciate the opportunity to have continuing dialogue with them on the points I want to raise with you this afternoon. I understand the complexity of their task, having wrestled with many of the same issues as a public servant recently myself for more than 10 years. Their job is made all the more important by the powers this legislation will give them to enforce waste reduction and encourage more recycling initiatives like ours. We are continuing our discussions with them, and I am encouraged by their interest in what we have to say.

I would like to begin with the measures being contemplated through this bill to facilitate approvals for recycling facilities. Our own experience in this area has been a sobering one. In late 1990, we were required to file an application for approval for our Mississauga facility as a waste treatment plant under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act. Because of this, our approvals process took almost eight months to complete.

At the beginning of this process, we argued that we were not building a waste treatment plant. All of the material coming to the plant is source separated, and the majority of it comes to the plant as post-industrial packaging material, such as large blocks used to package automobile parts or truckloads of used coat hangers or used peanut packaging material. In fact, we have had to bid and pay for some of this material because, thank goodness, it is now recognized as a valued commodity which we must obtain if our recycling operation is to be economically viable.

Fortunately, CPRA could draw on the commitment and resources of its member companies to cope with an eight-month approvals process. However, many other recyclers in Ontario cannot. They are small, independent operators. They have watched our experience with deep concern and have informed me and others that few new recycling initiatives like ours will take place if the same approvals process awaits them.

I know many in the ministry understand this problem. The proposed regulatory measures in the ministry's initiatives paper aimed at streamlining approvals for recycling sites are clearly moving us in the right direction.

However, we still have a problem. Those proposals, as presently written, would not change anything should CPRA and others involved in our industry want to build additional recycling capability in Ontario. CPRA's facility and collection system are not cited in the initiatives paper. The materials we are now recycling are not included in the classified material types eligible for the streamlined approvals process outlined in that document. It is a significant concern to me and many other recyclers in Ontario that a plant of our size and importance would therefore still appear to be classified as a waste treatment plant.

I am hopeful that we can resolve this issue with the ministry. It would send an important signal to other recyclers and those considering recycling investments. We all must make adjustments and changes to our thinking, and this includes government regulators.

At CPRA we receive an average of 60 to 80 calls a week from restaurant, cafeteria and plant operators wanting to become part of our collection and recycling system. They understand the importance of moving to a conserver society, but if the recycling industry of Ontario is to meet this demand effectively, regulators must recognize and encourage not only what they want to see happen in the future, but what is happening now.

In the few remaining minutes available to me, I would like to highlight two other issues. First is the issue of markets for recycled material. There has been considerable discussion on this issue before this committee in recent days. Members have asked what the government should be doing to develop more markets for recycled products. Let me share with you our own experience and what we are learning.

We are fortunate at CPRA in that the trail has been blazed by polystyrene recycling in the United States and the development of a broad range of markets for our recycled material. We have decided to mobilize the knowledge and expertise of our member companies, Dow and Novacor in particular, who will act as CPRA's sales agents. This allows us to minimize our own costs while utilizing the broad expertise and market knowledge which these companies bring to the table. In fact, it is in their interest as product stewards to ensure that our sales and marketing program grows, given their sizeable investment in CPRA.

I believe it is our job and responsibility to develop these markets, not that of the taxpayers of Ontario. Certainly, funding support for some aspects of new recycling initiatives helps. As many of you will know, the minister announced at our plant opening in October the ministry's decision to provide a capital grant of approximately $550,000 towards the cost of our facility, and we very much appreciate that support. But the availability of affordable feedstock, efficient collection systems, and reasonable approvals and regulatory policies are the prime determinants of a healthy recycling industry. Funding artificial, short-term market opportunities for recycled material is a stopgap measure doomed to fail in the long term, and as long as dumping recyclables is cheaper and easier than recycling them, no amount of public or private funding will sustain a recycling industry in Ontario.


Finally, this bill gives the minister broad regulatory powers to regulate and control the production of products that "pose waste management problems." I do not take issue with such measures, provided they are used wisely. Let me explain. It may surprise you to know that significant quantities of polystyrene feedstock coming to our facility are manufactured by companies outside of Ontario, and indeed outside of Canada. But it is Ontario's and Canada's industries that are paying substantial amounts of money to have this material recycled. These same companies must also pay to meet the government's reduction targets. Most of their competitors outside Ontario do not.

At CPRA we can try to level the playing field somewhat by seeking out these foreign companies, as we will, and asking them to support financially our plant in Ontario which is recycling their material. You can predict, as I can, the kind of response we may well receive. Resolving this problem is not easy, and quickly gets entangled in federal and international trade and commercial jurisdiction and agreements. But if Ontario's recycling and packaging industry is to be competitive and create more jobs while meeting its product stewardship obligations, we must solve this problem. This places a premium on how, where and when the ministry uses the regulatory powers it will be given by this bill.

I would like to conclude at this point and leave time for some discussion. To summarize, we at CPRA believe government's role is to encourage and facilitate recycling and reduction. We believe the designation and approvals process for recycling facilities such as ours can and must be improved by ensuring that all recyclable materials, including polystyrene, are identified and classified as such. Finally, we believe the government can help to foster a healthy recycling industry through measures over which it has direct control and expertise, but pouring public funds into the development of stopgap markets for recyclable materials is not one of them.

I hope these comments are helpful, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here. I have included in the appendices to this submission a list of our company members and a summary of our highlights. Needless to say, we would be delighted to welcome any members of your caucus to the plant to talk in more detail about the work we are doing.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. Question, Mr Wiseman?

Mr Wiseman: I would like to thank you for your presentation. It is nice to hear an upbeat, positive presentation.

I have a couple of questions. The first is that when Waste Management of Canada Inc was here, it suggested that one of the things the province should look at doing is having greater control over what is in the products being sold in Ontario. This almost implies that perhaps content regulations should be put into place to determine the amount of recycled material that should be contained in each product that is sold. Have you had any discussions with anybody about that kind of approach, and what do you think of it?

Mr Scott: I am aware that this type of approach is strongly supported by many recyclers in the province who feel that only through mandatory recycled content is their product going to be marketable and in fact used. I think it is simplistic, however, to think that this alone is what is going to break open the recycling marketplace. I certainly think that is a policy area that the government needs to look at. There well might be things that can be done, and I would support that.

I think even more important than that is the whole front-end process of the recycling industry. How much is it costing recyclers to get their feedstock into the front door before they turn it around and send it out the back door, and how competitive is their product as a result of that? Certainly there is a lot of work to be done on the front end of the whole recycling process.

At the back end, I think mandatory recycled content is certainly an issue to look at. I think the government can look at other issues as well, such as procurement policies that it uses in purchasing recycled material and insisting on recyclability as part of contracts that are let to suppliers to the government. I think those are measures that are going to be important steps to take towards supporting the recycling industry.

Mr McClelland: I take it you are saying that you agree with the general thrust. You say that measures contained in part IV of the bill are aimed at achieving the conserver society. Then you go on, on page 3, to say the proposals would not really change anything. You agree with the thrust but in terms of practical implementation and application you do not see a great deal of help at the present time.

Mr Scott: What I am referring to there is the streamlined approvals process. That is the specific issue I am raising. In the overall context of the streamlining process, I think it is well needed and clearly in the right direction, but I do have a concern that when I pick the document up I cannot find reference to the existence of a facility that is one of the largest in North America and the first of its kind in Canada. That troubles me.

Mr McClelland: In terms of any protocol or memorandum of understanding in process, maybe you could help us. Is there anything in the works with CPRA and the Ministry of the Environment in terms of a regulatory scheme that would say that if manufacturers were members of your association they would effectively roll into your association as opposed to having specific regulation requirements on an industry-by-industry basis; in short, that if they were members of CPRA they would be in a blanket compliance provision or opportunity with regs as opposed to being out of the association, where they would have to individually comply? Is there anything in process that you are aware of with CPRA in that area?

Mr Scott: No, we have not had any discussions with the government along those lines. Membership in CPRA for our member companies, for the resident suppliers and the manufacturers of polystyrene products is a very significant undertaking. They are required to pay membership fees to CPRA based on the annual volume of polystyrene they produce and sell into the Canadian market, so the more product they put into the market in Canada the higher the fees they pay to CPRA, which is really a direct connection to the product stewardship. But that is voluntary. A company can choose to stand on the sidelines and let its competitors pay those substantial fees and take some credit for the fact that the polystyrene industry is showing leadership in recycling its product, and to a certain extent that is happening in the industry. But it seems to me that is an industry problem to resolve.

Mr McClelland: To the extent that they are paying in voluntarily, that could be at least recognized in any draft regulations that would impose an environment tax or a cost associated with enforcement of the regulations. Would it be at least a reasonable point of departure for discussion to say that membership and the costs associated with CPRA ought to be somehow accounted for in terms of compliance with environmental regulations?

Mr Scott: I do not think there is any question that our members would support that type of principle. They are certainly looking for --

Mr McClelland: That would help with the level playing field.

Mr Scott: That would certainly help level the playing field, particularly for out-of-province and out-of-country competition. There is no question about that.

The Chair: There are three minutes remaining. Mr Cousens has not signified that he has a question.

Mr Cousens: Yes, I have.

The Chair: Oh, I am sorry. I did not see you.

Mr Cousens: I thought we followed the rotation, Madam Chairman, but yes, I did signify.

The Chair: I had a request from the parliamentary assistant that perhaps the ministry could use a couple of minutes of the time to suggest how this fits with its initiatives paper.

Mr Cousens: I had a question and I certainly want to make some comments.

The Chair: Proceed. It is your time.

Mr Cousens: I am delighted with your presentation. I am glad you are here. There are several things going on with polystyrene. Just the education of everybody and your being here with an audience of many thousands of people watching this program is in itself a statement that should be going out so that all of us who are into our own blue box programs in our communities start to find ways of getting our polystyrene products to you so that you can recycle them. I would not mind having you comment on your plant. It is open. What capacity do you have going through it? What communities are helping feed you? I know a lot of it comes from industrial, but I would like to give you a moment to tell us about what you are doing, because I think this is a great success story.


Mr Scott: The plant has a total capacity of about 15,000 metric tonnes. Its capacity, as we speak today, is about 5,000 to 6,000 metric tonnes, and over the past couple of months we have moved 200 or 300 tonnes of material through the plant. We have exceeded our initial expectations of what that volume would be in the first two months of operation. We are collecting food service containers, which is really where the public perception issue lies, from over 100 locations in the greater Toronto and southern Ontario area. These include restaurants, hospitals, schools, community colleges and sports complexes. That is growing rapidly. In fact, we are having difficulty right now keeping up with the calls and demands coming into the office, which I think says a lot about the willingness of the consumer to do this.

We are collecting polystyrene out of the blue box in Oakville, Trenton and Belleville areas. We are talking to other municipalities about the possibility of doing the same, but they are under very severe pressures, as we all know, right now in terms of the costs of managing their blue box program. We were informed just last week that we will not be able to access the blue boxes in the Metropolitan Toronto area, at least over the next year, because of cutbacks in Metro Toronto's budget, which is of very serious concern to us. We were looking at possibly setting up depot arrangements in Metro Toronto, with the cooperation of Metro Toronto, which would provide consumers with an opportunity to bring their material to those locations. That now appears to not be feasible given their cutbacks. I am deeply concerned about it and will be taking that up with them.

The consumer is responding. We are getting people coming to the plant daily. We have a dropoff depot at the facility. It is filling up now on an average of once a week with material people are bringing into us, and I am absolutely delighted by the response we have received from the consumers who recognize now that polystyrene is being recycled. We have a long way to go and a lot of work to do to get material out of the household. Just one last point: There is only about 0.05 pounds a week in the household. Very little goes directly into the house. Most polystyrene is used in foodservice application in shopping malls and food court malls and, as I have mentioned earlier, the vast majority of it is in packaging.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. I have two questions for the record and a point of information.

Mr Wiseman: I would like the deputant to give us the address and let everybody who is watching know where they can bring their polystyrene.

Mr Scott: Our address is 7595 Tranmere Drive in Mississauga. It is just north of the Pearson airport, and if people want to call us, it is 612-8290. We can give them more specific directions on how to get there.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Question for the record. No preamble, Mrs Mathyssen.

Mrs Mathyssen: Oh, not me, Madam Chair, never.

I understand that the waste reduction office would like to provide for a permit by rule for polystyrene recycling facilities but that municipalities and private sector companies would have to collect the polystyrene. What I wondered was how you would recommend having a permit by rule apply to plants like yours.

The Chair: Mr Martin, question.

Mr Martin: Would the operation that you do, where you do it, be profitable in a location in northern Ontario?

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Martin. 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 reply in writing, and if you reply before February 14, it will become part of the public record.

I think it is important to note for those people who are watching that the subcommittee of this committee, in determining the procedures, agreed that these hearings are important so that the members of the public who are watching can get a better understanding of what the bill is about and listen intently to some of the very fine presentations we have heard. I do allow some leeway to allow presenters to finish their thoughts and ideas and I am much tougher with committee members to stay to time and on schedule.

We appreciate your coming before us today and sharing with us and the people watching your address and your telephone number and your willingness to help the public better understand the matters before this committee. Thank you very much.


The Chair: The next presentation is by Ogden Martin Systems, Ltd. Welcome. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. Would you please begin your presentation now and introduce yourself to the committee.

Mr Olivier: My name is Harry Olivier. I am a resident of the greater Toronto area and I have lived and worked here for more 38 years. Therefore, I am making this presentation not only as vice-president of Ogden Martin Systems, Ltd, but also as a concerned citizen and taxpayer who generates wastes and is concerned about management of our wastes in an environmentally safe and economically responsible and sustainable manner.

Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to address the committee in connection with Bill 143. Ogden Martin is an Ontario corporation. It is a service company with a specific mandate of implementing and operating environmentally sound, economically viable facilities for the management of municipal solid waste. We are a wholly owned subsidiary of Ogden Projects, Inc, which in turn is owned by Ogden Corp of New York, a public company which is widely held and traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Ogden Corp is a leading provider of support services to airports and airlines, sports and entertainment facilities, energy and environmental agencies, industrial plants and government agencies. It employs in excess of 2,000 persons in Canada alone. Examples of our activities are the fuelling of aircraft at all major Canadian airports, including Pearson International, and our service contract with the Ottawa Senators on a long-term basis.

Our solid waste management services to communities are based on the application of proven systems and technologies. These services include all of the components of integrated waste management, that is, recycling, composting, energy recovery and landfill. Thus our mandate is similar to the framework that the province should establish to provide communities with an alternative they need to solve solid waste problems.

Over the past few weeks you have had heard, from time to time, some presentations which attempted to destroy the credibility of incineration. I would now like to provide you with some factual information on energy-from-waste facilities and their place as a component in an integrated waste management system.

Integrated waste management includes no less than five major components: the reduction of household hazardous waste by separate collection; further reuse of material; reduction of the waste stream; material recycling, including composting of vegetation waste, and, after these efforts, disposal of the residual waste stream, which could be done in a safe manner by thermal recycling or energy from waste or incineration, whatever one wants to call that. Some landfill is always required for safe disposal of rejects from recycling and composting processes, for disposal of non-recyclable and non-compostable materials and for the disposal of that portion of the ash that cannot find a market as a construction material.

Other parts of the world have considerably more experience in integrated waste management techniques than we do. Japan, with some 22 years of experience, has been able to create a diversion of 35%, while 50% of the Japanese waste stream is burned. Japan has a total of 1,930 incinerators. It is interesting to note that in this densely populated country the population has an average life expectancy that is among the highest in the world.

Europe attempted recycling somewhat earlier than ourselves and is now attempting to reduce the overall percentage of waste going to landfill, which currently stands at 40%, as you see here, by increasing both the recycling components and the waste-to-energy component. Information received as recently as yesterday morning from Germany indicates the following increases in incineration capacity in these European countries that have considerable experience: Switzerland is adding no less than 16 new facilities or addition to facilities; England, which has been slow on incineration and has been relying primarily on landfill, is adding six major facilities; Germany has 22 facilities on the books; Scandinavia, five, and the Netherlands, nine.

As you might be aware, the Netherlands' official plan calls for the closing down of some of the smaller non-energy-recovery plants and the construction of a considerable number of new regional facilities to comply with their official environmental plan, which calls for an increase in waste combustion from a current three million tons per year to a total of seven million tons a year by the year 2000, or more than double the present quantity put through incineration facilities. This is a government that has more than 25 years of experience with incineration.


