HALTON REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALTON
CONTENTS
Monday 14 February 1994
Environmental Protection Amendment Act (Niagara Escarpment), 1993, Bill 62, Mr Duignan / Loi de 1993 modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement (Escarpement du Niagara), projet de loi 62, M. Duignan
Niagara Escarpment Commission
Joan Little, chair
Town of Halton Hills
Russell Miller, mayor
Stephen D'Agostino, legal counsel
Ralph Crysler, engineering consultant
Halton Region Conservation Authority
Murray Stephen, general manager
Martin Campbell, legal counsel
Regional municipality of Halton
Blair Taylor, legal counsel
Robert White, manager, development coordination
Walter Elliot
Canadian Environmental Law Association; Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment; Federation of Ontario Naturalists
Richard Lindgren, staff lawyer, CELA and board member, CONE
Marion Taylor, board member, CONE and director, environmental affairs, FON
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)
*Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)
Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND)
*Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)
Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)
Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND) for Mr Winninger
Murdoch, Bill (Grey-Owen Sound PC) for Mr Tilson
Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L) for Mr Curling
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND) for Mr Mills
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West/-Ouest PC) for Mr Harnick
Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1343 in the St Clair/Thames/Erie Rooms, Macdonald Block, Toronto.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT (NIAGARA ESCARPMENT), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT (ESCARPEMENT DU NIAGARA)
Consideration of Bill 62, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the Niagara Escarpment / Projet de loi 62, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement à l'égard de l'escarpement du Niagara.
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): We will begin immediately with the agenda that is before us. We'll ask Mr Noel Duignan to begin with an opening statement.
Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): It's indeed a great pleasure for me to be here this afternoon. Most of the audience here are my constituents from Halton Hills. I know many of them are making a presentation over the coming days. Many of them have been fighting landfills in the Halton area for many, many years.
We will be discussing my private member's Bill 62 over the coming week. As most members are aware, Bill 62 amends the Environmental Protection Act to prohibit all further waste management systems and waste disposal sites in the Niagara Escarpment plan area as set out in the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.
The Niagara Escarpment and the lands in its vicinity, some 183,000 hectares in eight counties and regions and 37 local municipalities, are regulated by the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act. Adopted in Ontario in 1985, it is Canada's first large-scale environmental land use plan. It took 16 years to have this bill enacted. During those lengthy deliberations, 530,000 hectares were negotiated away from the original plan.
The plan we have now ensures that the escarpment will be maintained substantially as a continuous natural environment. It strikes a balance between conservation, protection and environmentally compatible development. The Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act was and hopefully still is supported by all parties of the Legislature.
"The purpose of this act is to provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment and land in its vicinity substantially as a continuous natural environment, and to ensure only such development occurs as is compatible with that natural environment." My purpose in bringing forth my bill is to strengthen this resolve.
Within five years of plan approval, in February 1990 the Niagara Escarpment was recognized by the United Nations agency UNESCO as a World Biosphere Reserve, one of only six such places in Canada. This designation confers local and international recognition and confirms that Ontario's Niagara Escarpment is endowed with natural characteristics of global significance. The Niagara Escarpment was chosen a World Biosphere Reserve because it achieves a good balance between preservation of natural areas and environmentally sustainable and appropriate development.
The escarpment currently enjoys an international reputation as a scenic long-distance hiking trail visited by over 300,000 people each year, a valuable tourism resource for Ontario. This number exceeds the visitation of most provincial parks. There is no doubt that these numbers would dwindle if landfills were permitted in the escarpment. The appeal of hiking alongside garbage-laden roadways or quarries would not entice either local or international visitors.
The Niagara Escarpment Commission realized the importance of protecting the escarpment from landfill sites, and as a result amendment 52 to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act was signed in May 1992. After a public hearing the words "waste collection, disposal, or management" were removed from the section of permitted utilities within the Niagara Escarpment plan area as these would be incompatible with the objectives of the act and the escarpment's status as a biosphere reserve.
The section of permitted utilities was also amended to include small-scale recycling depots for paper, glass and cans serving the local community. Specifically, amendment 52 replaced the definition of "utility." Amendment 52 essentially means that a proponent of a new landfill or landfill expansion would need to obtain an amendment to the Niagara Escarpment plan itself rather than just a development permit from the Niagara Escarpment Commission, since landfills are no longer listed as a permitted use.
Further, in May 1992, the final report of the Dave Crombie royal commission was tabled. The Crombie report recognized the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act as the only plan in Ontario that has jurisdiction on the basis of an ecological entity. The entire Niagara Escarpment forms a headwater area for all municipalities that it crosses through and therefore is a source of drinking water for a large part of the province, including most of my municipality, which relies on its water from the underground aquifers.
It defies common sense to put landfills and the toxins, vermin and heavy metals they contain in such close proximity to the water supply for literally tens of thousands of people. The Crombie report recommended that the Niagara Escarpment become part of a network of greenways which would be protected from inappropriate and unsustainable development and reflect such principles as clean, green, accessible, open and attractive. These principles would hardly be used when describing a landfill site.
1350
Why is Bill 62 needed? Although waste management facilities have been deleted from the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act's permitted utilities as a result of amendment 52, it is still possible for proponents of a new landfill or an expansion of an existing landfill located in the Niagara Escarpment plan area to apply for an amendment to the Niagara Escarpment plan. This application will certainly be turned down by the Niagara Escarpment Commission. However, proponents of a landfill site are entitled to go through an approval process which includes a consolidated hearing to deal with the environmental assessment and environmental protection regulations. This process is lengthy and expensive. The mayor of my Halton Hills community will attest later this afternoon to how much this actually costs the citizens of Halton Hills. Bill 62 goes one step further than amendment 52 by bringing forward a ban against landfills earlier in the process so that the needless waste of time and money can be avoided.
Bill 62 is a fundamental supplement to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act which guarantees that a certificate of approval for a landfill site in the Niagara Escarpment plan area would not be approved. I will be bringing forward further amendments to Bill 62 during clause-by-clause consideration which ensure that local recycling, composting and transfer facilities as well as environmentally sound improvements to existing landfill sites in the Niagara Escarpment will be permitted in the spirit of amendment 52.
The provincial government has already set a precedent of not considering landfills within the Niagara Escarpment plan area by screening out the Niagara Escarpment plan area in the Interim Waste Authority's site search. Halton does not need another landfill site, as Halton region has recently gone through an expensive and protracted landfill search. Halton's new landfill site opened in November 1992 and, according to recent stats, will accommodate Halton's garbage for up to 35 years. The Acton quarry was originally on Halton's long list of potential landfill sites but was rejected early in the process because of its location and the risk to drinking water.
Residents of Halton North have been fighting this particular proposed landfill at the Acton quarry for over seven years, and a great deal of time and resources have been spent by local citizens, environmental groups and the municipality to protect the escarpment. Bill 62 would halt such time-consuming efforts in the future by simply banning landfill sites from the Niagara Escarpment plan area.
In conclusion, I believe that Bill 62 is consistent with the all-party support given to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act in 1985. The Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act is one of a kind that has a unique provincial commitment of protection not given to any other land form. A waste management facility would threaten the integrity and the continuity of the land and natural habitat that the plan is supposed to protect, habitat which includes some 1,000-year-old trees, over 300 species of birds, 53 species of mammals, 90 species of fish and 36 species of reptiles, as well as being home to at least 23 endangered, threatened and rare species of wildlife and an unusual richness of plant species, including 37 species of wild orchids.
The Niagara Escarpment is also a most sensitive area in terms of water quality, and waste sites threaten the long-term viability of clean water for drinking, fishing etc and for all downstream residents and others using waterbased resources. Just think of what damaged water systems could do to the great concentration of cold-water streams in southern Ontario and their large, healthy population of trout.
Unlike class 1-3 lands, wetlands and environmentally sensitive areas which are found throughout the province, the Niagara Escarpment is a unique landform of which there is only one. Destroy this one and there are no others to replace it. Screening out the Niagara Escarpment plan area is not a vast chunk of land; it is a thin ribbon that represents only 0.17 of Ontario's entire land mass and cuts through eight counties and regions. We should be able to screen out a certain small section of land that has its own land use plan, the only large-scale environmentally based land use in Canada, with its own provincial legislation and its own international designation as a World Biosphere Reserve. Committed to protecting the escarpment means prohibiting landfills in what is an internationally recognized natural resource.
Finally, I firmly believe that landfill operations are inconsistent with the ecological purpose of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and do not fit with the notions of appropriate development in an internationally recognized World Biosphere Reserve. Over the years the Niagara Escarpment has enriched and nourished not just the people of southern Ontario but people from all around the world. We cannot and must not compromise one of the most significant, important natural assets of this province.
That concludes my remarks. Most of the people here are residents of my area, and indeed they can speak a lot better and a lot longer to this issue than can I.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Duignan. Members have indicated they have questions. In the past when a person has introduced a private bill, we have allowed the member to make opening remarks and then moved straight to the presenters. That's the schedule I would like to keep, but given that you have questions, I would ask you to limit questions to a maximum of two so that we can get to the presenters who are here.
Please keep your questions as brief and as short as you can. Otherwise, the schedule will be difficult.
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): First of all, I want to compliment Mr Duignan for bringing this forward. I'm sure he has a lot of support in his community. One of the functions of this committee, of course, is to play devil's advocate and to ask some tough questions and to ensure that when legislation goes forward for third reading and passage, it is good, solid legislation that doesn't have any cracks in it. So I just want to ask a couple of very brief background questions.
How many people live in the Niagara Escarpment at the present time, roughly; in the communities that are in the escarpment?
Mr Duignan: All along the escarpment?
Mr Chiarelli: Yes.
Mr Duignan: It comprises some eight counties and regions. What the total population is, I wouldn't know at this particular time, but you throw in Hamilton and you've got Niagara, St Catharines, up to the Halton region, and you go right up to Grey-Bruce county.
Mr Chiarelli: A good number of people live in the area. When the existing landfill sites are totally full, complete -- and they won't be subject to expansion under this particular legislation -- where will the waste that requires landfill go?
Mr Duignan: The Halton region, which makes up and comprises the greatest percentage of any region of the Niagara Escarpment, it's nearly 23%, found a regional landfill site -- it took them about 15 or 16 years to go through a process -- outside of the Niagara Escarpment plan area. The plan area is a very small part of the Niagara Escarpment planning area.
Mr Chiarelli: So what you're saying then is that municipalities within the area will ship their waste outside their own municipal boundaries. Is this what you're saying?
Mr Duignan: No, that's not what I'm saying at all. If you look at each county and region, for example, in the Niagara region, candidate landfill sites have been selected and none are in any plan area. In the Hamilton-Wentworth region, they're not looking for a new landfill in the near future. I'm not sure about that; that needs to be confirmed, but that's what I'm led to believe. The Halton region already has a new landfill site and that's good for another 30-odd years.
In Peel region, the IWA has screened out any landfill sites from the NE plan area. Dufferin county has selected a preferred landfill site which is not in the NE plan area. Simcoe, Grey and Bruce counties we're not sure about. They're preparing waste management master plans at this time and candidate sites have not been selected. So that's a brief summary of what's happening in the areas.
Mr Chiarelli: There won't be any significant shipping of waste outside the municipal boundaries; it'll just be outside the escarpment area.
Mr Duignan: The plan area, yes.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I only have one question. I know that you've put a limit of two questions. I have one question and it has three parts.
The Chair: Mr Duignan, you will only have to answer two of the parts.
Mr Offer: I am looking forward to the public hearings because I think there are some questions that have to be posed on this particular matter. I'm just going to ask them, and the member can respond at his leisure.
My first question is, does the Ministry of Environment and Energy support the particular piece of legislation before the committee? The second question I have is, based on the legislation that is before the committee, does this prohibit any remedial work on any existing landfill now located within the Niagara Escarpment? My third question is, for existing landfill sites that are now within an approved use, will they be able to expand in accordance with the approval that they have previously received if it's necessary to obtain a further certificate?
1400
Mr Duignan: I'll try and answer these one at a time. The answer to the first question is yes, it is supported by MOEE; second, the answer is no; third, I'll be moving some amendments to permit, for example, transfer facilities, composting sites etc and to allow existing landfill sites, if you want to close them down, to put landfill in to make them a bit more environmentally compatible to close them off.
Mr Offer: If no remedial work is permitted on an existing landfill site, and it has been closed and it's leaking and they can't get a certificate, it means that the bill will prohibit the landfill from being protected.
Mr Duignan: My amendments will allow that.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Just one question: You mentioned when you spoke in the House when you introduced this bill that the waste disposal sites in the area are set out in the Niagara Escarpment plan. Let me point out that the plan is limited to the escarpment itself and does not include the surrounding areas; that's what you said. So what do you mean by the plan then? Are you including the natural, the protected, the rural, or what do you just exactly mean by that? You say the escarpment itself, which is normally just in the natural area.
Mr Duignan: I know the Niagara Escarpment Commission is up after me, and they may give a more definitive answer to that particular question. However, there are a number of specific plans. There's a plan area and there's also the planning area. My bill is defined just to the plan area, and I've asked for a definition between the natural area, the plan area and the planning area. Hopefully my staff will provide that in the next couple of days so you can see that there is a difference.
The Chair: There's a second question?
Mr Murdoch: No, he didn't answer my question, and this is a serious question. But if you'd like me to wait and ask the Niagara Escarpment Commission, I'll do that, if that's what you'd like me to do.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have no question. I just want to move the motion off the top that I have. I've searched in the documentation handed out by the member and others for the legal opinion that I've moved on Bill 62, the PC motion. I move this with the hope of receiving unanimous consent that it be forwarded on to the legal department, because I think it's rather important. I've not seen it addressed anywhere in the documents we've received, but it seems to me that if we're going to adopt this piece of legislation, this amendment, Bill 62, there are some very real legal ramifications involved, and I don't know if the member has dealt with them. I've not seen them dealt with within the context of his statement or in any backup information.
But what it seems to me is, you're going to unilaterally shut down all landfill within a certain area. There are landfill projects under way. No doubt the member knows about the ones that have been in process for some eight or nine years. Clearly that's the motivation for the legislation, and I think as a committee, as stewards of the taxpayers, it would be incumbent on us to ensure that we receive an opinion from the government people as to whether or not we're opening ourselves up for a major lawsuit by in fact adopting this piece of legislation.
I just want to say it seems to me that the amount of money that's invested in landfill sites today and the amount of work involved in getting approvals for landfill sites and the amount of time involved -- in some of these I think it's upwards of eight, nine, 10 years of work, time and money -- are we in fact expropriating without compensation? I feel that there's going to be some debate out there among the proponents of these landfill sites that this is fundamentally expropriation without compensation.
We know what landfill sites run these days as far as revenue is concerned -- ultimately, in billions of dollars, without a doubt. Some landfill sites can generate billions of dollars in revenue, and profitability somewhere in that neighbourhood as well.
So I ask the committee, if it's going to go forward with this piece of legislation, hear the deputations, hear amendments and so on and so forth, that we ask the staff to bring back a report on the legalities of adopting this motion put forward by the government members, and if we do adopt it, are we in fact opening ourselves up to multi-billion-dollar legal assaults? Frankly, I think that's a rather important component to this piece of legislation.
The Chair: Can I suggest that we take this as notice and that we deal with this motion on Wednesday afternoon when we have time, before clause-by-clause?
Mr Stockwell: I would prefer that it be adopted today. All we're asking for basically is information from the lawyers in the ministry. Then if they can get back to us within some kind of reasonable time, we, through clause-by-clause, can know full well, adopting it out of this committee, that yes, maybe we are subjecting the citizens of this province to literally billions of dollars' worth of lawsuits.