For France, we have only limited figures. We know that Ogden Martin activity involves six new facilities or additions to facilities. We do not have figures on the activities of our competitors in France.

How does one of these modern facilities work? This cross-section shows truck delivery inside an enclosed area called a tipping area, where waste is dumped into holding pits. No manual processing of the waste is required. All waste is handled by crane grab, which lifts anywhere from three to seven tons at a time and deposits this material into hoppers where it is taken by gravity to the charging table. Here a computer-controlled pneumatic ram feeds the garbage into the furnace based on computer signals governed by temperature demand in the furnace. Over- and under-fire air also assures the most effective combustion of these products in the waste stream.

Temperature and residence time are significant. These are maintained in a combustion space to assure the complete destruction of dioxins and furans. The Department of the Environment at present specifies a minimum temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius to be held for one second. Our combustion chambers are designed for 1,000 degrees Celsius held for no less than two seconds. The ash from the bottom of the grade is called bottom ash, which is discharged into a quench tank for cooling and then transported to the ash building, where magnetic separators remove the ferrous metal from the ash.

The gases travel through the boiler and economizer, where heat is absorbed, which generates steam. This steam in turn is led to a turbogenerator to generate electric power for sale to the provincial utility. The cooled gases then pass through a scrubber, where lime and other chemicals are injected to accomplish the necessary neutralization of acid gases and to effect mercury reduction. The resultant salts formed from the reaction of lime and other chemicals and the gaseous components then collect in the scrubber hoppers.

The remaining gas stream is then passed through a baghouse -- the structure at the very end in the picture -- which consists literally of hundreds of vacuum-type dust bags five to six inches in diameter and 30 to 40 feet high. Dust is collected on one side of these bags and air passes through the other side and is exhausted through the chimney, an operation very similar to the functioning of a vacuum cleaner.

The combined fly ash can be handled in one of two ways: Either it is mixed with the bottom ash, in which case a non-hazardous product evolves which can be safely disposed of in landfill. Alternatively, new technologies allow for the conditioning and treatment of the fly ash with reactive agents, which bind to heavy metals to drastically reduce their leachability when contained in the fly ash. The resultant treated fly ash meets regulation 309 and is safe for disposal in normal landfill.

The typical control room is no different from, or not unlike, the control room in any power plant for electricity generation. I will show slides of six out of 21 typical Ogden Martin plants in operation at the moment in the United States. These are: Babylon on Long Island, New York, a 750-ton-a-day plant; Kent county in Grand Rapids, Michigan; Hillsborough county, Florida; Bristol, Connecticut; Stanislaus county, California; Fairfax county, Virginia.

Fairfax is a 3,000-ton-per-day facility. Three of those would handle the entire waste problem of residual waste in the greater Toronto area. The Florida plant was visited about a year ago by Mr Alan Tonks, who was very impressed. Walking outside the plant he could not tell by smell, by noise or by smoke whether the plant was in operation. Going through the plant he found that we were running at full capacity.

Now some facts on emissions from our facilities. These blue columns represent the amount of dioxins in terms of toxic equivalents measured in the atmosphere in four different locations around our Bristol, Connecticut plant. This was prior to the plant ever starting operation. The fifth column shows the impact due to operation of the energy-from-waste facility, a quantity so low that its impact on the atmospheric background was not detectable.

Mr Cousens: What were the other ones you had?

Mr Olivier: The four on the left are measurements in the atmosphere taken before the plant started operation. These are dioxin toxic equivalents measured in the general atmosphere, and this is partly a rural area. It shows that there is dioxin in the atmosphere as it is. The impact of the operation of our plant was not detectable.

Concerning ash, an independent report was prepared by the US Environmental Protection Agency which shows heavy metal in the leachate from raw municipal solid waste. Leachate of the same metals in an ash monofill range notably from non-detectable to very small levels, as compared to the leachate from raw garbage. For comparison, we show in the right column the limits which are acceptable in primary drinking water standards. As you see, the heavy metal levels in the leachate from ash are near the levels accepted in primary drinking water standards, whereas the levels of metal in the leachate from raw garbage are far worse. Similarly, the organic constituents in leachate, many of which are carcinogenic, show measurable quantities of these constituents in the leachate from raw landfill, while the quantities in the ash monofills were on the whole non-detectable.

An interesting comparison of toxic gas emissions from landfills as compared to energy-from-waste plants shows that even in the most optimistic case, that is, the most modern landfill equipped with gas collection systems, the quantity of landfill toxic gases, which are not regulated at the moment in Ontario, is almost six times as great as it would be from an energy-from-waste facility, while the greenhouse gases are 14.5 times as great as they would be from an energy-from-waste facility.

Dr Tom Barton, professor of environmental studies at the Royal Military College in Kingston, came to a similar result on greenhouse gas emissions and has concluded that by burning the residual waste rather than landfilling, greenhouse gas generation can be reduced by as much as 94%.

Concerning relative health risks, the risk of lifetime exposure 24 hours a day for a lifetime of 70 years from all pathways of exposure to a modern energy-from-waste plant -- essentially this means chasing the plume, getting the worst conditions that you could imagine and being exposed to that for a lifetime -- is no greater than drinking one litre of tap water every day. You see that other common activities carry a much greater degree of risk.

Dr Bruce Ames, chairman of the department of biochemistry -- referred to by Dr Phil Jones of the University of Toronto in many cases -- has done research of extremely small measurements of toxins from naturally grown, organically grown vegetables such as mushrooms, and he found toxic materials there. He has stated that the risk to human health from one of these modern energy-from-waste facilities is "completely trivial possible hazard to the public, equivalent in human health risk to drinking one beer every eight years."

Looking at the greater Toronto area, projections indicate a waste generation in the range of 5.25 million tons in 1996. If 50% diversion is accomplished, I would expect it to be in that range, with by far the greatest reduction occurring in the construction-demolition waste sector and with equal quantities diverted from the residential and from the combined commercial-industrial sector. This means that from an original 5.25 million tons a year, 2.7 million tons would be diverted and 2.5 million tons would remain. This is the residual waste which, if not treated, would have to go to landfill.

These are the products that could result from such a greater Toronto area effort: 1.6 terawatt hours, that is 1.6 million megawatt-hours, worth $80 million of electricity can be generated by removing the energy from the residual waste only. The other products are estimates of the quantities of recyclables that can be derived up front from the 3R portion of the waste stream. The total value fluctuates severely, but I would estimate it in the range of $40 million. In total there is a revenue as a result of these two efforts of $120 million per year, which would escalate.


Members of the committee, it is my hope that with these facts, devoid of any misrepresentation, you might be in a better position to decide on changes to the environmental assessment process as it concerns dealing with the massive problems in the greater Toronto area. On behalf of my company, I would ask only two things:

1. Please insist on an environmental assessment which will examine all possible options, including energy from waste. No technology should be rejected by hearsay or on emotional or unfounded statements.

2. Please come and visit one of our facilities, so that you can see for yourselves how these modern facilities function, and how they contribute to a safe environment.

Comments on proposed Bill 143 and our specific recommendations to amendments to subsections 14(1) and 14(2) are contained in our written submission for your consideration.

I have made an honest, factual presentation and hope it will assist the committee in its deliberations. I thank the committee members for their attention, and would be happy to answer any questions they might have.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. Caucus members have a minute apiece. Mr McClelland, you are first.

Mr McClelland: A little over an hour ago I heard the Premier speaking on a live interview on the radio and in fairness I want to put it in context. He was talking about the economic realities and social impact in terms of economic realities. But here is what he said, and I think it is a matter of principle. He said that he was going to make his decisions based on fact, and they were going to be based on reality.

I understand, sir, what you are saying is that all you want is an opportunity to put the facts forward and to put reality forward, and to allow it to be assessed. Do you understand why it is that a Premier would say to a radio audience, "I want to make my economic policies based on fact and to base them on reality," and an hour-and-a-half later, you would have to come in to a committee and try to implore the government to make environmental decisions based on consideration of fact and consideration of reality that it is not even prepared to consider and put on the table for discussion?

The Vice-Chair: Sir, you will have to respond in writing, because Mr McClelland took up all his time.

Mr Cousens: I just want to say to Ogden Martin Systems, Ltd, you have made a presentation I have personally appreciated, and I think that you have done us a service.

You are coming in with technology that responds to so many of the questions we have about emissions from energy from waste. I think if there is anything that worries everyone it is those stacks, what are they spewing out there? If there is anything missing from your report, and I have not read it all, if there is anything else you can add to the report about those emissions, because those are startling pieces of data displayed, give it to us. If you can pile up some more, if you throw enough against the wall, some of it is going to stick after a while. I am just hoping to get something to get the New Democrats to open their eyes. Yours was a positive presentation and it could help.

The Vice-Chair: Again, Mr Cousens took up his allotted time, so you will have to put that on the record, sir.

Mr Cousens: Give us some more time.

Mr Olivier: Will the questions be recorded by the clerk?

The Vice-Chair: Yes, and they will presented to you in writing.

Mr Wiseman: On page 6 of your brief you say that "the scientific community, in numerous published papers, has demonstrated...the safety of energy from waste," and you go on to say, "Don't legislate away the citizens' rights to examine options, including energy from waste, and to determine their own program."

However, we have heard from Colleen Cooney, who is from Orillia and has indicated to us, and also I have an article here that has indicated to us, that your company has sent "intimidating letters to each of the city's doctors, threatened lawsuits unless certain parts of the report were retracted or endorsements of the report were withdrawn." This prompted the Ontario Medical Association to pass a resolution in support of the Orillia physicians stating that the OMA, to quote its report, "strongly defends the right of physicians to present in public information on any subject that relates to public health."

I would submit to you that this indicates you are afraid of the debate offered by the physicians, and not willing to enter into open debate on these issues of incineration.

Mr Olivier: I would be happy to respond to that.

The Vice-Chair: Sir, unfortunately the time has been taken, but you can respond in writing by February 14. If you do it by February 14, it will become part of the public record. If not, it will be taken upon by the committee for deliberations.

Mr Olivier: It is unfortunate, because the information is erroneous, and since you are televising this program, the public does not have the benefit of the response.

The Vice-Chair: Unfortunately the time has been taken, but you can respond in writing by February 14. If you do respond by February 14, it will become part of the public record; if not, it will be taken by the committee for deliberations.

Mr Olivier: It is unfortunate, because the information is erroneous. As you are televising this program, the public does not have the benefit of a response.

The Vice-Chair: Unfortunately time constraints forbid us extending the time, but as I said, you can put it in writing. We would appreciate as a committee if we could get your slides in hard copy, as well as the comments to accompany them. Maybe you could elaborate for the benefit of the committee when we are going through clause-by-clause.

Ms Haeck: I had my hand up.

The Vice-Chair: Do you have a question to put on the record?

Ms Haeck: I do. I thank you as well, Mr Olivier. I understand you have a facility in Lake county, Florida, and I understand the residents there are proposing closure of that facility because they believe it is far too costly to run. Could you provide this committee with financial comparisons pertaining to that facility and the proposed facilities here in Ontario?

Mr Olivier: There is no consideration of closing it. I would be happy to provide that.

The Vice-Chair: Mrs Mathyssen, do you have a question for the record?

Mrs Mathyssen: Yes. I will be brief. In my riding of Middlesex, the town of Westminster was successful in its efforts to stop a local energy-from-waste plant from landfilling toxic fly ash. In your presentation you said the fly ash was safe once mixed with bottom ash and it could be landfilled. I wonder if you could clarify this contradiction.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much.


The Vice-Chair: The next presenter is PACT, Pickering Ajax Citizens Together for the Environment. Please identify yourselves. As you have seen, we are constrained by time, so if you are open for questions, please leave time at the end for questions.

Mr Thomas: My name is Lloyd Thomas. I am chairman of PACT, Pickering Ajax Citizens Together for the Environment. With me today is the chairman of our legal committee, Steve Parish. I would like to give you a brief idea of who we are and then I will turn it over to Steve to present our brief.

PACT was formed in the 1980s. There were several different groups within the Pickering-Ajax area fighting different environmental issues. When Metropolitan Toronto tried to go to Brock South and open another Metro dump in Pickering, we consolidated our groups together to form a strong voice against it, and we managed to shut that down.

PACT was formed with several objectives in mind. One objective was to secure a full and comprehensive hearing for all landfills under the Environmental Assessment Act. The second objective was to prevent any possible extension to Brock West. We knew how bad Brock West was and we wanted to ensure it was not extended beyond its life. The third objective was to become a force that would present at all environmental assessment boards any environmental concerns within the Pickering-Ajax area. The fourth objective was to push Metro and the region of Durham to get going on a waste reduction 3R policy. The fifth objective was to get Durham looking at handling its own waste management in a responsible way within its region, not exporting and not importing garbage. The sixth objective was to raise funds to obtain those actual objectives.

That is who we are, and we became a strong environmental force within the Durham area. At this point I will turn it over to Steve to present our brief.


Mr Parish: I also might say in terms of introduction, for those of you who were here yesterday, that we are the group that caused Gary Herrema to become bald and John Aker to become grey-haired. We are not terribly ashamed of that.

Basically, Bill l43 is divided into four parts. I want to deal with the first part in the way the bill is set up. Our objection to part I of this bill with respect to the establishment of the Interim Waste Authority is very fundamental. We think it is a mistake to set up the IWA. We think there is a basic conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of impropriety, in the provincial government being both the proponent, or coproponent, and the approval agency. The Interim Waste Authority will be a crown agency, it will be under government control, and although it is a separate entity -- and that will be argued -- it is really the provincial government acting through that crown agency.

PACT believes the responsibility for solid waste disposal should remain primarily with the regional municipalities or the senior-tier governments. The regional municipalities must be required to fully and properly discharge their responsibilities under the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act with public hearings and full, open public participation at every stage.

PACT feels the proper role of the provincial government is to see that its environmental acts are fully complied with and enforced, to act as a fair and impartial regulator and to assist the regional municipalities with the financial and other resources they need to fully discharge their responsibilities.

PACT is very concerned with respect to the lack of public input and the lack of responsibility to the public that is inherent in the setup of the Interim Waste Authority. With the regional municipalities governing waste disposal, if we object, we know who our elected representatives are, we know where to go to voice our disapproval. The IWA will be a totally unrepresentative body which is not representative.

I would point out to this committee that all these concerns I raise here on behalf of PACT, the citizens of Pickering and Ajax, were raised as real concerns by the chairman of the regional municipality of Durham. We agree with those concerns he raised. He raised the points of lack of responsibility and accountability, taking away of local responsibility; he referred to the waste of some $4 million with respect to the waste master plan done in Durham. We agree with all that.

But you will note in the comments of the regional chairman that the only difference in his position and ours is that he would have the IWA approve the site and then have the regional municipality take over its operation. They want the IWA and the province to take the political heat of a site selection -- and that is where the heat is -- and they want the significant revenues from running a site. I think Chairman Herrema referred to a dog being sicked on a cow. Believe me, you will become the cow, and Chairman Herrema and his friends at regional council will be willing dogs, baiting you at any site you select. I say that if they want the local responsibility for it, give it to them. That is where it belongs. That is where it has traditionally been.

I also have concerns in part I with respect to the inspection powers given to inspectors under the bill. This power is unprecedented with respect to site selection processes. Usually municipalities must either get the agreement to access to sites from the property owners or they must expropriate that right.

Here in this bill it is proposed that the inspections be done on notice. It is important to note that the notice can be by ordinary mail. I think Canada Post has a track record which would lead us to believe that sometimes people would not get that notice. It also allows them to proceed to get warrants to go on to the property without notice of the process to the people. There is no process by which the property owner can have representation. I would remind this committee that we are not dealing with criminals here, we are dealing with property owners and citizens.

With respect to part II of the bill, long-term waste disposal sites, we have very serious concerns with section 12 and the use of the word "primary." To us, that is an open door for waste other than that generated in the region of Durham being disposed of in the region of Durham, and we have good reason for that fear. Presently Metro Toronto is disposing of a significant portion of its waste at Brock West in Pickering. That word should be deleted. We want Durham-only waste disposed of in Durham.

Section 13 has some real problems as well.