The Chair: I understand the comments you're making. If there is a lengthy debate or a long debate, I would be worried about how it cuts into the time for our presenters. I'm looking at the agenda to see when we might appropriately do it so that we have the time.
Mr Stockwell: I'm shocked, though, if there would be a long debate asking for a legal opinion.
The Chair: Let me just check. Mr Duignan?
Mr Duignan: There are a lot of deputations from various communities here this afternoon, and we're holding up some time. I like your suggestion of dealing with this Wednesday afternoon. I'm prepared to --
Interjection.
Mr Duignan: Ask Charles Harnick. If this is the case, taking your argument, we would have millions of lawsuits against any government in Ontario. New landfill sites, under amendment 52, are now prohibited at this time on the Niagara Escarpment; you have to go through an amendment process. So they're already outlawed. I will be moving an amendment, Mr Chairman, to make sure that doesn't happen as well.
Mr Stockwell: I do respect the member's legal mind, but I would ask, considering the fact he's not a lawyer and there are a bunch of them that we employ on a daily basis, what harm would it do to get an opinion from the lawyers that we hire, quickly, by unanimous consent, as to whether or not we're going to end up in multibillion-dollar lawsuits? Gee, that's not asking very much.
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Talk about a red herring. Why didn't you ask?
Mr Stockwell: I did ask. That's why I'm asking.
Mr Perruzza: Get legislative counsel on the phone. They'll tell you.
The Chair: Mr Perruzza, it's not helpful. I'm willing to have a few moments' discussion on this if the other members want to speak to it, and then we can vote on that matter today. Is that what you want, Mr Stockwell?
Mr Stockwell: Yes, sir.
The Chair: Any other speakers to this motion?
Mr Perruzza: I don't understand the context within which this motion is before us and how we're going to dispose of this motion. We have an agenda, right? Our agenda was basically to listen to people address this committee today, and that's what my concern is.
I don't know what the intent of this motion is. To get a legal opinion, all you have to do is call legislative counsel. You can basically sue anybody any time for anything. That's a pretty sound legal opinion; that's probably the opinion that you would get. So I don't understand what the objective is here today.
If you're asking for unanimous consent, I'm not going to offer my consent for it, and I think we should just move on, listen to people address this committee and on Wednesday afternoon, as you've suggested, perhaps deal with the merits of this motion.
Mr Offer: Maybe I'm misreading this motion, but I don't view this motion as in any way, shape or form stopping this committee from listening to people or going on with its work. What this motion is doing is asking that at some point in time prior to the bill being proclaimed, passed into force, we receive an opinion from, I would hope, the Ministry of the Attorney General as to the legality of the legislation. It is my understanding that whenever any government introduces legislation, prior to the introduction they have always received some legal opinion from the Ministry of the Attorney General as to the legalities of the legislation. In this case, it is a private member's legislation, which may not have had the opportunity of receiving that type of opinion.
1410
I don't view this motion as in any way, shape or form stopping this legislation. What it is doing is making certain the legislation is one which accords with all the laws of the province of Ontario, which any public piece of legislation will always receive prior to its introduction.
The only thing I would ask is that the motion be specific that it is not asking this committee to render a legal opinion, but rather that it is asking the Ministry of the Attorney General to render a legal opinion to this committee.
Mr Stockwell: Okay, that's fine.
Mr Offer: But I don't find any problem.
Mr Duignan: For the sake of argument and going around in a circle here, because there are deputations that are waiting to be heard from the public, I would simply say let's go ahead and let's get a legal opinion, and also have that legal opinion look at my amendment 1(2) that I'm proposing as well in terms of the legal opinion.
Mr Stockwell: Carried.
The Chair: I'm sorry, what was the amendment?
Mr Duignan: I'm waiting for it to come back from legal counsel at this particular point in time. It should be in here about 2 o'clock.
The Chair: Mr Stockwell said yes to that amendment.
Mr Offer: I think basically what we're saying is that the motion is going to be amended in two ways. The first is that the committee is going to be requesting a legal opinion from the Ministry of the Attorney General as to the wording of the motion as read and it is referred to the bill as amended.
Mr Stockwell: That's fine.
Mr Offer: We can't presume an amendment to a bill. The bill as dealt with in the legislation, so it will take everything into account.
The Chair: All in favour? Opposed? That carries.
NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION
The Chair: Moving on to our presenters, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, Ms Little, Mr Borodczak and Mr Louis, you have half an hour for your presentation. We always urge our presenters to leave plenty of time for questions, so if you'd keep your initial remarks to 10 or 15 minutes, that would be helpful.
Ms Joan Little: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity for input into Bill 62. My name is Joan Little and I'm proud to be chair of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. With me are Nars Borodczak, our director, and our manager of plan administration, Cecil Louis, who will be glad to respond to questions as well.
The commission oversees management of one of Ontario's and in fact Canada's most acclaimed treasures, the Niagara Escarpment.
The commission strongly supports the intent of the bill, but notes a conflict in definitions between the bill and the escarpment plan, and I think from what Mr Duignan has said today that our concerns will probably be resolved by his amendment but I'd like to give you some background information, just to put our concerns into context.
In 1973 the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act was proclaimed, which created a commission and launched a planning process to develop a Niagara Escarpment plan. The purpose of the act, section 2 -- and I'm quoting directly; this is the whole purpose of the Niagara Escarpment act -- is "to provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment and land in its vicinity substantially as a continuous natural environment, and to ensure only such development occurs as is compatible with that natural environment."
The relevant objectives of the act, and I've just chosen four which relate to this bill, are:
"(a) To protect unique ecologic and historic areas;
"(b) To maintain and enhance the quality and character of natural streams and water supplies...;
"(d) To maintain and enhance the open landscape character of the Niagara Escarpment in so far as possible, by such means as compatible farming or forestry and by preserving the natural scenery;
"(e) To ensure that all new development is compatible with the purpose of this act as expressed in section 2."
On June 12, 1985, after 12 years of work, public meetings and hearings, with strong public support and with the support of all three political parties, the plan was approved. It's the first large-scale environmental land use plan of its kind in Canada and is internationally known and envied.
The escarpment crosses eight regions and counties and passes through 43 municipalities. It contains seven different land use designations. They are: escarpment natural, escarpment protection, escarpment rural, minor urban, urban, recreation and mineral resource extractive. Preservation measures are most stringent in the natural and protection areas.
I have copies of our annual report, which has been handed out, which is full of information about our program which you may wish to refer to. You'll probably like the report. I think we've done something unique. We have a very attractive poster of the Niagara Escarpment on the one side, with information on the back about the programs.
The 1985 plan permitted "utilities" or "essential utilities" to be located in the natural, protection and rural designations, and the definition of utilities included "waste collection or disposal or management."
In 1989 it was pointed out to the commission that this anomaly would permit landfills in the most sensitive areas of the entire escarpment. The commission initiated an amendment to the plan, Niagara Escarpment plan amendment 52, commonly referred to as NEPA 52. I'm sure over the next few days everybody will be talking about NEPA 52, and that's what they're talking about. That would delete waste disposal and related operations as permitted uses and redefine a utility.
In accordance with our act, all municipalities within the plan were sent a copy of the plan amendment for comment. Ads were put in local newspapers, and ministries and the conservation authorities were circulated. In addition, two committees were established to provide input. The amendment generated support from the public, the ministries, conservation authorities and the majority of the municipalities but opposition from the waste industry.
Several municipalities questioned whether the wording would prevent them having transfer stations, small-scale recycling depots, compost facilities or temporary storage areas for household hazardous wastes, such as paint and so on, at their landfill sites to serve the local communities. This had not been the intention, and the commission amended the wording to ensure that these local waste reduction facilities would continue. Copies of the hearing officer's report on NEPA 52 have been provided for you as well.