Mr Cousens: I wish you lived in York, because then you would see what it is like.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Cousens, you will have a minute deducted from your time.

Mr Cousens: You can deduct 10 minutes, as far as I am concerned.

Mr Parish: As long as it is added to mine, Mr Chairman, I really do not mind.

The intent of section 13 is good. It wants to build the 3Rs into waste management, but we think if that is really what is desired, the section could be much more clearly drafted to reflect that, as we have expressed in the brief. Basically the thrust is to have the smallest possible site, and I think the section should be much more clearer in expressing that.

The other problem we have with section 13 is, how are these estimates going to be generated by the minister? This is going to be a dangerous area. There must be a uniform database. There must be input from private industry, from public interest groups, from government etc in coming up with these estimates so they are reasonable and they are perceived to be reasonable and have the widest possible acceptance.

The real heart of part II of the bill is section 14, and that deals with the issue of scoping. Scoping is something PACT has always opposed, and in saying that, I would say that PACT has very serious concerns and is opposed to the transportation and exportation of garbage. PACT has very serious concerns with respect to incineration of garbage. We feel that is not the issue.

The issue is, who decides? Who decides what should be eliminated as a sound thing, the government of the day or the Environmental Assessment Board, acting in a full Environmental Assessment Act hearing? We think the latter. The complete process of the Environmental Assessment Act must be permitted to unfold with full, open public participation from day one and with full public hearings.

The proof of alternatives, all alternatives, and the reference to alternatives is the key difference between the Environmental Assessment Act as it presently exists and the previous Environmental Protection Act. The scoping provisions of Bill 143 amount to a statutory exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act. More attention should be given to making the Environmental Assessment Act better, not to avoiding its safeguards.

The net effect of section 14 is to relieve the province's waste authority from a large portion of the analysis and investigation required of other municipalities across the province in carrying out its environmental assessments in the GTA. In effect, Bill 143 sets up a double standard for waste management proponents under the Environmental Assessment Act which could be seen to significantly undermine the credibility of the Environmental Assessment Act and the planning principles underlying the act. Bill 143 is drafted in such a way as to predetermine a desired political result, that is, three large megalandfills, each serving the needs of defined waste jurisdiction within the GTA.

Finally, subsection 14(3) appears to give the IWA a deemed compliance with subsection 5(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act, provided it meets the requirements of the scoped environmental assessment established by section 14. This deemed compliance appears to be in place regardless of the adequacy of the site selection process. This open-ended wording appears to relieve the IWA from key provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act.

Section 15 also gives us concerns. By the publishing of these policy statements, the minister can again interfere and have undue political influence over the process.

In summary, with respect to part II we have very serious concerns with respect to sections 14 and 15 and could not support the passage of part II of the bill as presently drafted. Section 15, participant funding, is a very positive step, but it has been somewhat neutralized by it vagueness. It refers to participant funding but does not give any details. Who is entitled to it? When? How? Subsection 16(2), although it might have the intent of trying to do the opposite, really will be used by the payors of intervenor funding to limit, to reduce intervenor funding. Subsection 16(2) is not necessary. The intervenor funding panel has the discretion to consider the previous participant funding in making its award. We think subsection 16(2) will have the reverse effect of what we think is intended.

Part III, interim or contingency landfill capacity: In the brief I quote two statements, both made on November 21, of 1990 and 1991 respectively, one by the minister, saying she hopes there is no need for interim contingency sites, and the other by the director of works of Metropolitan Toronto, referring to the Brock West matter and saying that Brock West may well last now until late 1996.


In light of that, we have serious concerns with respect to an interim waste system being set up and Durham being a transfer station. There have been price tags bandied about. I do not believe the $50 million figure. I do not believe the $10 million figure. It is somewhere in the middle, but it is a very expensive matter and the money would be much better spent going towards a long-term solution. We would appear to have the time if we get at this now, and therefore we do not support the transfer station solution.

In any event, the ad hoc nature of part III and the very great powers given under that part of the bill without any guarantee of public hearings, without that safeguard, our organization could never support.

We urge the government to allow or compel the regional municipalities to get on with the full environmental assessment processes to identify a long-term site, now that there appears to be a window of opportunity to do that. This opportunity should not be lost or frittered away.

With respect to part IV of the bill, some sections of part IV with respect to the director I understand have been changed. We still have concerns with respect to part IV, as we have outlined in our brief, and there have been other people's submissions here with respect to part IV. I will not deal with this section in detail other than to say in a very general way that PACT welcomes and fully supports the proposed amendments to the Environmental Protection Act that would expand the province's powers to impose 3R requirements on municipalities and waste generators.

We believe that the only solution, ultimately, to the waste management problem is to drastically reduce the amount of waste we are generating. We think this is a positive step, but we are also very much aware that the amendments proposed will do absolutely nothing to improve the waste management situation in the province unless these initiatives are acted upon and the government directs the necessary financial and other resources to fully implement these provisions. PACT seriously hopes this will be done and that these amendments will turn out to be the precursors of real and aggressive government action.

In conclusion, I would state that PACT cannot support the passage of Bill 143 without significant amendments, as we have indicated in this brief.

Finally, I would just like to make specific mention of the situation in the regional municipality of Durham. PACT strongly believes in and is unequivocally committed to seeing a new long-term landfill site approved and developed within the regional municipality of Durham solely and exclusively for the disposal of waste generated in the region of Durham.

The approvals process must be that authorized under the Environmental Assessment Act, with the fullest possible public participation and input from the initial stages through to the opening of the final selected site. PACT would remind the present government that much more can be accomplished by pursuing and facilitating this objective than by seeking methods of abridging or avoiding the existing approval process. The previous government devoted all of its time and attention to avoiding the process of the Environmental Assessment Act and to forcing the proposed P1 site in Whitevale on the residents of Pickering and Ajax without a proper approval process. That whole thing wasted five years of time. Five years.

If instead the previous government had devoted its time and resources to seeing that a Durham-only site was selected by a fair and open process under the Environmental Assessment Act with full public participation at every stage, the region of Durham would today be well advanced in the process of locating and opening a new long-term landfill site to replace the Brock West site. PACT urges the present government not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Attempts to expedite at the cost of public input will only cause delay and waste.

PACT is convinced the people of the regional municipality of Durham will accept a new long-term waste disposal facility in their municipality but only if this facility is to receive waste generated only in the region of Durham and only if the site is approved by a full, open, public process under the full provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act.

As I said at the opening of this brief, Durham has asked you to let it do that. I say, do it. Let their $4 million for the waste master plan not be wasted. I would really ask that Durham be exempted from the provisions of Bill 143 so that Durham can proceed under the EAA to approve a site.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. There is a minute for each caucus again.

Mr Cousens: I would use one word, and that is "irresponsible," to describe the statement you are making that Durham does not want to take anyone else's but its own garbage. That is the NIMBY syndrome and it is the problem of this bill. What you are doing is taking an ingredient of the whole bill and bringing it so that Durham does not want to even be part of the greater Toronto area. I worry about that, Mr Parish, because you present yourself so well as a genuine, sincere environmental group, and yet you come along and say, "Durham doesn't want to do its share." Just think of the grief that the people in York region are going through with Keele Valley.

Mr Parish: We have done our share and you have done your share as well. We have had over 20 years of Metro's garbage.

Mr Cousens: We are doing more than our share. We are fed up with it. And these guys whom you elected -- you have Jim Wiseman over there. Let's just hope he comes through with some amendments to try to correct the problem. But I will tell you the people in my area are mad.

Mr Parish: The people in our area are mad.

Mr Cousens: I do not know what you do about it. How do you get through to those guys?

Mr Parish: You have a full Environmental Assessment Act process.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Cousens. You have used up your time.

Mr Cousens: We sure do, and I agree with that process. We should speed it up and make it happen.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Cousens.

Mr Cousens: Okay, take a minute off.

The Vice-Chair: Mrs Mathyssen. One minute, please.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you very much for your presentation. I noticed in your presentation that you voiced some concerns about having input into the process with the IWA. I wondered, in light of that, if you had received this draft copy of the Interim Waste Authority's search criteria and if you had attended one of the eight open houses and three workshops. Did you feel that you had some input? Did that help in the consultation process?

Mr Parish: This was not a new process for us. I can only speak from my personal experience. I attended the one that was held in Ajax. There is the look of caring what you say, but if you really care what we say, give us a full environmental assessment.

Mr McClelland: Gentlemen, I do not know if you are concerned or not that Whitevale or whatever other sites may be considered under IWA without an environmental assessment process. I am sure that is a concern. I hope you are not relying just on assurances made that it will not be Whitevale, that it will not be something else.

This is a response to freedom of information material sought from the current government in terms of the process. This is what we got back: pages blanked out. I do not know if that tells you something about the way the current government is working. Eleven blank pages. "Options and Recommended Strategy": seven blank pages.

Mr Parish: If I can cut you short, sir --

Mr McClelland: Hang on. "Denied Options": tables and four pages.

Mr Parish: We did not trust the last government and we do not trust this government. We do not trust governments.

Mr McClelland: But my problem is this, and I want you to be aware of it: You do not know what is in the hopper right now. You do not know what is being considered.

Mr Parish: That is right.

Mr McClelland: This thing is being shut out. The government is telling us, "We're not prepared to even give you an idea of what it is you're fighting." There is evidence of it. That is what you get when you have --

Mr Parish: That is why we want a full environmental assessment.

Mr McClelland: That is the response of the current government to what is there.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr McClelland. You have used up your time.

Mr McClelland: I think everybody in Ontario and in Durham should be well aware --

The Vice-Chair: Order, please.

Mr Cousens: I would be prepared to extend the time because I think he has a real point, Mr Chairman. He is just pointing out the problem we have with this government.

The Vice-Chair: Order, please.

Mr Cousens: And the environmental assessment --

The Vice-Chair: The time has expired. If members have questions to put on the record, please proceed. Ms Haeck, you were first.

Ms Haeck: Actually, Mr Chair, I appreciate your comments, but the previous two speakers did ramble on rather, and in fact Mr Cousens, while he was penalized on at least one occasion -- in fact, our caucus has not been in a position to ask a question because of his rambling. I would appreciate it if you would take it under serious consideration to at least allow me to ask my question, not just for the written record, but to these gentlemen.

The Vice-Chair: I am sorry, we cannot make exceptions. If we make one exception, we will be making a million of them and we are constrained for time as is.

Ms Haeck: I would prefer that you take this under serious consideration, sir.

The Vice-Chair: I will take it under consideration. We will let the regular Chair make her decision, but if you have a question, put it on the record, please. If not, we will let Mr Wiseman pose his.

Ms Haeck: I do have a question, and it relates to page 1 of their presentation. It was a very articulate presentation. I know that what they are saying has been said in other areas, but environmental assessment applies to all provincial ministries. The final adjudication lies with the Environmental Assessment Board which, as you have indicated, is an independent body.

All provincial undertakings are subject to the environmental assessment, and on page 1 you infer that there may be some impropriety related to the province regulating itself. I guess the concern really is, who would you wish to regulate it? Would you not want it to be an Environmental Assessment Board?


Mr Wiseman: My question has to do with your concern for the Environmental Assessment Act. As you know, I share your concern. The question I have is, how would PACT, given that Halton took 10 years to find a dump under the Environmental Assessment Act and something like $140 million, envision the process being accelerated in enough time to find a landfill site given the constraint that Brock West is going to be closing and we are not sure about its capacity or when it will close? How would PACT ensure that a hearing under the Environmental Assessment Act would in fact be accelerated to the point where a site could be found and, taking into consideration all the issues under the Environmental Assessment Act, guarantee a site could be found?

Mrs Mathyssen: You mentioned a double standard in part 2, point 18 of your presentation. Can I ask what PACT's reaction was to the minister's ban on future municipal solid waste incinerators in April 1991, and if you agree with that ban, do you not see the elimination of incineration as an option as the logical follow-up from that April announcement?

The Vice-Chair: Gentlemen, you will receive these questions in writing from the clerk and we would appreciate an answer in writing by February 14 in order to make it a matter of record. Otherwise, if it comes after that, the committee will take it into consideration during deliberations on the clause-by-clause. You also have the option of not responding. That is up to you. Thank you very much.

Mr Parish: We will respond in writing to all written questions and do so by the 14th.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you.


The Chair: I would ask that the next group, Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada, please come forward. Before beginning, would you please identify yourselves? As you have seen, our time is constrained, so if you want to, leave some time at the end for questions by committee members.

May I remind committee members that we have been civil to date, so I would appreciate that we keep in that vein. May I remind the government as well that it is one of the pleasures of government that it has to bear the ire of the opposition from time to time. Would you please commence?

Mr Lewarne: Thank you very much. My name is John Lewarne, vice-president of marketing for the H.J. Heinz Company here in Canada. I am the chair of the GPMC working committee on the environment. Joining me today is Tim Catherwood, the assistant to the director of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. Sandra Banks, vice-president of government relations for the GPMC, is with us as well. I will lead off this afternoon's presentation, turn it over to Tim, and then I will finish off with the summary.

First of all, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the standing committee on social development as you consider Bill 143. Let us start by describing the sector of the Ontario economy that our industry represents. GPMC represents 155 member companies involved in the manufacturing and marketing of foods, beverages and consumer products sold through both retail and food service outlets.

In Ontario, food and beverage processing ranks only second after transportation equipment manufacturing in terms of value added and value of shipments. The food and beverage processing sector employs almost 90,000 people in Ontario and purchases about 60% of all agricultural products grown in the province. The industry is also a major customer for packaging manufacturers and the service sector, particularly creative advertising. With that introduction, I would like to turn it over to Tim Catherwood of the UFCW.

Mr Catherwood: The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, UFCW Canada, is Canada's largest private sector union. We represent some 175,000 members in this country. Our members are employed in more than 20 sectors of the economy, including retail, service, meat packing, food processing, brewing and beverage production and distribution, as well as several others. In this province we represent 70,000 men and women.

GPMC and UFCW are committed to working with our partners in government, labour, business, environmental groups and consumers to achieve effective solid waste solutions. GPMC was an original signatory to the national packaging protocol, which calls for a 20% diversion of packaging waste from landfill by the end of 1992. We are confident that our industry is well on its way towards meeting that target. The industry also supports financially the expansion of the blue box program in Ontario through OMMRI II, as well as similar programs in Quebec and Nova Scotia.

While these original contributions have remained voluntary, we are seeking support from the Ontario government to put in place a mechanism to ensure that all packaged goods manufacturers, including importers, contribute to this program and therefore broaden the base of revenue available. Once this is accomplished, we can then move forward to expand the program beyond household collection.

The blue box helps focus public attention on the third R, recycling. What is less obvious is the energy and effort focused on the first two Rs, source reduction and reuse. In a survey of GPMC members conducted last year we found that 72% had reduced plant waste to landfill, some by as much as 40% to 80%, and 56% had made packaging design changes to reduce waste that consumers throw away.

Significant steps have also been taken to reduce at source the amount of glass and metal, for example, in packaging. Other companies have reduced packaging by introducing refillable containers and reusable parts. Technological and processing innovations are allowing recycled content to be used to a greater extent, although there continue to be health, safety and regulatory barriers for many products.

GPMC was broadly supportive of Minister Ruth Grier when she announced her waste reduction action plan in February 1991. GPMC indicated at that time its willingness to work with the government and others in achieving Ontario's waste reduction goals. UFCW Canada supports the minister's overall objective. We also support the government's commitment to consultation, cooperation and building partnerships.

We understand the minister's objective of developing a comprehensive legislative framework to enable her to carry out parts of this plan. There are, however, several aspects of substance and process that are of concern to us.

GPMC was actively involved in the development of draft regulations on packaging waste audits and work plans. There was no discussion or prior consultation with GPMC or with UFCW on other aspects of Bill 143 before it was introduced in the Legislature.

The potential impact of changes and additions to part IV of the bill, amendments to the Environmental Protection Act, have broad-reaching and potentially damaging effects on the grocery manufacturing industry, its employees, UFCW members and consumers. To us it is surprising and disconcerting that the ministry did not engage our industry in substantive discussions before the legislation was brought forward.

I will turn it back to John to conclude.

Mr Lewarne: I would like to address our specific concerns about Bill 143. We do not understand the rationale, necessity or intended use of several clauses changed or added in part IV under the title, "Litter, Packaging, Containers, Disposable Products and Products that Pose Waste Management Problems." We take exception to the proposed change to section 136 that allows for "regulating or prohibiting the sale and use of disposable products that pose waste management problems."

This wording in the legislation could allow the minister to selectively ban any products sold in Ontario, since virtually all products pose some kind of waste management challenge. This undefined and unsubstantiated proposal places over the heads of Ontario manufacturers and workers in this industry a hammer that could drop at any time.

Also under section 136, the legislation would allow for regulations "defining standard, refillable, returnable, non-refillable in respect of containers and returnable or non-returnable in respect of packaging." The legislation further allows for the regulation of the "stocking, display, sale, advertising or offering for sale of any product." Again, we do not understand the intent or the rationale behind this change in the legislation. Without clear definition of how these provisions might be used and without a firm commitment to carry out advanced consultation, we are very concerned about the impact this bill could have on our business.


The second R, refill/reuse, of the 3Rs waste management is an important one. It is often evident in the supply of raw materials and in reusable delivery systems rather than at the consumer level.

Our third concern with Bill 143 relates to requiring or authorizing the placement of a notice or mark on products to indicate such matters of waste management or environmental concern. This would, if enacted, set up a barrier to trade. Without more specifics it is hard for us to understand the rationale for this proposal in Bill 143.

Our fourth substantive concern relates to draft regulations on packaging audits and work plans. They allow us to make better decisions, to plan better as well, and the ultimate achievement of waste reduction objectives. Our concerns are twofold. First, we do not understand the need for regulation in this area. These audits are already under way in many of the manufacturing companies belonging to GPMC and other associations. Second, we believe that this regulation initiative is premature and unnecessary in light of Ontario's commitment to the national packaging protocol, which calls for voluntary efforts to meet the packaging waste reduction goals before the end of 1992. We are encouraging the Minister of the Environment to work through the National Packaging Task Force to achieve the same end.

To summarize, Ontario must preserve the current cooperative and collaborative process for solid waste management solutions. Dressing the Minister of the Environment in legislative brass knuckles will not complement this situation, nor will it increase the confidence of the business community. There must be a better way to address the problem. We believe the better way is to build on existing cooperation.

GPMC and UFCW recommend that this committee adopt the following three amendments to the proposed Bill 143:

First, delete clause 136(6)(l), which regulates and prohibits the sale and use of disposable products that pose waste management problems. Governments that wish to play this kind of role in the marketplace must take into consideration the impact of this type of regulation on future investment and job prospects in this province.

Second, incorporate the following preamble to accompany the legislative changes to the Environmental Protection Act:

"All levels of government, industry, labour, environmental and community groups must work cooperatively and collectively to achieve real waste reduction solutions. Any proposed regulation will be considered only under the following conditions:

"Mandatory and early consultation must take place among affected stakeholders.

"Any regulatory development must take into account the competitive context of the Ontario economy. This includes potential impact on sustainable jobs, as well as the demonstrated ability to ensure a level playing field for Ontario manufacturers and their workers and imported products.

"Credible life-cycle analysis must be incorporated into the supporting rationale for any regulatory proposal."

Third, the proposed regulations for audits and work plans should be coordinated nationally through the National Packaging Task Force.

When it comes to waste reduction, the 3Rs are only equalled by the 2Es: the environment and the economy. We believe the above recommendations will go a long way to securing not only good faith, fairness and continued cooperation among the players but results for Ontario.

Thank you for your attention. We look forward to any questions you may have for us.

Mrs Mathyssen: I have a question. It relates to the assertion that importers might have an advantage inasmuch as packaging from products imported from the United States would not have to fulfil the stringent obligations set by Ontario standards. Perhaps Mr Blackwell would be able to help me, because this keeps coming up and it seems to me that there is a requirement that importers follow the same guidelines, but could Mr Blackwell clarify that, please?

Mr Blackwell: Yes. The reason it keeps coming up is because of the way the description of the proposed regulations on packaging is worded in Initiatives Paper No. 1. It is aimed at Ontario manufacturers. This point has been brought to our attention very strongly by GPMC, as well as by many other parties, along with the recommendation made here that we coordinate the actual drafting of the regulation through the National Packaging Task Force. We are working very hard at the present time on both of these, and GPMC will be quite pleased with the actual regulation when it is put forward.

Mr McClelland: I was interested in your involvement in the national packaging protocol, your cooperation on an industry-wide basis and the impact you feel it may obtain if Ontario is out of sync with the rest of the country, perhaps indeed out of sync with the rest of North America but particularly the country, having regard to the fact that considerable discussion and negotiations were entered into with representatives of ministers of the environment nationally and across the country and with associations such as yours. What is the potential impact in terms of just management, dollars and cents, job opportunity, investment climate, the sense of certainty the business needs to proceed with plans to get on with the job or what you want to do?

Mr Lewarne: I do not know the precise economic impact. What I can assert to you is that investment dollars are attracted to climates of certainty, not climates of uncertainty. If we needed to produce separate packaging for 10 provinces in Canada, my suspicion is that our company would seriously consider whether that was an economically doable proposition. GPMC and the member companies of GPMC have always recommended that we want a common set of rules for the jurisdictions of Canada so that we can compete across those jurisdictions fairly. Really the issue is the economic environment and the attractiveness for investors, because that is what business is doing in this province.

Mr McClelland: Again, you talk about the issue and the concept of fairness in terms of dealing with governments, at least on a know-what's-coming, upfront, full disclosure basis.

Mr Lewarne: That is absolutely right. Certainty draws investment dollars, and knowing what the environment is will attract more investment dollars to Ontario. Uncertainty will cause investment dollars to be uncertain.

Mr McClelland: Your fear is that Bill 143 does create that uncertainty, at least raises the prospect of uncertainty in terms of business planning.

Mr Lewarne: The parts we have talked about today are the parts on which we would like to see this committee make recommendations for change. We believe those changes would be a very constructive outcome from today's proceedings.

Mr Cousens: I want to congratulate you. If I am right, you have the manufacturer and representatives of the UFCW working together in this presentation. That is a first in the hearings of this committee and I think it establishes something of a model of how we can all work better together.

I am impressed by what you have to say. I think you have come out with a very balanced series of recommendations. I will personally go through them in greater detail. I value the source it is coming from when people are saying, "Let's try to come up with something together." Rather than seek more, I think you are saying the right kind of thing. I just congratulate you. Keep it up. I hope that we can respond to the concerns you have raised.

Mr Catherwood: Just as a small comment, we have done a number of things together, and it is really quite remarkable the way that our relationship has blossomed in the last nine months. We have formed a thing called the Canadian Grocery Producers' Forum, which is addressing three issues: training and adjustment; competitiveness and all of the things that go into that, because it does not mean the same quite to Sandra and John that it does to us, but we are talking about that, and also the environment.

Sitting here today, we wanted to say that we think that partnership, cooperation and dialogue are the way to go. Of course for us some of these are worst-case scenarios, but we just wanted to bring them to your attention and say, "We want to work together. We want to work with this government. Let's get on with the job."

Mr Cousens: I give you high marks for that. Good things come out of it when you start working together like that.

Mr Martin: I would certainly like to take off on that a little and suggest that is exactly what we are intending to do and and the proposed legislation is in a context within which we think we can. I heard your brief, the part I was here for, and I listened to it very carefully. You have some good ideas. I certainly would be interested in hearing more and I think the rest of the committee would. Have you done any kind of cost analysis you could present to us that would give us some more detail to back up your concerns around the legislation re packaging and refillable bottles?


Ms Banks: It has been very difficult for us to do that on some of the specific elements of the legislation, given that they are so broad and that we are not clear on whether it is the intention of the minister to proceed, for example, in terms of the labelling aspects and the banning of products. It is hard for us to know what the impact is when essentially the minister is given broad-ranging and almost sweeping power to move in any direction the ministry might choose. So it has been difficult to do that.

We do know that in the area of conducting audits and work plans there will be some upfront costs for many manufacturers. To the extent that manufacturers are already conducting these processes, it is already a built-in cost. If companies have to carry out the audit a second time for the purposes of complying with the regulation, there will be an additional cost. To give you an example, a major manufacturer in the food industry has estimated it will cost $100,000 to carry out a packaging audit of its 9,000 specifications on its packaging. That is just to give you an idea that there are significant costs attached. Again, they are carrying that out voluntarily, and that is why we are suggesting that process should continue to be that, because the will is already there to commit those funds and carry out those kinds of processes.

Mr Martin: We had McDonald's of Canada here yesterday. They spoke about cost savings because of the audit and some of the things they did. Have you talked with any of those people around why they see it as such a good thing, versus your fears?

Ms Banks: We are totally supportive of the process of conducting audits and scoping out work plans for the future in terms of indicating where the reductions and the diversion will happen in packaging. Our concern, again, is when you standardize the process in a regulation, you impose a certain way it must be done and either it has to be done again or it has to be done differently, which is where the additional cost comes in. That is what we have been trying to work through with the ministry to avoid that duplication or redundant effort.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you for your presentation. It will be part of the record. While we are waiting for the next group, I would ask the parliamentary assistant for a point of clarification, because he wanted to expand on something.

Mr O'Connor: Thank you for your presentation. I know you have participated in some of the national packaging protocol and what not. For the committee's sake, and for those viewing who maybe do not understand the federal-provincial relationship with the ministry and how it affects the national protocol, perhaps I could ask Drew Blackwell to address the committee and explain the relationship, please.

The Vice-Chair: Yes. Before that, would the city of St Thomas please approach the microphones. I want to just point out that we have had a change. Mr Boldrini, an environmental chemist, was supposed to appear at this time, but we left a message with him yesterday at 4 o'clock. He was on the waiting list and he was unable to change his schedule on such short notice, so that is the reason he is not appearing. I would ask the city of St Thomas to approach the microphone while the ministry elaborates.

Mr Blackwell: I believe it may be important to point out that the concern about making sure that we do not create a situation in which there are 10 conflicting sets of rules about packaging across the country is a concern that has been brought forward by all the different industry associations and by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and is part of the reason for the creation of the national packaging protocol.

I think there was some illusion at the time when those concerns were initially brought forward that the federal government would regulate in this area. It was through the discussions around the creation of the national packaging protocol that it became quite clear that is not the way the powers could work. Provincial governments have the responsibility for waste management, and the way in which the national packaging protocol implementation at any kind of regulatory initiative level is to take place is by making sure that there are uniform standards for what ought to be in place in all the provincial jurisdictions across the country. That is the distinction between a federal action and a national action. It is in concert, then, with the regulatory subcommittee of the national packaging task force that we are coordinating our work on all the regulations on packaging.


The Vice-Chair: I wonder if you could identify yourself for the Hansard people before you commence.

Mr Barrett: I am Robert Barrett, city administrator for the city of St Thomas.

Mr Peters: Stephen Peters, mayor of the city of St Thomas.

Mr Lyle: Hugh Lyle, reeve of Southwold township and warden of Elgin county.

Mr Pawley: John Pawley. I am a consulting engineer with Conestoga-Rovers and Associates.

Mr Peters: To understand our delegation's position on Bill 143, it is necessary to give the committee a brief background on the history of waste management in Elgin county.

The McCaig family has been involved in waste management in Elgin county and with the city of St Thomas and municipalities in Elgin, Middlesex and Huron since 1950. Over the years they have developed, through various companies, a multifaceted approach to waste management which includes municipal pickup and disposal, industrial and commercial bulk lift waste removal, onsite industrial resource recovery, a materials recovery centre and landfilling. The parent company is St Thomas Sanitary Collection Service and the current landfill is operated under the name of Green Lane landfill. The Green Lane landfill is located in Southwold township adjacent to Highway 401. A previous site on the edge of St Thomas in Yarmouth township has been restored to a buffalo pasture.

As smaller municipal landfills in Elgin and Middlesex county became full or too costly to operate, many of the municipalities moved towards St Thomas Sanitary Collection Services' facilities for disposal.

The current site opened in 1978 after numerous hearings, including a full EPA hearing. A 70-acres footprint was approved at this time. In 1985 Green Lane was given approval for a change in the landfill's contours, but the capacity was calculated at that time based on the old contours and determined to be one million cubic metres and the footprint was reduced to some 32 acres. In 1985 Green Lane began discussions with Ministry of the Environment's officials to get permission to expand on to the rest of the original environmentally approved footprint. Original discussions indicated that the process should be smooth and completed before capacity was reached.

Shortly thereafter, in 1988, the legislation was changed so that, as a private operator, Green Lane now came under the Environmental Assessment Act rather than the Environmental Protection Act, just two years before the site was to reach its licensed capacity. Thus, to remain operating, Green Lane had to complete a five- to seven-year process in less than two years. In early 1991, after discussions on how a private operator would undertake a full assessment, this process got under way and is expected to last several years. Green Lane is now developing a waste management plan for its municipal, industrial and commercial clients.

Realizing that capacity would be reached as early as late summer 1991, the company in late June 1991 filed a request and an accompanying report with the Minister of the Environment for non-designation under the Environmental Assessment Act for an interim expansion. Such a request, if granted, would allow for a possible quicker short-term approval under the EPA on the approved footprint while the long-term process continued. To date, we have not received an answer.

In late August the company, on behalf of its municipal, commercial and industrial clients, filed a request for an emergency certificate of approval to operate on the approved footprint until the long-term approvals process was completed. This request was denied by the ministry on September 13 and the site was closed. The ministry's response was that no emergency existed as there was an approved site some 100 kilometres away at the Ridge Landfill Corp in Kent county. The Green Lane site is currently being used as a transfer station for Elgin county waste, which is being hauled to Kent county at an additional annual cost in excess of $2.5 million to the 85,000 residents of Elgin county and their industries, this in a time of recession and in a time of concerns from ratepayers over high taxes. It is within this context that the delegation from Elgin county wishes to comment on Bill 143.


Part I of Bill 143 deals with the Interim Waste Authority Ltd. The delegation finds it of interest that the IWA corporation's inspectors have the right to test and examine private properties and to gain access thereto for determining the suitability of the property for landfilling and to qualify the property as an alternative site that has been looked at to satisfy the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. After a certificate of approval has been given by the ministry, this authority can then expropriate the site for landfilling for one of the four greater Toronto regional governments. This provides a great advantage and reduction of potential capital costs and speeds up the acquisition process compared to the rest of the province.

Compare this to the process the city of St Thomas, with its limited financial means, would have to go through to obtain a site. In order to obtain a site, preliminary constraint mapping and other elimination procedures gained from existing offsite information would have to take place and several sites optioned from the owners. After further testing, a site has either to be reoptioned or, due to the length of the process, actually purchased in advance. Then a waste master plan must be developed with public input, with the hope that one of the sites optioned or purchased is chosen. Then the rural municipality must be brought on side if possible. Rural municipalities wishing to create a site within their own boundaries must go through a similar process, but they have an easier road to expropriation within their own boundaries. Private operators are forced to be even more circumspect in their attempts to acquire possible sites to avoid high acquisition costs.

In summary, it is the position of this delegation that if the environmental assessment process is flawed to the extent that a special-purpose authority is required to gain entry to properties on behalf of the greater Toronto area regional governments to assess potential landfill locations, then it is flawed throughout the province and the same power should be given to agents acting on behalf of any municipality.

Part II, dealing with the process for approvals for sites selected by the IWA to satisfy the sites required under paragraphs 12(1)1, 2 and 3, concerns the delegation with its inherent unfairness. While the delegation in no way wishes to minimize the current waste disposal crisis in the greater Metro region, this does not justify that the selection process is amended for only the greater Metro Toronto section of the province. The first section of part II established the requirement for the IWA to establish a landfill in each of Durham, Peel and Metro-York. Also, instead of volume considerations, the same considerations which determined the closure of Green Lane by the ministry even though further approved areas existed, the sites are to be sized to operate for at least 20 years but no maximum site life is imposed. How does one determine how much land is required? To justify a larger site, does one merely extend the site life?

Section 14 of the proposed bill in front of the committee proposes that the assessments of the three potential landfill sites mentioned above would not have to consider any alternatives other than those related to waste reduction, recycling and other single landfill sites in this region. This eliminates one of the most costly and time-consuming processes within the environmental assessment process. In fact, if this consideration were given to Elgin county, then the Green Lane site would be ready for an immediate hearing. This is a significant scoping or narrowing of alternatives that would be applauded by any municipality that will have to follow the EAA process for a new site. The delegation feels that this should be extended to the entire province.