NEPA 52 proceeded to a hearing, which occupied 22 days. In May 1992 it received cabinet approval and now forms part of the Niagara Escarpment plan. A copy of the order in council has also been provided to you. This all started in 1989.
Another very significant initiative began in 1989. The commission was approached by George Francis of the Working Group on Biosphere Reserves. He believed the Niagara Escarpment qualified for designation by the United Nations as an international biosphere reserve and he asked concurrence from the commission to seek that designation from UNESCO. On April 4, 1990, Federico Mayor of UNESCO came to Canada and formally pronounced the Niagara Escarpment an international biosphere reserve, one of only two in all of Ontario.
The objectives of the biosphere emphasize maintenance of the natural environment and the concept of allowing for compatible and sustainable development. We've also provided you with a press release on this designation.
This honour makes us very aware of our responsibility to the public. We seek public participation when changes are contemplated, as we did with NEPA 52.
For this reason, we have some concern with the wording of Bill 62 as initially proposed, although we wholeheartedly support the intent.
Bill 62 does not permit a "waste management system or a waste disposal site" in the Niagara Escarpment plan area. NEPA 52 doesn't either. So they're in agreement. The problem arises with the definition of "waste management system" in the Environmental Protection Act.
We believe that under the EPA definition the transfer station, small-scale recycling facilities and/or compost facilities serving the local community would not have been permitted. We feel certain this wasn't the intent of the bill, and if it could be amended so the language followed the wording of NEPA 52 and did not prohibit these local initiatives, we'd be pleased to wholeheartedly support Bill 62.
I'd like to commend you for your interest in our environment and our Niagara Escarpment, and we would be pleased to answer questions.
Just one final statement: I think Mr Duignan's announcement today that he would be putting forward amendments to resolve the conflict would resolve our problems with Bill 62, and on that basis we're delighted to lend wholehearted support.
1420
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. Right now, of course, you are basically the first presenter on Bill 62, and we've heard Mr Duignan indicate that he is going to be presenting an amendment. We haven't yet seen the amendment, and I have a concern, and unfortunately he is not here at this time. Mr Chair, I would appreciate it, if it were possible, that we could get Mr Duignan's amendment as soon as possible so that when deputants come before the committee, we could question them not only on the bill but also to make certain that whatever the proposed amendment is, it meets any concern they may have with Bill 62, as you have just indicated.
I recognize that we are going to be dealing with this bill, if memory serves me correctly, at a clause-by-clause stage this coming Thursday. That will be after all of the public hearing process. We're going to have an awful lot of people come before the committee, and I hope, since you have been dealing with this bill for some time now, that you would be able to have this amendment, as proposed in your opening statement, before this committee. I would hope that it would be here, if not today, then certainly first thing tomorrow so we could make certain the concerns we may hear are going to be able to be addressed.
Now to get to my question: Could you please indicate how this bill should be amended in order to meet your concerns?
Ms Little: Our concern is simply that we went to the public with a plan that would permit the municipalities to have composting and transfer stations and I guess I should call it domestic hazardous waste depots; you know, where you can take your old paint cans and so on. Our concern is simply that we've gone through a process that permitted all that and we would like to make sure that those things are retained. Our concern was that in reading the definition in the Environmental Protection Act of "waste disposal system," that was a problem. So if those things were included, that would meet the intent of NEPA 52 and we'd be happy with it.
Mr Offer: So your reading of Bill 62 right now is that as it's presently worded, it would outlaw all composting on the Niagara Escarpment?
Ms Little: I believe so. The concern was "waste management system." That was the wording in the bill that was the problem. When I read the "waste management system" definition in the Environmental Protection Act, it reads,
"`waste management system' means all facilities, equipment and operations for the complete management of waste, including the collection, handling, transportation, storage, processing and disposal...and may include one or more waste disposal sites."
I think we're sort of caught in that particular definition, so it's the definition that's our problem.
Mr Offer: I have one other question, if I may. I have been told that the current wording of Bill 62 would result in this situation: There are now on the Niagara Escarpment landfill sites that are closed that may in time require some remedial work on them. If Bill 62 were passed, that remedial work necessary to protect the environment could not take place.
Ms Little: As it stands now, it could not. My understanding from what Mr Duignan said was that his amendment would then permit this, because there are a couple of landfill sites within the escarpment plan now -- I think of one, for instance, in St Catharines -- where I know they would be anxious to be able to do some recontouring and things of that nature. My understanding of what Mr Duignan said is that this would not be prohibited with his amendment.
Mr Offer: So it's your opinion right now that Bill 62 would not permit the remedial work?
Ms Little: Yes, it is.
Mr Offer: Mr Chair, just through the deputants to you and to Mr Duignan, it is absolutely crucial that we receive the wording to that amendment during the public hearing process so the concerns raised by the deputants here and others might be able to be addressed in a way that is satisfactory to all involved.
Mr Stockwell: Considering that most of the salient points made by the deputants were directed towards the amendments, it makes it very difficult to even ask a pertinent question, not having been offered the opportunity to not only see but to read the amendments, I'll have to stand down my questions.
Mr Duignan: I'm sorry that the amendment isn't here. I wonder if I could get the clerk to clarify where my amendment is at this point in time.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): It's not yet been filed with my office. I understand that it's still with your office.
Mr Duignan: I could give a draft copy of my amendment to the clerk to distribute, bearing in mind it hasn't been fully approved by legal counsel yet, if that would help the members of this committee.
The Chair: Mr Duignan, just to remind you, you're not obliged to present your amendments at this time.
Mr Duignan: I know that.
The Chair: We need to produce those amendments at least two hours before the clause-by-clause, but if they're ready or as soon as they're ready, they're saying make them available. So that's fine.
Mr Duignan: I'm well aware of that fact, but to facilitate the public discussion here for the coming days, I think it's important if we have the amendment in front of the committee.
The Chair: As soon as they're available, we'll distribute them to you.
Mr Stockwell: With all due respect, Mr Chair, it's not often you get the amendments that are changing the face of the makeup of the piece of legislation that the deputants are then speaking to. Generally, you have people speaking to the legislation. It's not often you have them speaking to the amendments that no one's seen.
The Chair: Mr Duignan will make them available as soon as possible and everybody will have an opportunity to respond to them as well.
Mr Duignan: Again, I wonder if the NEC would clarify the difference between the natural area, the plan area and the planning area and what masses they comprise.
Ms Little: Sure. When the whole process started out, there was a planning area. You'll probably hear these definitions over the next few days. There was a planning area, which was the initial area that was looked at to see where a Niagara Escarpment plan would be. During the public participation process that took place over the next few years, that planning area shrank considerably by what, two thirds, Cecil?
Mr Cecil Lewis: Roughly, yes.
Ms Little: Yes. It shrunk by about two thirds to what is finally left that the Niagara Escarpment plan covers. The area that the Niagara Escarpment plan covers now is the Niagara Escarpment plan area. Within that plan area are the different designations that I mentioned. I suppose one could compare them to zoning bylaws, where you have different areas, where one type of use is permitted, another type of use and so on.
The escarpment natural is certainly by far the most rigorously controlled. They descend I guess in protective measures from escarpment natural through protection to rural, minor urban, urban and so on. So the natural generally encompasses the actual face and brow of the escarpment, the streams and stream valleys. Protection is the area immediately adjacent to the natural area in most cases and then they spread out from there in descending order.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I would like to briefly comment. First of all, thank you very much for your presentation. I represent the city of Niagara Falls, and as you know, that is one of the areas where we have started composting leaves in the fall and other strategies of that type. We are using an area which is part of our landfill, which is in the Niagara Escarpment. So we have had to go through the process that was previously there in order to have what we are now doing be legitimate.
Hopefully, our landfill site will be closed soon and another area far away from the escarpment -- we're looking at various areas in Thorold and the southern part of the peninsula as a landfill site in the future for the Niagara region. I just wanted to mention that the city of Niagara Falls is one of those examples that you cited where we are trying to improve the landfill and we'll have to utilize some of the ideas you just mentioned.