The delegation also notes that the environmental assessment for these three proposed sites, among other things, does not have to look at the transport of waste outside the GTA region in which it is located. We understand that considerable funds were expended on the Kirkland Lake rail haul option and wonder, if there truly is an emergency, why this alternative, which would have to be considered in a normal comprehensive environmental assessment, is being eliminated from consideration. Is the minister suggesting that if waste is disposed in your own backyard, you are more likely to divert and recycle? If that is the case, why is the minister forcing Elgin county to ship its waste to Kent county when a known approved site area exists at Green Lane, a site ministry officials have been quoted in the London Free Press as saying has been operating safely and is environmentally safe? I draw the committee's attention to appendix C regarding these findings.

Part III, dealing with special provisions for the interim expansion in accordance with a section 29 report of the Britannia Road and Keele Valley sites, is a bitter pill for residents and local civic leaders in Elgin county and St Thomas to swallow. It minimizes Elgin county's problems. It provides the same kind of consideration to the greater Toronto region that Elgin county asked of the minister in its delegation to her on September 17 of last year, and which was denied. The overall theme seems to be to approve an extension of these two sites in advance of the final technological results even though the technical studies that are being performed may suggest that it is not technically appropriate or economically feasible to do so. Yet the minister is not prepared to correct a paperwork crisis in Elgin county, where the ministry does not have to go out on a limb, as Elgin county and St Thomas already have an environmentally approved and tested footprint ready to be expanded upon. Recognizing that an approved landfill exists, there is a resistance in Elgin county to paying the heavy transfer costs, and illegal dumping along roadsides is becoming such a problem that we feel it is becoming a significant health hazard.

The veiled reference to forcing waste on an adjoining municipality in subsections 17(5) and (6) is not needed in the case of Green Lane, as the host municipality, Southwold township, supports its existence. This convoluted approach to legalizing and overcoming various bodies and legislation, including the Planning Act, that takes place in subsection 17(8) to force municipalities to conform to a section 29 report is far more than is needed at Green Lane. Green Lane needs only a technical amendment to the volume in order to operate within the original footprint during the time the full EA process continues to take place.

If under clause 18(2)(a) the minister or her director can issue a section 29 report on these two sites in order to solve a problem for Metro Toronto and have it implemented through the issuance of an amended certificate of approval without an EA board hearing, why should it not and could it not be done for Elgin county? The delegation is of the belief that in the interest of fairness, the 85,000 residents of Elgin county should be treated with the same consideration as the four million residents of the greater Toronto area. Although our problem is smaller in overall scale, the per capita costs are just as significant.

The delegation has reviewed part III of the act and feels there is no reason why part III cannot be amended during this process to include Elgin county. The city of St Thomas or the host municipality, the township of Southwold, could be designated as the municipality acting on behalf of the other 12 Elgin municipalities in lieu of a regional government for the purposes of a limited expansion. An agreement could be entered into between the host municipality and Green Lane to conform to any section 29 reports from the minister. If this were done, Green Lane could reopen upon the passage of this bill this spring.

Part IV of the proposed bill deals with amendments to the Environmental Protection Act that allow, among other things, for the minister to implement some of her recycling and waste reduction strategies through regulations. Although some of these will affect Ontario municipalities directly, we will not, through this avenue, make any comment upon those clauses for fear of detracting from our major point of emphasis. We would like to take the opportunity to make some brief comments on those clauses within part IV that could affect the approval process for waste handling and disposal facilities.

First, the proposed addition to section 3 of the EPA through clause 23(2)(k) of the bill seems to entitle the minister to "operate, use, alter, enlarge and extend" waste management systems and disposal sites. The ministry would then be a proponent if approvals were required, unless granted exemption by some other late legislation. This provision represents a potential shift in power from the current operators of the sites and systems, both municipal and private, to the minister. We note that no appeal process is provided.

The delegation has reviewed section 33 of the proposed bill. We interpret this to mean that by regulation, municipalities and private persons can be required to establish waste disposal sites or waste management systems or to operate, enlarge or replace such sites or systems. Also, waste management plans can be imposed by regulation on municipalities and private persons. Very broad regulation-making power is provided with respect to waste management systems, sites and plans. The new proposed clause 136(4)(t) seems to allow a regulation to deem that a certificate of approval exists with respect to waste management systems or disposal sites. No hearing under the EPA would be required. Under proposed clauses (k) and (l) of the same section, it seems that new sites could be dedicated or existing sites enlarged solely by regulation, without other approvals being required. This seems to be generally in keeping with the request from the delegation from Elgin county, although there should be some form of process to ensure that adequate dialogue takes place between the minister and the municipalities involved before regulations are arbitrarily brought down or requests denied.

In summary, the delegation from Elgin county municipalities and the city of St Thomas believes (a) that the current crisis in Elgin county has as great an individual impact as the greater Toronto crisis; (b) that the amount of waste being dumped along rural roadways in Elgin in order to avoid the transfer costs is becoming a health hazard; (c) that the residents are prepared to support ministry efforts for waste reduction and to maintain a professionally operated landfill, but that Elgin residents and their municipalities cannot afford to spend an additional $2.5 million annually for unnecessary transfer to Kent county and spend money on waste management improvements at the same time. Elgin's tax dollars would be better spent in Elgin and would provide jobs in Elgin.


The delegation from Elgin county requests that this committee recommend to the government:

1. Since the EA process is too convoluted and time-consuming to meet the waste crisis in the greater Metro area, it is also too convoluted to meet the waste crisis in other parts of the province and to solve the problem in those municipalities where landfills have reached either capacity or licensed capacity. The process should be amended for the entire province, particularly the requirement to examine alternative sites. However, the elimination of the examination of alternative sites should not be confused with the examination of alternative technologies, a process the delegation supports.

2. The waste management problems of Elgin county and other parts of the province are as important as the problems in the greater Toronto area. Scale and population should not matter. In excess of $2.5 million worth of additional cost for transportation of waste to Kent county is an important concern to the residents and industries of Elgin country. In addition, the tipping fees are also leaving the county, and no longer is a portion of those fees going to support reduction and recycling initiatives in Elgin and St Thomas. If a solution is to be found for Metro's problems through special legislation, then a solution to Elgin county's problems should be found in the same way. Green Lane landfill should be added to the provisions for the Keele and Britannia sites.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your time this afternoon. We would be happy to answer any of your questions.

The Chair: I just have a very short period of time for questions. What I am going to suggest is that you put your questions on the record. The mayor can choose to answer the ones he can now and then submit in writing the answers. We will start with Mr Cousens.

Mr Cousens: I thank you for your presentation. I think the concern you expressed right at the beginning that what is going on in the GTA could happen elsewhere -- the solutions that are being brought forward with Bill 143 as it affects the greater Toronto area will be precedent-setting, as to how it will impact your community. There is no doubt about it. Your thoughts and concerns will go a long way to helping us try to get some sense into the bill. I think it is well done. I do not have any comments except that I appreciate your coming and bringing it. That has been one of the points. With all due respect to the Liberals and ourselves, we have been saying: "It is not just a Metro problem. It is far bigger than that." The fact that you are here gives that some credibility.

Ms Haeck: I do appreciate your comment, as someone who represents a riding that is outside of the GTA, that is, St Catharines-Brock.

The Canadian Polystyrene Recycling Association and a number of other deputants -- mostly private industries, by the way -- have indicated their desire to reduce and recycle. CPRA in particular is looking for post-consumer products, and in fact pays for some of these products. So my question to you is, have you looked at these types of waste reduction programs and, if you have any 3R programs at the present time, how are you funding them?

Mr Lessard: I noted in your presentation, and I agree, that the environmental assessment process is time-consuming. You said that because of that, you have not been able to deal with the landfill capacity in your particular case. I notice that in appendix B, page 2, there was mention of a large amount of soil that was put into this landfill site, and that larger volumes were encouraged to increase profit. You have illustrated a risk associated with private ownership of landfill sites. Were not some of the municipalities concerned by what they saw going on at that time?

Mrs Mathyssen: I want to thank you for your deputation. I was wondering, in terms of understanding your financial situation, what kind of tipping fees you were paying at Green Lane and what you are paying at Ridge. Does that include the trucking fees and, if so, what firm is doing the trucking?

Mr Sola: Do you think Metro Toronto or the GTA is getting preferential treatment through Bill 143? Do you find the Minister of the Environment, in that capacity, is in conflict with her other self in her capacity as minister responsible for the greater Toronto area in presenting Bill 143 as a solution to the whole province rather than just a solution to Metro's waste?

The Chair: You have approximately four minutes. If you are unable to answer all the questions that have been put forward, please feel free to answer in writing if you can. We would appreciate hearing from you. You do not have to answer now. You can use the time to sum up and then send us a letter in response, whatever you would prefer.

Mr Peters: If you would not mind, we will try to answer as many as possible, and the others we can answer in writing to you. If possible, I would like to defer to the city administrator from the city of St Thomas, Bob Barrett.

Mr Barrett: The first question dealt with CPRA and the desire to recycle some waste. The city of St Thomas and other municipalities within the county have initiated waste recycling programs. We have the number one blue box program operating in the city of St Thomas. We have recycling of Christmas trees. We have a pilot composting program on which we are still awaiting Ministry of the Environment approval. We also have a household hazardous waste program in operation.

I think that is indicative of the kinds of things the city is doing, and municipalities within the county are doing similar things. If you need some detail on that, in the back of the brief there is an indication of some of the recycling initiatives that have been taking place. There is some indication of the containerized systems that are in place in Port Stanley, Aylmer and some of the other municipalities.

Those systems are being paid for through financial assistance programs of the Ministry of the Environment and OMMRI, as well as the municipalities, in the usual proportions for those grant structures.

Mr Lessard asked questions about the soil that was put into the site. Certainly we were concerned about that. Unfortunately, it did not come to the attention of the municipalities until after the fact. In fact, it was quite alarming to the municipalities when it was discovered that the soil had eroded substantially the capacity of the initial footprint. However, the fact remains that the capacity of that footprint was used up and the ministry closed the site for the reason of that capacity having been used.

Mrs Mathyssen asked about the tipping fees. Until the closure, tipping fees at the Green Lane landfill were $17 per tonne. Tipping fees at Ridge, I believe, under a contractual arrangement with our contractor, are $60 per tonne, guaranteed for one year. For transportation to the transfer site, the compaction and transfer to highway carriers and the transportation and dumping at Ridge, we are currently paying $107.50 per tonne.

Ms Haeck: Who is the highway carrier?


Mr Barrett: Our contractor, St Thomas Sanitary Collection Services, is contracted by us to collect from the municipalities. They take it to the Green Lane landfill, which is now a transfer station only. They have contracted with a firm -- the Vanderwyst brothers, I know, run the firm; I cannot tell you the name off the top of my head. They are hauling on behalf of the contractor to Ridge.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. I know there is additional information you would like to share with the committee. We would ask that you send it to us in writing. The way the process works is that any communication we receive before February 14 becomes part of the public record. After February 14, the information is shared with all the members of the committee to help with their deliberations. We appreciate your coming to the committee today to share with us your concerns as well as your advice. There is one minute, if you would like to sum up, if there is any last message that you want to leave with the committee.

Mr Peters: I just want to say that we did bring a delegation of good representation from Elgin county today. I want to point out that three of the municipalities which are affected by this closure of the landfill site and which have also experienced increased costs are members of Mrs Mathyssen's riding of Middlesex county. With this closure of the landfill site, it is costing us close to $100,000 a month. We are finding it very difficult at budget time, with the increased costs of the landfill, and with welfare and social services, to keep taxes down in our municipality. The quicker our old landfill site can be opened, the less of a burden it is going to be on our taxpayers.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We look forward to hearing from you.


The Chair: I would like to call the next presenter, Maria Greifeneder. Welcome. Please have a seat at the table. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We would appreciate it if you would leave some time at the end for questions from members of the committee. Do not worry about the microphone; just talk into it and Hansard will record everything you have to say. Relax; the committee is looking very friendly today.

Ms Greifeneder: I would like to thank you for this opportunity to comment on Bill 143. I would like to express my particular appreciation to the opposition parties for bringing this bill to hearings.

I believe this bill is unnecessarily high-handed and an affront to Ontarians, particularly in the GTA, at least at this point in time. Had the government attempted through more diplomatic and democratic means to resolve the landfill problem and met with no success, I could understand it wielding such a big stick. However, there was no such effort or demonstration of goodwill by the Ontario government. There was no willingness to develop a cooperative relationship between the government, municipalities, the private sector and, of course, the people of Ontario. In fact, this bill shuts the people out; it shuts the private sector out and, to boot, the Ontario government intrudes on municipal jurisdiction. I believe that part I, section 8 may also violate individual rights as set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

While my trust in politicians is only limited by their actions, I recognize the municipality's right to represent and govern on behalf of its constituents, and that is largely compromised by part III of this bill. Not only would they lose control over what has traditionally been their jurisdiction, they are stuck with the bill or, more precisely, they are stuck with giving the bad news to the property taxpayers when we do not have any money left.

I am an advocate of disentanglement. I will tell you why. I am fed up with one government making the decisions and passing the responsibility of collecting the taxes to the other. It leaves us like proverbial ping-pong balls. I would add, to quote the Premier when he is asked a tough question or put in a spot between a rock and a hard place, "It's not fair."

After seeing $8 million of my community's tax dollars going down the drain because the landfill in Brampton, the proposed interim spot, did not complement the minister's ideology, I became more incensed when I learned that the minister would not extend so much as the courtesy of holding private hearings on the Britannia expansion. I see this as high-handed and reprehensible. It is a violation of my environmental and political rights.

I recognize that the minister is socially and environmentally aware. However, I respectfully submit that as a human being she is subject to making erroneous decisions, more so when she chooses to examine selective information. For this reason, I am profoundly opposed to environmental assessment restrictions as set out in part II of the bill.

Furthermore, I suggest the assertion in part II that transferring waste to a willing host community is unacceptable is in contradiction to section 29 of part III where the minister reserves the right to order one municipality, willing or otherwise, to act as a host for another community's trash. If you are going to take the policy that transferring trash from one municipality to another is unacceptable, you do not need the power to order someone to do it. If Ontarians must be subjected to such insensitivity as demonstrated in Bill 143, I ask the minister and her government to at least be consistent on that point.

While campaigning, the governing party assured Ontarians that no landfill expansion would occur, certainly not without a new environmental assessment. The governing party assured us for some time now that a garbage gap would not occur. The governing party dramatically and convincingly persuaded us to believe that the environmental assessment process would be stronger, not usurped when it becomes inconvenient. The government has changed its mind on all of these policies within the past 17 months.

While my ideological preferences could not differ more from those of the governing party, I must admit that upon learning the results of the September 6, 1990 election I did feel at least assured that the environment would be in good hands. But, like the government, I too have changed my mind since that day.

With respect to the promised environmental bill of rights, as much as I hope the government will not change its mind on tabling that bill, I wonder about its relevance when it will only be effective if and when this minister and her government see fit. Where is the integrity in that?

As for the notion of the provincial government gaining the power to intrude on the financial management of the municipal waste management activities, I can only hope the government will learn how to handle its own finances more effectively before setting its eye on the municipalities.

I support the amendments indicated in the minister's statement to this committee and would ask her to think about some further suggestions which I will make in a moment. I would like to add that there is one particular amendment which the minister spoke about and that was with respect to compensating people whose property may be injuriously affected. The only reason I support that amendment is because I believe the province should be held responsible, not the municipality.

I will go on to some ideas I have come up with. First, I would encourage consultation with consumers, workers, the packaging industry and taxpayers to come up with a workable and ideally practical means of reducing things like packaging and making most of these materials recyclable.

Second, I would encourage a proviso on the minister's emergency power that landfill extensions cannot occur more than once and not at all without an environmental assessment. I ask her this simply because the way it stands now the bill does not put a stipulation on that. Hypothetically, we could have more use of this emergency power. We could have indefinite expansions of landfills.

Third, I would like to see the environmental assessment process made shorter and stricter, but let's make a decision one way or another, instead of this tedious, long procedure that does not seem to do much good. I think that is the idea of circumventing the process through this bill as it is.


Fourth, I think part II should be revised in order to provide examination of alternative measures such as the northern rail proposal. Barring that, I would at the very least provide for exemption to this bill for projects that have surpassed at least 60% of the present environmental assessment process, on the condition of course that these projects are in fact economically sustainable and, more important, safe.

Fifth, I would strike the section which affords the Lieutenant Governor in Council the right to determine paramountcy of conflicting law under this bill. Decisions such as those should go before the House for debate or, at the very least, be discussed in the committee.

Sixth, under no circumstances should elected municipal governments be accountable to or take orders from an appointed and unaccountable director.

From my perspective, the environment should not be used as an excuse to compromise the democratic integrity of this province. I think that is what upsets me more than anything else about this bill. So many decisions can be made behind closed doors and on selective information.

The bill is insensitive to Ontarians, local governments and the private sector as it seeks casually to discard historic and cherished rights that were established long ago and were thought to be secure. It casts aside the present environmental assessment process, and it provides the Ontario government with reprehensible expropriation of municipal powers, leaving municipalities with the tasks of answering to the public and raising property taxes. It determines paramountcy of law behind cabinet doors, and we all know which way the decisions will fall. In short, I find this bill tyrannical and offensive to anyone who values and respects not only our environment but democracy as well.

I support the 3Rs and recognize the need to resolve the landfill crisis, but I believe there are more democratic and diplomatic ways to achieve the desired results.

In closing, I thank Madam Chair and the members of this committee for their time.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr Cousens: I have a comment. When you come to Queen's Park, sometimes you wonder just who is paying attention to what is going on. When you get as immersed in it as we are as legislators and individuals come forward who have studied the situation and have a feel for their community, their society and their rights -- you have touched on some of the things that I hoped we would begin to hear, that reinforce the concerns I have. When you start talking about the charter of human rights and the rights that would be taken away by government coming on to your property, and also taking away the rights of municipalities, it touches on the very fundamentals of what society is all about, and in the specifics within the bill where you are looking for some common sense.

I just wanted to go on record and acknowledge very sincere appreciation for this presentation. I think it is extremely well thought out. I was going through your earlier presentation; you keep adding to it, I think. Maybe we have put you in a position of not giving you enough time, but the problem we had is that the government would not have given us any time at all if we had let it get away with that. So I just want to go on record and say thank you for a super presentation. I hope we can incorporate in our own amendments some of the points you have made here. We will try.

Ms Haeck: While I may differ on some of what you have said, I appreciate the fact you have taken the time to come and make your presentation. I noticed one of your comments about having to provide 30 photocopies of this presentation. I myself have made a similar comment at times when I have made a presentation to the previous Liberal government, but it is one of those things that I guess is a requirement.

I would at this point like to, through the parliamentary assistant, get a clarification of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms aspect that Ms Greifeneder has raised here. I believe we have talked about it before, but I think it really deserves some further clarifications.

Mr O'Connor: Thank you for the question. I think it is something that has been raised a number of times from presenters like yourself with some concerns about it. We are going to get a further clarification on that and it should be coming, hopefully, within the next day or two of committee hearings so that we can get that on the record as soon as we can to allay some of the fears people have that this is something that is in this act and no other piece of legislation. It is something that, unfortunately, in the process of trying to develop a site, is necessary. But we want to try to rest assured that it is not something that does not exist in other legislation, and clarification will be coming shortly.

Ms Greifeneder: May I make a rebuttal to that?

The Chair: Yes, you have the floor.

Ms Greifeneder: I realize that the idea of making an inspection and so forth is common in other legislation; however, my objection primarily is the fact that there would not be a requirement for a warrant. In that sense you can have people going on to people's property any time, any way, in any form. We have absolutely no rights the way this bill is designed. I believe that would be challenged under the charter. I have examined the charter for this past year. I have been very interested in constitutional matters for other purposes. I have studied the charter quite carefully and that is the primary concern I have. It is with respect to the fact that you would not even require a warrant.

Mr McClelland: By way of question and comment, I want to tell you how much I appreciate you as a citizen coming forward and expressing your concerns. I do not think anybody could put it more eloquently than you have. What you say is, in my view, amplified by the fact that you come here as a citizen and as somebody who is concerned; that is what brings you here.

The things you said about taking away people's rights, about the erosion of confidence in a government that you believed, if nothing else, would at least maintain a sense of integrity in terms of environmental issues, sums up so very well the concerns many of us have had; the fact that it overrides so much existing legislation and then goes on further to say: "We will reserve that right to do it privately. If there is any problem that gets in the way, we reserve the right to do it in cabinet by regulation." That is so contrary to every principle that people believe in in terms of democracy and freedom.

I do not know if you were here when PACT was here earlier. I showed them a file that I requested from this government about the work it has been doing to try and find -- it is a lot of paper. Do you know what the government supplied me? Some 108 blank pages; 108 pages are blank.

Ms Greifeneder: One hundred and eight blank pages. Why?

Mr McClelland: I want to know what it is trying to hide. I have a real concern there. I think that is essentially what you were saying; that there is something really amiss here. That same group was told outside by its member, Mr Wiseman, "If you want to know anything, just ask me." People should not have to depend on people who think they are in the know. People in this province should be treated equally, they should be given the same rights under the law and they should not have to look at blank pages, specifically or, if you will, symbolically. That is what we have here. We have something that says: "We'll hide it. We don't want to be accountable. We think we have the right to do whatever we want to do. I am sorry, citizens and people of Ontario. You do not count any more because we are now in power."

Mr Wiseman: I think you have said that so well.

The Chair: Mr Wiseman, there is enough time for you to put your question on the record, if the witness can answer quickly. But we really just have one minute left.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to make a comment on your section about the expropriation. Nobody in southern Ontario knows about expropriation better than the residents of north Pickering who had 43,000 acres expropriated from them in 1972 by a federal Liberal and a provincial Tory government. That was done with no clear end use being demanded by the certificates of expropriation.

What is different in this bill is that no land can be expropriated without the certificate of approval of the landfill site being issued, which means that you cannot just go and expropriate 25 sites of people's land and then say, "We'll take this one and then sell it off later for some other use," which is what the residents of north Pickering would have appreciated back in 1972.

You have made some comments on the other parts of the bill, but I just wanted to say that in terms of expropriation, I have to disagree with you.

Ms Greifeneder: When I am referring to expropriation, I am using the term with respect to municipal powers. I believe that is what I said when I made the comment. I am well aware of the fact that expropriation rights are necessary for governments to go about doing their business. I am not objecting to that. What I am objecting to is that the waste authority people can go on to people's property without even a warrant. I think that is disgusting and I really think that if your government cares about anything besides its own ideology, it will consider that.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Greifeneder. We appreciate your coming before the committee. If there is anything additional that you think the committee would find helpful during its deliberations, you can write to us and I assure that anything we receive by 14 February will be part of the public record. If we receive it after that time, members will receive a copy of it so they can consider it. So please feel free to communicate with us in writing. Thank you very much.



The Chair: I would like to call for the next presentation, Philip Environmental Inc. Welcome. Please introduce yourself. You have 20 minutes for your presentation.

Mr Pingue: Madam Chairman and gentlemen and ladies of the committee, my name is Antonio Pingue. I am vice-president of environmental affairs with Philip Environmental Inc. The purpose of my presentation is to provide the committee my viewpoint of the proposed legislative changes contained in Bill 143 and the impact it will have on the private sector.

My background in the waste management field spans 21 years. I was employed with the Ministry of the Environment for 17 years on the front line delivering the ministry's program to a variety of sectors. My last five years were spent as an investigator and supervisor in the investigations and enforcement branch. You could reasonably say I literally grew up with the developing environmental legislation in this province. Fortunately for our environment, we have progressed from concerns over suspended solids being discharged to waterways to measuring and controlling exotic contaminants in parts per quadra trillion and studying their long-term effects on our environment.

As vice-president of environmental affairs with my company, one of my main tasks is to advise our board members and shareholders on the impact that pending legislation may have on our sector. Bill 143 raises my concerns.

Philip Environmental Inc is a publicly trading company and a major recycler of industrial materials based in Hamilton, Ontario, with operations in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec and the state of Michigan. Our company owns and operates several landfills, transfer and processing facilities with transport, handling and recycling capabilities of large volumes of ICI waste, solid non-hazardous waste and hazardous waste.

The Philip Environmental Group of companies has been recycling industrial waste since 1980, long before the 3Rs program was introduced in this province. In 1991, our Hamilton operations alone diverted 33% of the 350,000 tonnes of industrial waste handled at one of our facilities. We employ in excess of 1,000 people, 500 of whom are located in Ontario. The private sector waste management industry in Ontario is made up of hundreds of large and small corporations with thousands of employees in this province.

I have followed the committee proceedings closely and I know you have been advised of the potential impacts this bill will have on the private sector. This committee has received a very clear, strong message from our competitors and the associations representing our sector. Our sector represents the only significant recyclers that have, beyond dispute, diverted waste from landfills in this province.

I would now like to cover the specific sections of Bill 143 that in our view require clarification or to be completely amended.

In part I, the proposed powers of access to private property are excessive and far-reaching. The previous speaker put it as well as anyone else could put it as a citizen. The legislation provides no rights to land owners who do not want to allow inspectors access to their property.

Provincial legislation preaches public consultation as a key component of any environmental assessment process, but the bill does not apply the same consideration to private property. The proposed crown corporation may become the applicant, an operator and essentially an extension of the regulatory body, the Ministry of the Environment.

The potential for conflict of interest created by Bill 143 is clearly visible. The minister has completely eliminated the private sector in providing the services within Ontario. The Ministry of the Environment Waste Disposal Site Inventory, dated June 1991, identifies all active sites in Ontario. It identifies hundreds of municipal and private sites that can service the immediate and long-term needs in an environmentally sound manner. The minister has eliminated free enterprise opportunities regardless of the cost to taxpayers in this province by creating another crown corporation.

It is my opinion that the government should not be competing with the private sector. The private sector corporations and their employees pay the taxes that will ultimately support another government body.

In part II, the minister must consider the proposed legislation because the wording suggests that alternative sites will not be considered. The legislation clearly states, "One landfill waste disposal site to be located in..." without evaluating the potential of more suitable sites outside the named municipalities in section 12. Section 14(3) states: "An environmental assessment which complies with this section shall be deemed to comply with subsection 5(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act in respect of the matters referred to in this section."

The presentation of alternatives is a key issue in the EAA process, but the minister is now creating a different set of rules that apply for the crown corporation and the GTA through the Interim Waste Authority.

The private sector, which has no powers of expropriation and rights of entry, is left to deal with the EAA although it was designed only for public sector projects. The minister has failed to provide the same scoping alternatives to the private sector despite recommendations in the environmental assessment procedure improvement program.

A conflict exists between the minister stating that export of waste will not be an alternative in subsection 14(2) and the amendments being proposed to section 29 in which the directors, and now as I understand it the minister, may order a municipality to accept waste from outside its boundaries.

In part III, the minister has provided for arbitrarily extending specific existing municipal sites within the GTA without evaluting the potential environmental consequence. The private sector is not given the same consideration.

The minister should provide clear guidance to the private sector in allowing expansion of daily volumes, extensions to service area at landfills presently operating and capable of handling GTA waste volumes and residues from recycling operations. This oversight, in my view, is the main contributor to the exporting of waste from the GTA outside the province. The playing field becomes even more uneven if this bill is proclaimed in its present form for the private sector which can meet the present needs of the GTA.

If the government is truly concerned with the export of waste and with responsible waste management practices, I suggest the minister address and streamline the approval process for the existing sites within the province by amendments to the EPA and the EAA establishing reasonable turnaround times in the process. The minister should reconsider making special exemptions to the EPA, EAA, OMB etc for some but not for others by addressing the process itself, as I have stated.

In part IV, the minister must clarify the meaning of section 22, "...for the purpose of the protection, conservation or management of the environment outside Ontario's borders." The private sector believes this is intended to restrict exporting of waste outside the province without evaluating the consequences of such action.

The provincial-municipal relationship is clearly defined, but the private sector involvement is not defined. Waste management companies have provided the bulk of the resources in the blue box, ICI and industrial waste materials recycling. The intent of the act appears to create a parallel municipally owned waste management system competing with the private sector. Municipalities and taxpayers in this province cannot afford the associated costs.

Section 23 grants should be made available to the private sector which can deliver the waste management services required.

In section 29, changes should require separate or distinct sections in regulations for ICI and domestic wastes. Municipal sites and systems in most regions of this province do not allow the disposal of ICI-sourced waste materials. The ICI sector is serviced throughout the province by private waste management companies. The minister's intention and how it affects the private sector needs to be clarified.

How will this definition change existing certificates of approval in the private sector, which presently receives mixed ICI wastes but not domestic waste as it is presently defined in legislation? The initiatives paper falls short in addressing this critical issue, as well as the regulation itself.


I am in full agreement with streamlining the approval process for genuine recycling operations in this province. However, by creating unlicensed facilities throughout the province it is unfair to the private sector, which holds certificates of approval, requires financial assurances, needs to train staff in accordance with regulation 309, provides storm management plans and contingency plans etc and is subject to strict enforcement by the Ministry of the Environment.

It has not been made clear in the bill who will enforce it. I attended the breakfast reception for Mr Drew Blackwell, the assistant deputy minister, in front of the Recycling Council of Ontario, and he clearly indicated that it would probably be the municipalities. I would like this committee to know quite clearly that this will result in uneven standards being applied across this province.

The proposals put the private waste management industry with the burden of financial and regulatory compliance, competing against non-regulated facilities, whether private or public in nature. This again is a double standard in our view. The private sector has learned, at considerable cost I might add, that if the front-end tipping fee does not cover your handling, transportation and processing costs and you do not have an end user to purchase the recyclable materials, recycling does not pay.

In my travels with the company I have been to many states and provinces where blue box materials that are segregated and have no use end up in landfills anyway. This committee heard yesterday from the region of Durham that a ratio of 10 to 1 exists in the cost to recycle versus the revenues generated from the sale of material. Waste management companies have been cognizant of this fact for years.

Bill 143 requires considerable amendment before municipalities, the private sector, and the citizens of this province find the legislation acceptable, fair and evenhanded for all sectors of our society. I only hope that my presentation will assist you, Madam Chair and the members of this committee, to evaluate the very real and serious concerns that all sectors have with the proposed legislation.

Ms Haeck: I would like again to thank the deputant for coming to our hearings. I would also like to refer to ministry staff, through the PA, for clarification regarding the proposed powers, because I believe, in looking at page 4, section 8, there is a fair bit of notice given etc. I know that for many years customs officials, at least from the federal sector, have had very wide-ranging powers of access through someone's home without warrants etc. So I was wondering if they could expand on exactly what Mr Pingue has raised here.

Mr O'Connor: To answer this I would ask Jim Jackson if he or Leo would come forward. Say your name for the purpose of Hansard.

Mr FitzPatrick: Leo FitzPatrick. I am a lawyer with the legal services branch, Ministry of the Environment.

Indeed there are concerns, charter concerns and equity concerns, with powers of entry and even more so concerning entry that goes on to search and seizure, which I think is the sort of power you were concerned with, where customs officials and police are involved, particularly where it is with a view to finding evidence for prosecution or something like that. The concerns are less where it is a power of entry geared to an inspection, which is what we have in this bill. But there are still concerns and certainly you have heard the concerns expressed by various people at the hearings here.

I am not an expert in that area of the law. I could not go into it for you step by step, except to say that we have recognized those concerns, as has the Attorney General. The Attorney General has a project under way looking at powers of entry and various provincial statutes with a view to ensuring that they do accord with the Charter of Rights or are changed to do so. They have had input into the drafting of the powers of entry provisions in this bill and they are satisfied. As was pointed out before, we will have a background paper available. It is being copied now, I believe, and with any luck it will be available to you tomorrow.

Mr McClelland: I find it interesting, Tony, that it is sufficient now to be satisfied simply that it meets with the letter or perhaps strict interpretation of the law, rather than to look at some basic principles. I commented yesterday that "The government of the day has principles and if you do not like them we will have other principles, and depending on where you live in the province we will have other principles too, and if you're the private sector we will apply yet another set of principles." That seems to be part of what you are saying.