Ms Little: Yes. Those were the things we didn't want to preclude.
The Chair: Mr Murdoch, we'll come back to you, because the Chair is lenient of course, but one or two questions max.
Mr Murdoch: I understand and I appreciate that, Mr Chair. I had a call from my office and I had to go there. I missed your presentation and I'm sorry.
We'll go back to the question you answered for Noel then. We have the Niagara Escarpment plan area, which includes all the different things we talked about, the protected, the natural and the rural. I assume this bill then is covering all those areas.
Mr Duignan: I asked the same question.
Mr Murdoch: The member didn't understand that and he made the bill. That's why I'm a little concerned, when the person who introduced the bill to this House doesn't understand what he's introducing.
Mr Duignan: Especially from you, Bill, who hates the NEC.
Mr Murdoch: I guess I'll go to you people then, since we can't ask him any questions. Mr Chairman, would you like me to ask him?
The Chair: No, Mr Murdoch. Don't be provocative, however.
1430
Mr Murdoch: I'm not being provocative. I'm just telling you what actually happened. A member introduces a bill and doesn't understand it.
Being that you know our area in Grey and Bruce, and we have a large area compared to what they have in Halton and different areas down south, this plan now covers a rural area. Could you see a problem with a waste disposal system in some of the rural areas? You've got to realize it covers a lot of Grey county and Bruce county. In your estimation, would you see a problem with one maybe in a rural area?
Ms Little: No, I don't, Mr Murdoch. Perhaps I could respond this way. I have another hat too. Before I was chair of the Niagara Escarpment Commission I was on the Burlington city council for 15 years and Halton regional council for 10. I point out that Grey has 14.2% of its land within the escarpment plan; Halton has 22.8%. For those who have been around for several years, you'll know Halton was sort of a guinea pig in the waste disposal site-environmental assessment program.
I started on Halton council in 1979, and when I left at the end of 1988, we were just getting through the hoops. We did succeed in getting a landfill site outside of the Niagara Escarpment plan. The interesting part of that is that there were two candidate sites in the running: One was right outside of the Niagara Escarpment plan, and the second was not in the escarpment plan but it was in the escarpment planning area. I think it was intended to be in the Niagara Escarpment plan, but the parkway belt legislation went through first and picked up some of the more sensitive areas, in the Halton region anyway.
The interesting thing was, those were the two candidate sites before the Environmental Assessment Board. The one that's still in the escarpment planning area was eliminated because of safety hazards. The one outside of the escarpment plan area was the one that succeeded and there were megamillions of dollars spent on that environmental assessment.
I don't think you'll have a problem, Mr Murdoch, and I think you'll probably find it cheaper, because we've found that a great part of the escarpment has problems for landfill sites.
Mr Murdoch: But you're saying it might be okay in the rural area?
Ms Little: It depends on what we're talking about; not the escarpment rural designation.
Mr Murdoch: That's what I mean.
Ms Little: In the rural areas of Grey county, yes, but not in the escarpment rural.
Mr Murdoch: No, no, I'm talking escarpment. We're talking strictly escarpment plan area here.
Ms Little: No, I don't see it in the escarpment plan, period.
Mr Murdoch: You don't see this bill then as just something to solve a problem down in Halton Hills or down in Halton?
Ms Little: No. Halton already has a landfill site. In fact, as I said, through all of these years. It was just approved, but it's outside of the plan area.
Mr Murdoch: You don't think this is a bill just to cover that? You think this bill then should cover all the Niagara Escarpment plan area?
Ms Little: Yes, absolutely. I'm saying I don't see a problem in other areas. If Halton was able to achieve a landfill site without going into the escarpment plan area and was able to do it well, I don't see that as being a problem for other municipalities either.
Mr Murdoch: I guess we do in our area and find that you're too restrictive now. You're talking about the different areas, but Halton is not as big as Grey county either. So if you want to twist figures around, I'm sure you can give me the figures the other way, how many hectares there are in Grey county compared to how many hectares there are in Halton, but that's not the point. The point is that this bill encompasses the whole area, which is the protected, the natural and the rural.
Ms Little: Yes, it does.
Mr Murdoch: I'm saying that it doesn't need to go into all those areas. Maybe just the natural area should be protected and we don't need to get into the rest of it.
Ms Little: I guess my response to that would be that Grey county has -- you mentioned it was a very, very large area, larger than Halton. Fourteen per cent of Grey county's land is within the escarpment planning area. Therefore, 86% of a very, very large area is outside of the Niagara Escarpment plan area.
Mr Murdoch: But there's also a great farming area up there that we don't want to put our dumps on.
Ms Little: It's a beautiful area.
Mr Murdoch: That's right, and we can't do that either. So you see, when you add them all together, there isn't too much area left. A lot of the rural area on the escarpment plan is land that's not, in my estimation anyway, any good for anything, other than maybe some severance and some houses on it. Or it may be a landfill site. So you see, you can twist figures around but you've got to look at the area.
When a member introduces a bill that covers the whole thing, then he's got to take into consideration that we're not the same in Grey and Bruce as they are down in Halton. Unfortunately this bill doesn't do that. It just sort of takes the whole area. So I have very deep concerns about it.
The Chair: Mr Chiarelli, very briefly.
Mr Chiarelli: What is your understanding of any strong opposition to this legislation, if any exists, and how would you address those concerns of the people who are opposed?
Ms Little: Perhaps I'm the wrong one to ask, because I'm not close enough to have heard whether there is strong opposition. Of course, living in a local area, I would hear local comments.
Mr Chiarelli: You haven't heard of any opposition to the bill at all?
Ms Little: No, I haven't, but I can tell you that when we went with our Niagara Escarpment plan amendment 52, really the only group that was opposed at that time was the waste industry. The public was very much in support of it. The ministries themselves were in support of it. This is very similar I think to amendment 52.
The Chair: Ms Little, thank you, and thank you, director and assistant director, for coming today to make your presentation to us.
TOWN OF HALTON HILLS
The Chair: I would like to invite the town of Halton Hills to present. Mr Miller and Mr D'Agostino, welcome. Perhaps one of you can introduce the third person who is there.
Mr Russell Miller: Thank you very much. Mr Chairman and members of the committee, I have with me today, to my left here, Steve D'Agostino of the law firm of Thomson, Rogers, for the town of Halton Hills. Next to him is Ralph Crysler, an engineering consultant who's been hired by the town of Halton Hills as well.
Mr Stephen D'Agostino: And, if I may, Mayor Miller.
Mr Miller: And I'm Mayor Miller. It's a pleasure for me to have this opportunity to speak to you today about Bill 62. I am in support of it or any amended form that would eliminate landfilling within the Niagara Escarpment.
The town of Halton Hills is out from Toronto here to the west, about 35 miles north of the 401. We have a population of about 35,000 and we're made up of the town of Acton, the town of Georgetown and Esquesing township. We're about 120 square miles in size. The Niagara Escarpment runs from the southwest corner to the northeast corner, making up about one third of our town. The Niagara Escarpment divides the two urban municipalities.
The Niagara Escarpment is important to the town, as it establishes the character. The rock formation underlying the escarpment provides us with our water supply. The town of Halton Hills is rather unique, with a large amount of the Niagara Escarpment, the Credit River, the Black Creek and the Silver Creek and its many hills and valleys.
We're noted for our tourism. We have many cottage industries within the Niagara Escarpment and our small villages. I'm sure that you've all heard about the Olde Hide House in the town of Acton. We have several hundreds of thousands of people who visit us on a yearly basis.
The town of Halton Hills has a long record of protecting the escarpment. We have worked hard to bring our official plan into conformity with the Niagara Escarpment plan and we have worked hard to keep our urban development outside the plan area.We attended the hearings with the Niagara Escarpment Commission on NEPA 52, which Mrs Little spoke about.
I personally have been a resident of Halton Hills most of my life and I've represented the municipality for 30 years as an elected official. My ancestors were settlers on the escarpment. I was raised on the escarpment and I know the value of the escarpment to the community.
It is the wetlands, the many ponds and many springs that come out of the Niagara Escarpment, which make this vital to the residents of the town of Halton Hills and to many other municipalities along the escarpment. The unique characteristics of the Niagara Escarpment make it very valuable to the cities, to the towns and to the farming community, from Niagara Falls to Tobermory.
I know from my experience that these springs and ponds and wetlands supply the groundwater for the drinking water that supplies these towns and cities. That's something we must be very cognizant of. We must ensure that we do not destroy the drinking water for many thousands of people today and for future generations.
Landfill is a serious business. No matter how well they engineer it, there can be problems. There are odours, methane gas, poisonous leachate, noise, truck traffic, litter and always the threat of rodents and seagulls.
Niagara Escarpment landfill sites are quarry sites. From the Steetley quarry hearing that is presently before the joint board, the evidence is that a landfill located in a quarry will require care and active rehabilitation for 300 years after it closes.
The rock which forms the escarpment is highly fractured. It is capable of containing poisonous leachate without significant engineering. As we all know, engineering always brings with it the risk of an engineering failure.
The Environmental Assessment Act is meant to ensure environmental protection. The region of Halton was a pioneer, and we speak from experience. The Environmental Assessment Act has a serious flaw: It requires the proponent of a landfill to consider sites within the escarpment when the escarpment is part of the search area. In the region of Halton search, two escarpment sites made it to the last round and one of those two preferred sites was located in the city of Burlington, which Mrs Little spoke about earlier. I am told by the staff that there is no way to simply screen out the escarpment without some type of an amendment.
1440
We would be appalled if a proposal came forward to landfill Lake Ontario; we would be appalled if a proposal came forward to landfill an area of natural and scientific interest. We are forcing consideration of landfill in the escarpment, which has been designated as a world landscape feature.
There's no need to fill existing quarries with garbage for rehabilitation. I've seen personally what has taken place along the escarpment when nature was allowed to rehabilitate sites that were quarried for manufacture of lime in the early 1900s. After approximately 20 years, they were almost restored to their natural beauty just by nature and they had little or no effect on the many springs and streams within the escarpment.
To allow landfilling within the escarpment has the potential of pollution. With the large amount of water that is supplied for the use of thousands of people, it would be foolish to take such a risk. I'm not just speaking about Halton Hills; I'm speaking about the entire Niagara Escarpment, which I know quite well.
This is a time of restraint, a time when we seek to achieve world class. We are spending money considering landfills on the escarpment when we all agree they should not go there. Halton Hills has been spending money defending the escarpment from landfill for 20 years, when originally Fred Gardiner first proposed the haulage of garbage by rail to the Acton quarry. The present application by the RSI for landfill in the Acton quarry has cost the town of Halton Hills approximately $800,000 to try and discourage landfilling by a private enterprise of a quarry that was rejected by Halton region for its own purposes.
It would seem to me that without change in the law, such as Bill 62 or an amendment, not only the town of Halton Hills but any municipality with a quarry along the escarpment could be spending millions of dollars in defence of the Niagara Escarpment. The Acton quarry and our municipality have had many applications and we have continually had to supply information at large cost to defend our position against the possibility of having our groundwater polluted. Without this amendment -- or something like this amendment, because I know you're considering the possibility of amendments to Bill 62 -- there is no assurance that applications cannot be resubmitted time and time again, costing the taxpayer large amounts of money.
That is what we're undergoing today. We have spent money that we should be spending for our people, for our town; we've been spending it because large corporate businesses come in and want to destroy that natural feature. It doesn't have to be rehabilitated by putting landfill in. It's just like anything. Many applications we get for rehabilitation is landfill or houses. It has to be profit-making. Why can it not just be left for nature to restore to its original use?
The council for the town of Halton Hills would like you to give support to Bill 62 or any amended form, to ensure that future generations will always have fresh water. We, like the other counties and regions, have many excellent farms and these farms rely on a pure water supply. We know that with the technology today, other locations and types of landfill disposal would make far more sense than allowing any type of landfilling within the escarpment.
You will hear lobbyists and others suggest that landfill is a good way to rehabilitate worked-out quarries. We have major quarries on the escarpment. Quarries are an important source of jobs and aggregates. However, we all recognize that to protect the escarpment, no new quarries will be approved. Quarries do not emit poisonous gas and leachate. They do supply jobs and a resource that is necessary. But I assure you that the best way to rehabilitate these quarries is to allow nature the opportunity to do it without landfilling.
The quarries that are there may be yesterday's mistake. To poison the escarpment for hundreds of years by allowing them to be used for landfill purposes would only perpetuate the harm and make a mockery of this very special place within the province of Ontario.
In conclusion, we all must be responsible for the disposal of our garbage, but we must also be responsible to ensure that we have a good supply of fresh water for future generations. We are responsible for preserving this natural feature of international proportions.
We are fortunate in southern Ontario to have a rock formation that is as beautiful as the Niagara Escarpment. I have lived either on it or close by it all my life and I recognize the unique beauty of the escarpment. I'm here today asking for your support to find a way to stop landfilling -- and I say landfilling -- within the escarpment, not just because we have a proposal -- and you gentlemen and ladies know that we have a proposal in our municipality. We've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to try and reject this. But it is because of our water supply. It is our only water supply and it's the water supply not only just for Halton Hills but for the town of Milton and many parts of Brampton, because we know that water travels underground. As somebody who has been around the escarpment for 60 years and understands it quite well, I would ask for you to give this very careful consideration. I'm prepared to answer questions, as is Mr Crysler and Mr D'Agostino. Thank you very much for this opportunity.
Mr Murdoch: Welcome, Russ, to our committee here, and the rest of you. You spoke mainly about landfill and I notice this bill says, "extend waste management systems." Unless there's an amendment to that, I understand that would be any kind of a waste management system, which could be a septic system. You're agreeing with this bill; I'm just wondering, do you agree with that or are you just mainly concerned with the landfills?
Mr Miller: Thank you, Bill; it's nice to see you again. Sitting in the audience, I was listening very closely to what was being said here. That's why I tried to get the understanding across that I am concerned and my municipality is concerned about landfilling. We're concerned about landfilling because we do not feel it is appropriate. Many of us do not feel it's appropriate in any form -- there are other ways -- but we do not feel it's appropriate within the escarpment.
Because we get our water supply from the ground, we are very, very concerned on what would happen if the groundwater got polluted. It has to be a concern of anybody else here who is sitting around this table and who knows that we are here representing, yourselves and myself, people within our communities, within our province, that we cannot continue to take chances where we may pollute water that would cost not only my municipality and other municipalities but the people of this province to try and get water to these people. I've seen that sort of in Mr Stockwell's comment about, "Here are protectors of the purse." We have to be here as protectors of the purse, but if we pollute that water, somebody is going to have to restore it some way, maybe by bringing it down from Georgian Bay, and I'm up there in your area quite often.
Mr Murdoch: I know. Maybe Noel will explain, when it comes to their turn, what he means by "waste management systems," then, and see if he's going to amend that or not.
The Chair: Moving on, Mr Duignan.
Mr Duignan: Thank you, Russ, for coming down this afternoon, knowing your busy schedule, and given that I think tonight is also council. What is it about landfills and the Niagara Escarpment that brings you to Queen's Park today?
1450
Mr Miller: As you're well aware, I have been involved in fighting landfills on the escarpment for many years, strictly because of the water, strictly because I think there are better ways of disposing of garbage.
When we were searching in Halton region for a landfill site, we managed to stay away as much as we could from the potential of polluting the groundwater. We have established a landfill site outside the escarpment area. I feel very strongly and I have spoken many times, and long on many occasions, about the possible pollution of the water. I know the fracture of the escarpment. I was raised on it. I visit it regularly. I've lived close by it.