I read on the weekend an interesting article. It said that one senior bureaucrat described cabinet ministers and political staff as being ideologically blinkered. There is a predetermined position, so that there is not the same degree of exchange and analysis going on, and I think that what we have here in your submission is a recognition of that. There is an ideological mindset here that says, "We'll tell you that we want the private sector," but when some very, very plain deficiencies in terms of Bill 143 are brought to the table and discussed, the issue becomes one of niceties of the law in terms of power of entry, rather than looking at the legitimate concerns that business has. We have heard from many people in the private sector that they do not feel comfortable with Bill 143, that there are no assurances. I do not know how I can try to get the message over again.

On page 5 you have said that the minister has eliminated free enterprise opportunities regardless of the cost to taxpayers. I am telling you now that, as far as I understand, my colleagues opposite just do not believe that. It does not matter whether the facts are presented, it does not matter whether there is an analysis presented, they do not want to believe it because they do not want to believe it. That is the rationale.

I wonder if you could help us a little bit more and maybe somehow try to get beyond this ideological mindset of these predetermined positions that I read about in the Toronto Star on the weekend. How are we going to do that? How can you, sir, as a representative of the private sector, begin to impress upon the government of the day that the private sector has a legitimate role to play and you need to have some changes to make it viable?

Mr Pingue: We deal with some 400 to 500 clients in the Hamilton area, as well as in Toronto and various parts of this province. A lot of our clients have brought those very concerns. I am sort of the clearinghouse for the company. A lot of these concern: "Hey, how are these regulations going to affect me? What do they mean for me? How will that change the service that your company provides to my facility?" My response to them is normally that the mandatory segregation onsite is going to require them to rethink how they handle their materials, rather than us delivering them to our facilities commingled and doing the segregation for them and reselling whatever is recoverable out of the material and disposing of the residuals to one of our landfills.

I am really a little bit confused when it comes to answering them because I really do not know what direction this bill is taking. As I have clearly stated, I believe they are speaking out of both sides of their mouths on this bill, that it is meant to help a situation, whereas there are private sector companies out there, Mr McClelland, as you are well aware. I think some of them who can provide a lot of the services have already made presentations before this committee.

The province is saying here that we have an emergency, we have to respond. Municipalities take 10 years to get through an environmental process and, as I have covered in my paper, that is because the process itself will change it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, but if it is, fix it. That is the message that I would like to give this committee.

Mr McClelland: And in the process, trying to dance from crisis to crisis to crisis.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Pingue, for your presentation.



The Chair: Our next group is Rivergrove Development Corp. If you would come to the microphone, please identify yourselves for the purpose of Hansard. We would appreciate some time towards the end for questioning by committee members.

Ms Ryan: My name is Julia Ryan. I am solicitor for Rivergrove Development Corp Ltd. I have with me Mr Stephen Goldhar, a principal of the company, and Mr Ronald Starr, director of development. We would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear.

The purpose of our submission today is to address the issue of compensation under section 19 of Bill 143, and to ask that the principle of compensation to affected land owners be reinstated in the bill. We have had distributed a copy of a map showing the location of our property, and we will be delivering to the committee something in writing setting out our position as we express it here today.

Rivergrove Development Corp is the owner of a 150-acre parcel of land to the south and the west of the Britannia landfill site, and if you look at the map we have provided you with, the lands coloured in yellow and also extending west to Creditview Road belong to Rivergrove. The landfill site is marked on the plan as the existing sanitary landfill site. The west and southerly boundaries of the site are immediately adjacent to the Rivergrove lands.

Rivergrove obtained draft approval for a residential plan of subdivision in 1988 to permit the development of more than 1,200 residential units. However, final approval and the development of the lands has now been prevented by the decision to put an additional lift on Britannia and to extend the life of the site for several more years. The lands are within 500 metres of the landfill site and as a result are subject to a development freeze, and have been since March 27, 1991.

If you look at the map you will see the 500-metre limit is marked in the green line showing the 500-metre limit from the site, and the lands coloured in yellow are all the lands frozen from development. It represents more than 75% of the units in the plan. It has been frozen, as I have indicated, since March 27, 1991, when the minister first really undertook the consideration of extending a lift on Britannia, and at that point instructed the Minister of Municipal Affairs to withdraw from the region of Peel the power to approve plans of subdivision around the Britannia landfill site. When we applied for final approval of the plan, we were unable to get it on the basis of the freeze.

Section 19 in the bill confirms that parties whose lands are adversely affected as a result of the extension to the landfill site can claim damages for market value reduction and for business losses, and we were pleased to see this principle in Bill 143 when it was introduced. My client was dismayed by the minister's withdrawal of support for section 19 at the outset of these hearings. We are here today to urge the reinstatement of the principle of compensation into Bill 143.

I would like to spend a few moments on the history of the development of this site so that you will appreciate the difficulties that are faced by Rivergrove if the principle of compensation is not ensured.

Rivergrove bought these lands in the mid-1980s. At the time they bought them, they were relying on the fact that the landfill site had a limited life. That limited life was expressed both in the zoning bylaw for the city of Mississauga and in an agreement between the city of Mississauga and the region of Peel. It was expected that the landfill site would be closed by now and that a golf course would be the long-term use of the site.

In reliance upon that fact, Rivergrove applied for approval of a plan of subdivision in 1987 so that the final approval would dovetail with the closure of the site. The plan was circulated to government agencies, and it was cleared by all of them. The Ministry of the Environment's only condition of approval related to noise abatement. In fact, the Ministry of the Environment, after discussions with the region of Peel and the city, agreed that all the lands could be released for development except a few lots that were within 500 metres of the working face of the site. Those that were intended to be frozen originally are hatched in red on the plan. As you can see, there are very few of them in comparison to the entire plan.

Accordingly in 1988, the plan received draft approval, subject to the freezing of those few lots and to the standard conditions of approval that any developer faces. Rivergrove immediately commenced the process of fulfilling the conditions of approval, at substantial cost, and during that time received several approvals from the Ministry of the Environment which included, in late 1988, a certificate for the installation of the water and the sewer. In 1990 the Ministry of the Environment cleared the noise condition and in the fall of 1990 the Ministry of the Environment advised that the landfill site did not adversely affect the plan and that it would clear the plan for final approval as soon as the standard servicing and financial agreements were entered into with the city and the region.

My client's position is that, in effect, the Ministry of the Environment held out that the plan could proceed as scheduled. There was never a hint that this landfill site would not be closed in due course or that a great portion of this site would be frozen for some indefinite period.

By early March 1991 the conditions of approval were all fulfilled, and on March 27, 1991, when the power to give final approval to the plan was withdrawn from the region of Peel, Rivergrove was within three or four days of registering this plan. When we learned of the withdrawal of the approval, we approached the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to secure final approval and register the plan and were advised that the lands were frozen and would be frozen until such time as this matter was resolved.

By the time this happened Rivergrove had partly pre-serviced the land. Letters of credit had been deposited to secure the cost of construction, all the levies had been posted with the region and the city, engineering drawings were completed and the contracts for construction were tendered. Downstream servicing connections were under way. Agreements of purchase and sale had been entered into for 190 homes to allow a subsidized non-profit housing project which had received a provincial allocation to proceed. Another 215 small single lots were subject to agreements of purchase and sale. It was expected that construction would commence last summer. It would have resulted in an injection into the economy of $100 million, together with thousands of person-years of employment, all of which have now been delayed indefinitely.

Throughout the ministry held out that the lands would be developed, and Rivergrove, in reliance upon the approvals it had obtained from the government, proceeded to do the normal things that a developer would do to develop the lands.

Rivergrove's out-of-pocket developments costs and carrying charges on the frozen area today approach $18 million. If you add in the land cost, the total exceeds $30 million. In addition, since the lands were frozen another $3.5 million has been spent to try to proceed with at least some part of the area outside of the freeze. If you look at the lands on the west side of the plan, those lands are not shown lotted because on the northwest there is a school and a park. There is a block just immediately to the north of Bristol Road which is the affordable housing subsidized project. Our client did work with the Ministry of the Environment officials to get that part of the site released. We are grateful for the cooperation we got in that regard, and that was able to proceed, but as I say, those additional costs amounted to $3.5 million.

As a result of the freeze, Rivergrove is in default on its financial obligations and the project is close to bankruptcy. As you can see, the last-minute decision to put a lift on Britannia has had a severe negative economic impact on Rivergrove. In our submission, it would be unfair if Rivergrove's common law right to adequate compensation is not appropriately confirmed in Bill 143. We ask for a reinstatement of the principle of compensation as expressed in section 19.

We would be glad to answer any questions.


Mr McClelland: To whom, in your opinion, should the potential liability for economic hardship extend as a result of the decisions made?

Ms Ryan: We are prepared and intend to seek it from whatever facet of government we can obtain it from. If necessary, we will seek it from the provincial government, the region of Peel and the city of Mississauga.

Mr McClelland: I will doubtless be accused of being sensational, but quite frankly, the description you have given about what took place in terms of the reliance on undertakings and promises made is something that you would think you would hear of in a place like Romania about 20 or 30 years ago. I do not think it is overstating the case to say it is exactly that kind of mentality that says we are going to promise things all along and walk in at the last minute and take things away from people without any due regard to their rights. I think you have every right to look to the province of Ontario, in this case specifically the Minister of the Environment and the Ministry of the Environment, for compensation for what you and the people who have put good faith and deposits on the line to buy their homes have lost as a result of the decisions that were made.

What, if any, response have you received to the overtures you have made to the Ministry of the Environment subsequent to the initial decision being made public? What, if any, hints or indications were you given? Did they maintain throughout that things were proceeding on track? Did the order come out of nowhere, so to speak? You were relying on undertakings and information given to you.

Ms Ryan: The fact that the power to give final approval to the plan was withdrawn from the region of Peel within days of our registering did come out of the blue to Rivergrove. To be fair, since that time we have had meetings with staff of the Ministry of the Environment and they have attempted to be as cooperative as they could in the circumstances. They did work with us to get the release of that part of the land outside the 500-metre buffer zone. These things never proceed as quickly as a private land owner would like, but having said that, none the less they did work with us.

We have had discussions with them as to what, if any, further things can be done to assist us, but at this point we do not have the kind of resolution of any of the issues that gives us comfort that we will be back in the financial position we would have been in but for this having occurred.

Mr McClelland: Had Peel been allowed to proceed with the plans it had in place or, alternatively, had the minister in October 1990, when she asserted time and time again that there was no garbage grab and no looming crisis, taken action at that time, to what extent would some action and some forthright admission of a problem in 1990, rather than a denial by the Minister of the Environment that a problem existed, have had on mitigating the damages and the resultant harm you and your client have suffered?

Ms Ryan: I do not know that we are here to get into a dispute over whether the extension to the landfill site was the right thing to do. Obviously if the landfill site were not extended, we would have been registered and Rivergrove would have developed a number of lots last summer and we would be in a position where housing, particularly our small lots, which are in the affordable category and marketable today, would have been coming on stream to ease the crisis. That would have been of assistance to us and we would have been able to proceed had it not been determined that another lift was going to be put on Britannia.

If another lift is going to go on Britannia, in particular given the last-minute nature of this decision in so far as Rivergrove was concerned and the process that it was under and the fact that this was not something that had been foreseen for some long period of time where it could have, if possible, taken any alternative steps, then there has to be some assurance that appropriate compensation will be paid.

Mrs Marland: Ms Ryan, virtually what you have told us today is that you did receive final approval in the late l980s for this plan of subdivision from the provincial Ministry of the Environment, subject only to the final financial agreements with the municipality?

Ms Ryan: In effect, that is correct.

Mrs Marland: I think that is the really significant part about your particular lands. I think it is also true, is it not, that your lands were the only lands in that final stages of approval at the time the freeze was made?

Ms Ryan: Yes.

Mrs Marland: Would you be willing to continue with your plan of subdivision registration and the subsequent development and sale of these lots with waivers written on the titles, if you could get permission to do that, even if the landfill site continues to operate?

Ms Ryan: Yes. It would depend on the wording. When you are talking about waivers, obviously these things have to be negotiated, but in principle yes, we are anxious to develop.

Mrs Marland: So what you are saying here is, "Please give us the permission to proceed with the plan, which was already approved at this level of government, and we will not be fighting you on the activity at the landfill site." It is possible that you could reach an agreement with the provincial government where, if the use of the landfill site did have to continue, you would be willing to enter into some kind of wording that identified that use and against which there would be no claim by the future purchasers of those lots. You could, in some wording, protect the provincial government or the municipalities from complaint by those new home owners because they would buy with the understanding that this was something you had no control over and neither did they and they would have no future claim. In other words, you could stay in business.

Ms Ryan: We could stay in business and we could agree to appropriate warning clauses on title, and hopefully that would forestall people who bought property making a claim. We want to proceed. Even if we are entitled to proceed, that does not totally answer the issue of whether we have still suffered damages over and above what would have happened to us had we been able to proceed on time.

Mrs Marland: You have suffered damage in any case because of the delay.

Ms Ryan: That is correct.

Mrs Marland: You are going to get into business that much later, so if there is a common law right to compensation, you will be entitled to that and it can be resolved down the road. But right now, to stave off the bankruptcy and the headlong disaster you are headed into, it could be resolved if the government would give you that permission to go ahead today with whatever necessary protection clauses had to be drafted.

Ms Ryan: There is no question that we are prepared and ready to proceed. We want to proceed and we would like to get our lands released for development.

Mrs Mathyssen: Peel region has requested the deletion of section 19 in the bill because it feels that compensation is covered by existing legislation and policy. The minister has agreed in principle to phase in release of land around the Britannia landfill site. Under these conditions, do you feel the issue of compensation will be addressed and that development will be able to go ahead gradually?

Ms Ryan: I think it is still an open question. There are perhaps provisions in the Expropriations Act that deal with issues of compensation in situations like this. The clarity that was imported into section 19 certainly helped to clarify and make the claim more certain. There are some niceties in the Expropriations Act that lawyers can get into arguing about, and if the region of Peel or anybody else who was sued wanted to play those kinds of games, I think they could put an awful lot of pressure on a private land owner and have a lot of leverage over its ability to proceed with and the extent to which it could proceed with its claim.

If you are asking if I have any assurances that the lands will be able to proceed, I think there is a willingness on the part of Ministry of the Environment officials to look at that. But time is passing, and for Rivergrove time is money. We have already been delayed now for a year. There are certain studies being undertaken at Britannia. While I do feel the officials are willing to look at it, it is not altogether clear to me when we could look forward to being released.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. If there is additional information that you think would be helpful to the committee, please feel free to communicate with us in writing.

I would like to call the next deputation. Mrs Marland, do you want to put a question on the record?

Mrs Marland: My question for the record would be to the ministry. Would they be willing to allow Rivergrove Development Corp to proceed with the the registration of their plan and the subsequent development of their lands if the ministry was protected by waiver agreements or similar wording that there would not be complaints about the ongoing active use of the Britannia landfill site adjacent to the lots that are subsequently purchased by future land owners?

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Marland, and thank you for your presentation.



The Chair: I would like to call next the last presentation for today, the city of Toronto. I would ask that the delegation be seated in front of the microphones. We would appreciate if you would introduce yourselves at the start of your presentation. You have 20 minutes. We ask also that you leave some time for questions, but as you have noted from other presentations, if there is not time to get all the questions answered you can submit in writing the answers to the questions if you wish. Welcome.

Mr Vardin: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of your committee. My name is Nick Vardin. I am the commissioner of public works and the environment for the city of Toronto. With me are Dr Roger Higgin, deputy of environmental services, and Mr Peter Gerkis, director of material management and sanitation.

My colleagues and I welcome the opportunity to appear before your committee and express the city's concerns. It was only last Friday that city council authorized me to appear before your committee in order to present the city's views of the proposals contained in Bill 143 and to indicate to you its concerns about both the process and content of Bill 143. I have tabled a number of copies of the brief. This comprises the city's complete submission to you on Bill 143. In the 10 minutes or so that I have, I intend to highlight certain aspects of the submission.

Specifically, I will set out some of the background to the city's concerns about provincial policy and legislation in the area of waste management for the GTA. I will then proceed to review the city's major concerns about part IV of Bill 143, which will amend certain provisions of the EPA and lead to increased provincial regulation of municipal waste management practices and procedures.