I have the greatest fear of the pollution of groundwater through the escarpment. I'm no engineer, and I'd like to turn it over to Ralph to answer that because, in my experience, which is very limited, I have followed how they line landfill sites with clay and how clay is a much better base.
Mr Ralph Crysler: The concern with groundwater on landfills is normally seen to be the leakage of leachate from the landfill off the site. Leachate is a pretty potent liquid. Its primary source is the rain water precipitation which filters down through the landfill itself and on its way through picks up the products of decay; it picks up incidental non-degradable items that are in there such as paints and oils and solvents, all those things we're not supposed to put in landfills but I believe they get there.
The leachate, in many cases, is so strong, the sewage is so heavily contaminated, that it has to be pre-treated before it can even be handled in the normal sewage treatment plant.
Most landfills have a liner under them or are built into a clay material which is very tight as far as leakage is concerned. However, as the mayor has pointed out, engineered systems do have the unfortunate habit, from time to time, of failing and so in landfill design we provide contingency measures.
The most common form of contingency measures is down-gradient purge wells. If you put a purge well into granular soils or into the clay tills, you can be fairly sure of recovering the leachate which has escaped. But what we're talking about in a quarry site, especially along the escarpment, is a site where any leakage goes into the limestone or, more correctly, into the fractures and pathways within the limestone. These pathways are very indeterminate and I would have great concerns about trying to guarantee the recapture of escaped leachate in a limestone situation because of the problems of the various flow paths. Does that answer it for you, Russ?
Mr Duignan: In summary, directed at yourself: In your expert opinion, then, a rock formation such as the Niagara Escarpment is not a very appropriate place to site a landfill site.
Mr Crysler: I agree with that, because of the problems of trying to recapture leachate which might escape.
Mr Duignan: Is there time for one more question?
The Chair: There is one more moment, if you want it.
Mr Duignan: Very briefly, you touched on the whole question of the amount of dollars your city has spent on the whole process of defending the town against landfills on the escarpment. What percentage of the tax base does that represent?
Mr Miller: You caught me off guard; I just can't tell you. Maybe our solicitor could.
Mr D'Agostino: In 1992, the town of Halton Hills was required to put together a cost brief in connection with the RSI proposal and at that time, in that one calendar year, the consulting fees associated with the landfills, paid for by the town of Halton Hills, represented 3% of the taxes raised for municipal purposes.
Mr Duignan: You're saying 3% of the local taxes goes towards costs of yourself and the consultants and the legal costs.
Mr D'Agostino: To be clear, that's excluding the portion raised for school boards; 3% for the municipality's purposes.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. What I'd like to get from you is whether you have any concerns with the bill as it is presently worded.
Mr Miller: When I first looked at it, no. But I can see what has been said by many other people here, that there is a possibility that it is too restrictive. I would have to agree with that. We're not here to stop blue box proposals, small composting, recycling.
I feel that we are here today and I know that am here today to try and get something that would restrict, would prohibit landfilling within the Niagara Escarpment from Niagara Falls to Tobermory. Speaking to one of the staff here from Niagara Falls prior to the meeting, I was discussing that with him, and I had a feeling that would probably satisfy a lot of people, maybe even Mr Murdoch, whom I've known personally for some time. We've discussed the Niagara Escarpment on many occasions.
That's what I would like to see. I feel that landfilling, putting garbage into that fractured rock of the escarpment, would be a mistake. It's the landfilling that is my major concern.
Mr Offer: The concern which I find is one that I believe I have already indicated, and here we have another deputation which, I think in fairness, speaks in support of the legislation but also has indicated that some changes are going to be needed to the legislation in order to address some of its ongoing concerns.
My problem is that we must have that amendment prior to the end of these hearings in order to make certain that the concerns that you have raised and that the commission itself have raised have been addressed. It would be very difficult for us, in fairness, to pass judgement on a particular piece of legislation when we hear people speaking in support, with a "but" to it, and we don't know if an amendment is going to be presented, which will carry, that will meet your concerns.
Have you, as a town, dealt with any possible amendments to the bill that you might wish to share with the committee?
Mr Miller: I have spoken to Mr D'Agostino on this. Have you got anything, Steve, that you can add to this?
Mr D'Agostino: I guess what I can say is this: As lawyers think on paper a lot better than they think orally, and a number of us have crafted from time to time some words, there's no magic to any words that we have put down in terms of amendment, but the kinds of words that the town's been looking at are simply tracing the words from the Environmental Protection Act dealing with landfill, "deposit," "dispose of," and getting rid of the rest of the words in the act, because basically what the town is concerned about is landfill. So the kinds of words we've been talking about would take those words, "disposal," "deposit," from the EPA and just drop them into the member's bill.
Mr Offer: If I can ask a question based on that suggestion, would that meaning, moved from the one legislation to this particular bill, meet the concern that has been brought to my attention, and that is that existing landfills, closed and potentially in need of some repair, would not be able to get that repair as a result of this bill?
Mr D'Agostino: It's my view certainly that if you made that kind of amendment, you achieve the ends of St Catharines, Niagara Falls and others that have the remediation problem.
The issue is simply this: In the original drafting of Bill 62 there's a prohibition against waste disposal, which is defined to be a whole bunch of things and includes the remediation measures. It's simply the depositing of new waste which is really at issue here. So certainly that kind of language can achieve, in a very simple way, the needs of virtually all the municipalities that I understand have expressed some concerns.
1500
The Chair: Thank you very much. We're out of time. I want to thank all of you for coming here today and making this presentation.
Mr Stockwell: Did Noel get a copy of the amendment yet?
The Chair: He is working on it.
Mr Stockwell: Well, this is crazy.
The Chair: It's coming within the hour, Mr Stockwell.
Mr Stockwell: We're asking questions on an amendment that nobody has seen.
The Chair: I realize that. Members are speaking to what is in front of them. You're right, the amendment that is coming is not yet here, but within the hour it will be, and then people can fit their comments into that. I understand what you're saying.
Mr Stockwell: This is no way to run a railroad.
Mr Duignan: I did offer earlier to distribute a draft copy of my amendment.
Mr Stockwell: Look, what do you remember about it? We'll write it down.
Mr Duignan: I've got a draft you could circulate.
The Chair: If you have a draft you think you might circulate, wonderful.
Mr Duignan: I did extend that offer.
HALTON REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
The Chair: I'd like to invite the Halton Region Conservation Authority, Mr Murray Stephen. Welcome, Mr Stephen. You have half an hour for your presentation. You can begin any time you're ready.
Mr Murray Stephen: This is Mr Martin Campbell. He's legal counsel for the conservation authority from the firm of Beard Winter. Just for the record, my name is spelled S-T-E-P-H-E-N. So that could be a correction that's on the agenda.
I'm here representing the chairman and members of the Halton Region Conservation Authority. I'm the general manager of the conservation authority. There was a sudden passing of a former chairman over the weekend, and unfortunately that has caused a number of problems for other people to be here today. Mr Brock Harris, who was a former chairman, quite well known throughout our area, passed away. So unfortunately our other representatives aren't with me today.
The Halton Region Conservation Authority represents a watershed consisting of 366 square miles. The watershed includes all or portions of the municipalities of Burlington, Oakville, Milton, Halton Hills, Dundas, Flamboro, Puslinch township and Mississauga in various percentages ranging from 100% down to 4% in the case of Mississauga. The authority has been in existence since 1956 and has a current resident population in the watershed of 306,000 people. The authority has a mandate to establish and undertake a program designed to further the conservation, restoration development and management of our natural resources.
The framework around the natural resources management program in the Halton watershed is based on the management of the drainage basins consisting of four major watercourses: the Grindstone Creek in the west, the Twelve Mile or Bronte Creek, the Sixteen Mile or Oakville Creek and the Fourteen Mile Creek along the Oakville-Mississauga boundary. In addition, there are 12 other watercourses and drainage basins that originate in the Niagara Escarpment in Burlington and in the tilled plains in Oakville that ultimately discharge into Lake Ontario.