In regard to the city's position on provincial policy for waste management in the area, in a report of August 5, 1991 to city council, I recommended three guiding principles which express a position on evolving provincial policy for waste management in the GTA:

1. Support for the establishment of a GTA waste management authority to plan and coordinate area-wide waste management plans for the future, including (a) search for and startup of new landfill sites; and (b) establishment of locations for material recovery and processing facilities and development of markets for recovering materials.

2. Waste management options should not be excluded nor solutions dictated at the outset of the planning process by the minister. Such exclusions or solutions should be a result of the planning process, including the environmental assessment of the GTA waste management plans. Specifically, (a) the export alternative should not arbitrarily be excluded; and (b) the "three landfills by region" solutions, Halton being excluded, should not be dictated by the minister but should be a result of the planning and environmental assessment process.

3. The city of Toronto will aggressively implement 3R programs within its jurisdiction, and it objects to any move by either the province or Metro to enact legislation to remove its authority to continue to act in this area and to meet the responsibilities that the city has to the citizens of the city of Toronto.

The brief deals with our concerns and presents our recommendations regarding parts I, II and III of Bill 143 in light of the first two of these principles. However, in the time available I will focus on the third of these principles as it pertains to part IV of the bill.

The concerns that I have regarding part IV of the bill are noted in the brief, which points out that the city of Toronto, through my department, has instituted aggressive 3R programs in its jurisdiction and has several unique aspects to its waste management system. The city of Toronto's major concerns relate to part IV of Bill 143, "Amendments to the Environmental Protection Act," because they will have the most direct impact on the city's operations.

Although introduced by the minister responsible for the GTA as part of Bill 143, the changes are to facilitate the ministry's policies for waste reduction across the province. The proposed amendments to the EPA will give the minister and the Ministry of the Environment effective control and approval of municipal and private waste management systems, practices, procedures and finances.

The city notes that the amendments providing for delegation of powers to the director as well as those related to emergency powers to other municipalities to assess waste management needs and prepare plans are being withdrawn. However, the remaining powers provided to the minister as a result of amendments to the regulation-making powers in section 136 of the EPA are quite unprecedented. If passed into law, this amendment will give the province the power to regulate in detail the waste management planning practices and procedures both of municipalities and the private sector and the financial arrangements for municipal waste systems.

The city of Toronto notes with particular concern draft regulations contained in the waste reduction office initiatives paper, entitled Regulatory Measures to Achieve Ontario's Waste Reduction Targets. Although not directly part of the matters before the standing committee, it is important to understand both the level of intrusion and control and the impact of these draft regulations on all waste generators and on municipalities and private waste management companies.

The city considers that the draft regulations in the initiatives paper are an attempt to set universal methods and practices for material management in the province rather than allow a more flexible, target-driven approach. The measures will seriously intrude into the jurisdiction of local municipalities and dictate the operations of private waste management companies. The city is also concerned that the expected ministerial paper on municipal waste management responsibilities be publicly reviewed and its implications for municipalities clearly understood before changes to the EPA are enacted.

The consultation between the province and the municipal sector on waste management issues often occurs only with the area municipalities, the regional areas, and excludes the local municipalities. The changes contemplated in part IV of Bill 143 and the regulations will have a major impact on local municipalities, such as the city of Toronto, which are in the front line in regard to garbage collection and the implementation of 3R programs. Dictation without consultation is not appropriate, in my view.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, I am sure you are aware of the recent agreement between the city of Toronto and the Toronto harbour commissioners over the purchase of some 265 acres of port industrial lands for industrial development purposes under the auspices of the Toronto Economic Development Corp. This plan is in accord with the recommendations of the David Crombie commission, the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, for a land development thrust for the port area.

Part of TEDCO's plans are to focus on establishing environmentally appropriate industries in a revitalized port industrial area. The city is concerned that the provisions of part IV of Bill 143 and the yet-to-be-revealed regulations governing municipal and private sector waste management plans and practices could significantly affect TEDCO's ability to attract environmentally appropriate industries, such as recycling plants. This type of facility is high on TEDCO's list of private companies it hopes will locate in the port area because of the proximity to recycled materials and ready access to transportation to the Canadian and US recycling markets.

More specifically, the changes contemplated in part IV of Bill 143 and the draft regulations could affect the type and location of material recovery facilities in the province. As a minimum they would lengthen the approvals process for these facilities, and at worst cause the private sector to leave the field to the public sector. Certainly we would like to see much more consultation between the ministry, TEDCO and the recycling industries before part IV of Bill 143 is passed into law.


The city of Toronto's recommendation is that the amendments to the Environmental Protection Act set out in part IV should be excluded from the bill and considered later in concert with a complete draft of the ministry's waste management regulations. This should be the subject of extensive consultation with regard both to the content of and the appropriate administrative structure for the new provincial waste management regulations.

Finally, my recommendation is that the proposed amendments to the Environmental Protection Act contained in part IV of Bill 143 be deferred and considered along with draft waste management regulations proposed by the Minister of the Environment following a public consultation process.

Mr Cousens: One of the first things you said was that you joined a large number of people who have great concerns about this bill. I am delighted that we have been able at least to get the chance to debate it because, had the government had its way, it would have been passed on December 19. It was only presented on October 24 and it meant that a local government would not have had the chance to respond to it. In your early comments you indicated that council only had a chance to review it last week, or that it only approved your coming.

Mr Vardin: I cannot on my own come and appear before your committee without council authorizing what message council wants to send to Queen's Park. What that means is that I had to review the proposed legislation. Given the timetable that Mr Cousens mentioned and given the municipal elections in place, by the time I had the opportunity to review, the first opportunity I had to go to the executive committee with my report was on January 3. By the time the material was made available and it reached my office to review it and put a deposition together, the first possible opportunity to go to the administration of the city of Toronto was January 3. It went to council on January 13. That was Monday. They only authorized me at that time to appear before your committee, but they did not decide what kind of message I ought to bring until Friday the 17th.

Mr Cousens: Under the circumstances I think you have done an exceedingly excellent job, and I apologize for the way in which this has been done. I think it is really a shame. It has been such a tight schedule. We knew it would be. We are delighted that you have at least had a chance to put it on the table. Had it gone the way of the plans of the minister, Mrs Grier, you would not even have been able to make a presentation, which would have been a shame, with the comments you are making. I just want to say thank you and I apologize for what is going on in this House.

Mr Lessard: I was a little bit surprised by your comments about the initiatives paper, because we have heard compliments from a lot of people who have made presentations before this committee so far. That is something that was released in October of last year that has involved extensive consultations, which have been extended until this month. I also understand that the city of Toronto was involved in that consultation process. It is my understanding that the regulation enabling provisions in part IV are to implement the initiatives in that paper and I am wondering now why you are saying you think we need to have an additional consultation period with respect to those.

Mr Vardin: The city of Toronto was not consulted prior to the release of the initiatives paper. I was not involved, and my deputy tells me he was not consulted.

Mr Lessard: I am talking about since it has been released.

Mr Vardin: Yes, since it has been released we have looked at the initiatives and also at Bill 143 that came shortly after. I applaud the government's efforts to deal with the waste management issues and waste management crisis. What concerns me are the regulations that will flow out of Bill 143, specifically the amendments to the EPA and the regulations that are not available to me at the moment in order to determine what the impact of those regulations, as they will be interpreted by the ministry staff, will be. I can only speculate. What I am saying is that unless the government gives us an opportunity to review and understand what those regulations might be -- I am not suggesting they may be bad regulations. All I want to know is what they are going to be and how they are going to impact my operation.

You have to remember that I am the one who picks up the bag of garbage on the curb and the blue box, and the day I miss it or the day I am a little behind schedule for whatever reason and the garbage does not get picked up, my phone rings off the hook. I want to know what that means to my ability to continue the high level of service to the citizens of Toronto. I want to know what the impact will be on my recycling programs.

The city of Toronto has been the leader in that area going back to 1988, and I have expanded and accelerated recycling programs throughout the residential sector, including high-rise apartments. I have also incorporated commercial establishments and retail stores and am trying to make private arrangements with such places as the LCBO in order to deal with the issue of glass, most of which ends up in landfill sites. We have an operation in place; we have the commingled system of operation. I do not know what the regulations might mean. If I have to go to a different type of operation with different compartments, that could mean $10 or $12 million for my operation for the equipment alone. I want to know what it means. That is what I am asking.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Vardin. I have known Mr Vardin for quite some time, before he was the works commissioner and before he had quite so much grey hair. I think the two happened simultaneously.

Mr Vardin: Yes, and I remember you. I remember when you were in North York.

Mr McClelland: I appreciate your comments, sir. As I think Mr Cousens so well put it, it is good you are here, albeit under difficult circumstances. We appreciate it.

You are much too gracious and too diplomatic to say much about it, but I think you have had a sense of what "consultation" means with the current government, particularly the Ministry of the Environment. It seems it is: "We'll tell you what we're going to do. If you like it, terrific; we want to hear from you. If you don't, it's too bad because we're going to run it anyway." I would hope that through this process the government would begin to understand that there are people who are vitally concerned and that you are the one who puts, if you will, feet to the words. People such as yourself are the ones who have to make it work.

I think you should perhaps take some cold comfort in the fact that you are not alone. Regional chairmen and mayors of major municipalities have had the same problem with respect to Bill 143 in terms of lack of consultation. Indeed, Mr Cousens put it so well that but for the opposition, you would not even have this opportunity to raise your concerns.

With respect to part IV specifically, do you see that it would be worthwhile and useful if section 29 changes carved out distinctly the private sector regulations, the industrial, commercial and institutional and private sectors, that component, and set out a separate scheme for the public, ie, municipal regulations? Should the same set of rules apply? Should we have them addressed differently? How would you see the process of consultation with respect to part IV, either interacting with the private sector or happening separately with the public?

Mr Vardin: The fact of the matter is that about two thirds of the waste generated in this province is handled by the private sector. At least in the GTA and the city of Toronto, I handle --


Mr McClelland: What would happen to you, sir, if the private sector were removed from the picture? What would happen to you and your commission?

Mr Vardin: If it were removed?

Mr McClelland: If it were removed.

Mr Vardin: That is what I am asking actually, for part IV to be removed from the bill.

Mr McClelland: What would happen if the private sector were removed from waste management? What would it mean to the city of Toronto?

Mr Vardin: I do not think I could handle the volume, because I would have to triple my resources overnight, not only in terms of equipment and personnel but in terms of yard facilities and maintenance facilities. At the moment I handle about 320,000 tonnes a year of waste and recycled material, so that would be in the order of about one million. I have in my fleet about 133 garbage packers, so if you multiply that by three and you multiply the need for expanded facilities to store, to maintain the equipment and the personnel -- my present operations are about $30 million a year just for garbage. That would be up to about $90 to $100 million.

Mr McClelland: You have been promised a 1% increase across the board, so perhaps you could this year earn 2%.

Mr Vardin: No. Actually my own salary was referred to the 99% --

Mr McClelland: I meant the city's budget.

The Chair: Mrs Marland, you have the floor.

Mrs Marland: Mr Vardin, you certainly have come with a very loud and very clear message today from the city of Toronto, and when you say you are concerned about the impact of the regulations, that is exactly what we are concerned about. Unfortunately, the system is, as you know, that we do not get to debate regulations. We only get to debate legislation, and often the regulations are far worse than the legislation. So we certainly sympathize with and understand your concern.

I think where you say in your brief that "the measures will seriously intrude into the jurisdiction of local municipalities and dictate the operations of private waste management companies," that is so compact in that statement and it is so accurate. Having been a partner to the discussions before, where you now say that it is "dictation without consultation" and it is not appropriate, I do not think any words can describe the bill more accurately than that particular statement.

Was the city of Toronto also part of the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee at one time, or was that Metro?

Mr Vardin: No, that was Metro.

Mrs Marland: It was only Metro. Did you, through Metro, have some input into the SWISC deliberations?

Mr Vardin: Yes, we did.

Mrs Marland: So you must feel great about that being totally thrown out the window and discarded too.

Mr Vardin: What a waste of time and energy and money.

Mrs Marland: Time, energy and money. That is the big criminal part of it, the waste of money.

Mr Martin: Just to follow up on the issue of consultation, on page 5 of your brief you recommend that the waste diversion estimate prepared by the ministry be subject to public consultation through an environmental assessment. That is exactly what will happen in the process outlined in this bill, and full debate will occur. I am wondering why you would think the estimate would not receive this scrutiny.

Mr Higgin: I can answer that, or attempt to. You indicate that the minister's estimates of the quantities and types of waste to be disposed of under the free landfill approach will be subject to review, consultation and technical debate. The indications that we have from the bill and from the ministry are that those estimates will be taken as a given into the environmental assessment process and that the planning will proceed based on those estimates, post the other process, for example, under the solid waste environmental assessment plan, where those estimates have been the subject of extensive pre-consultation and preparation of the environmental assessment documents for SWEAP. They will be one of the key areas of examination, or would have been one of the key areas of examination of the question of the quantities and types of material to be disposed of.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr McClelland? No? Ms Haeck.

Ms Haeck: I just wanted to pose a question that has been sort of nagging me in light of the various municipalities that have come before us. If it is ultimately the Ministry of the Environment's responsibility to regulate, particularly in the case where there are environmental problems which would include waste, how do you see the municipalities fitting into that if it is really the Ministry of the Environment's responsibility to oversee that?

The Chair: I am going to thank you for the question and consider that as notice because of the lateness of the hour. I went overtime. It shows that the Chair is not perfect. I gave an extra five minutes; however --

Mr Cousens: We have known that for a while.

The Chair: The time, the extra five minutes, was divided equally among the caucuses, but the last question really has to be taken as notice. I want to thank you for your presentation.

Mr Vardin: May I say something?

The Chair: Yes, you may.

Mr Vardin: I would just like to leave your committee with one message for the government. The city of Toronto is the first municipality which is proposing mandatory recycling programs. We brought the report to city council and it went through last October. They are making recycling mandatory. The bylaw is to be brought forward to council early this year to mandate recycling in the city of Toronto. That is a first.

Ms Haeck: Including apartment buildings?

Mr Vardin: Including apartment buildings.

Ms Haeck: So I will not have to take mine.

The Chair: Thank you so much for your presentation. As I have said to other witnesses, if there is additional information that you think would be helpful, please feel free to communicate with us in writing over the course of our hearings.

Mr Cousens: I have a question having to do with committee work at this point. A number of questions have been raised over the last several days. I understand that ministry staff are keeping tabs of those questions and certain people will be allocated in providing answers. I would like to know if it would be possible tomorrow to have a brief preliminary listing of those questions that have been tabled so we will be aware of what sort they are, and then if possible there can be a status as to the answers that are being provided.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Cousens. I had a discussion with research staff following your question on that subject. I think it was yesterday or earlier today.

Mr Cousens: I think it was earlier today.

The Chair: That is correct. The ministry has been most cooperative in offering the list of questions to research and to committee. I do not know if it will be available for tomorrow, but I know that now that you have asked for it, they will do whatever they can to make that available for you.

Mr Cousens: It is a sense of responsibility and honour, because we might just be wasting everyone's time by asking questions if we are going to get the kind of answer Mr McClelland got today with regard to the freedom of information. So if they just say, "We are not going to answer," then we will have a sense of knowing where we are going.

The Chair: It might be helpful for everyone to note the committee's schedule. We sit all of this week and then are not sitting next week, but we are sitting the week after. So hopefully many of the questions that have been asked during last week and this week can be answered next week so that we will have those answers before the committee sits again. I think that is a reasonable request, and we will see if we can ask the ministry to have those responses to the questions asked by that time.

Mr Cousens: Further to that, it might be valuable for the communications subcommittee of this committee to just meet in case there is some difficulty in achieving the goal you just described.

The Chair: Why do we not ask tomorrow what the time line will be for the questions that have been asked during these two weeks? Hopefully there will not be a problem. I know that there are a number of ministry staff here and they seem most cooperative in serving the committee. I would like to suggest that we give them that opportunity to do that. Thank you, Mr Cousens.

I would like the committee to note that our first presentation scheduled for tomorrow at 10 am has cancelled. The committee will therefore commence officially at 10:20, but I would recommend that everyone be here for 10:15 tomorrow morning so we can start promptly at 10:20. Please note the change on your schedule.

The standing committee on social development stands adjourned until 10:15 tomorrow morning.

The committee adjourned at 1730.