One of the major landforms and resource features that dominates the landscape in the Halton watershed is the Niagara Escarpment, and it has been the major focus of the authority's effort in resource management since 1956. The location of the escarpment in relation to the watershed is related in almost every aspect to the integrity of the authority's program, and therefore the planning and land use activities that occur within and around the escarpment are of paramount importance to the authority.
The conservation authority is a major land owner in the escarpment. We own approximately 4,100 acres of land. The land holdings represent the predominant landscape, the most environmentally significant characteristics of the escarpment and areas that warranted public ownership in order to protect and preserve their attributes for the present and future residents of Ontario.
The authority has been instrumental in developing criteria and standards that were ultimately included in provincial legislation, such as setbacks for aggregate extraction that exist under the present aggregate extraction legislation. For example, in 1956, long before there was pits and quarries control legislation and other provincial legislation, the conservation authority acquired and also through agreements had setbacks of 300 to 350 feet along the face of the escarpment for non-extraction and non-disturbance of the face of the escarpment.
The Niagara Escarpment constitutes the headwaters for surface and groundwater supplies throughout the area. There are no fewer than 14 licensed quarries and gravel pits currently operating within the escarpment in our watershed. Their licensed area covers approximately 3,300 acres of land and their locations are represented on the watershed map that has been handed around for your information.
The authority has noted with concern that the Niagara Escarpment plan has very limited, if any, jurisdiction regarding the licensed aggregate operations. Environmental impacts and the after-uses of these sites are matters that have to be addressed either through a site-by-site agreement or through a site plan filed under the mineral resources aggregate legislation.
An attempt to establish a sanitary landfill in these aggregate extraction sites is a matter that the authority has not supported in the past and will not support in the future. The prospect of using any of these sites for that purpose is to expose the majority of the surface and groundwater supply for this region of Ontario to an environmental risk of considerable magnitude.
Bill 62 has considerable merit and warrants support and adoption by the province to eliminate landfills as an acceptable after-use under the pits and quarries control act and the mineral resources act.
The escarpment is too fundamental to the long-term objective of protecting our natural resources features, and any proposal that ensures that the aggregate operations, upon their completion, will be rehabilitated to an after-use that does not include the establishment of a sanitary landfill must be enacted. To justify anything other than this is to ignore the very essence of the escarpment, its attributes and the consequences for impacting the delicate balance that is in the best interests of the environment, including the people.
The map that has been handed around to the committee represents the existing licensed areas that are in our watershed. Obviously, it's quite apparent that the number of licensed quarries that we have are prime targets for landfills. As recently as 1989, the authority had been reviewing and had to comment on even an application by Ontario Hydro for use of one of these sites for the disposal of fly ash. These keep coming up, time after time, as an after-use or as part of a rehabilitation scheme in the quarry and in the aggregate legislation.
We have a great deal of concern that there are major weaknesses in the legislation now and we have to come to grips with this type of issue; otherwise we're going to be back time after time in front of various panels and hearings boards, and that's to the benefit of no one.
I'll stop it there and take any questions from the committee.
Mr Duignan: Of the existing quarries and pit sites that exist in your jurisdiction, how many of them will be potential landfill sites at this time?
Mr Stephen: At the present time, I don't think there are any of them that you could exclude as being potential sites. That's the problem.
Under the current legislation, under the mineral resources act, you do not have to stipulate after-uses. There are two that are on this site. Site A is the acting quarry site, and there have been attempts made on site E in the past. The way the authority addressed that was that we forced a specific agreement on that site that defined the after-use, which was addressing the water situation in the escarpment.
Mr Duignan: What acreage are we talking here?
Mr Stephen: At the present time 3,300 are under licence, so when they're all worked out, landfill is a possibility in all 3,300 acres.
1510
Mr Duignan: One of the most common complaints I get in my constituency office at this particular point in time is around the whole question of water and taking water from the escarpment such as, for example, the Acton quarry. What type of problems are you experiencing now from the whole question of water supply from the escarpment to the communities?
Mr Stephen: In every quarry operation, gravel pit as well, there's a water-taking permit that will be involved in the operation of that. Every time there is an excavation made in the ground, there is going to be a drawdown in the groundwater. The cone of influence from the site of the excavation goes well beyond the property boundaries of the licensed area. The geology and the profile of that groundwater will fluctuate according to the depth, volume of water in the surrounding area and the rate at which it is diverted or pumped.
In the case of the Halton conservation authority we have several examples where we have encountered changing of whole drainage basins by diverting surface streams or by the lowering of the water table that went well beyond the limits of the licensed area. A major complaint that we have is the process through which those water-taking permits are issued, examined, evaluated, and the environmental impacts identified under the current process. You introduce a landfill on top of that, you have introduced another major environmental concern even on top of that situation.
I guess I will finish by saying that the water situation in the quarries is still an unresolved issue in many of the locations in our watershed.
Mr Duignan: What's the water-taking permit of the Acton quarry at this point?
Mr Stephen: It's up to and exceeds two million gallons a day, I believe.
Mr Duignan: And that's having an effect on the water table's surrounding areas?
Mr Stephen: Yes. The problem there is, that particular site divides the watersheds between the Credit Valley Conservation Authority in the Halton region, and the point of discharge for the water in the Sixteen Mile Creek watershed is going in Black Creek. That's a totally different drainage basin. You have to examine the effect and the impact of these water-taking permits and ensure you're not having over the long period a substantial impact on the water supply for an entire community.
Mr Duignan: If we're pumping two million gallons of water a day out of the Acton quarry and if the proposed landfill site is sited in the Acton quarry, that leads me to speculate that there's going to be one heck of a lot of water in that landfill site at any given time.
Mr Stephen: Yes, and that's on an average, too; that's not actual record of peak flows. When you've had snow melts and rainfall you can exceed that limit, but that's what's on the current permit at the present time at the Acton quarry: an estimated volume of two million gallons per day.
Mr Offer: I'd like to thank you very much for your presentation. I think the information which you provide is extremely useful and helpful for us as we go on in the particular bill.
While you were making the presentation, an amendment was being circulated, a proposed amendment that the member is going to be moving based on this particular bill. After a brief reading of the amendment, apparently, notwithstanding the concerns that you have raised, the bill is going to be amended, which will permit in certain circumstances a continuation of waste disposal and waste servicing on the Niagara Escarpment. I would like to get your impression, if you have the amendment before you, of that which has been circulated by the member.
Mr Stephen: I'll ask Mr Campbell to answer that.
Mr Martin Campbell: Mr Offer, we just got it.
Mr Offer: So did I.
Mr Campbell: It's hot off the press, so you'll forgive me. Subsection 1(1) repeats in effect the thrust of Bill 62 as it now stands. As this amendment is proposed, section 27(3) is added, which contains a number of exclusions. I note with some interest that the subsection right at the bottom of the page would address the concerns of Mr Stockwell about lawsuits and so on. I think to that extent it's a valuable contribution to this.
I must confess that proposed subsection 27(3) is difficult to understand on the very short reading. It appears that it removes one of the concerns we had over the breadth of language in Bill 62, as put forward earlier. It creates certain exceptions; the exceptions include transfer stations, recycling facilities, and composting sites which receive waste only from the local municipality. That would appear to, in effect, allow local municipalities to continue operations. "Use, operation or alteration of a waste disposal site, which site is approved before this subsection comes into force," would at first glance -- and don't hold me to this because it is just at first glance -- allow improvements and amelioration to existing sites where there may be problems. There are limits on what can be done.
I think to that extent, this is an improvement on Bill 62 as originally drafted. Whether this goes the full route, whether this will ultimately achieve the objective which is contemplated in Bill 62, is hard to say on very short notice. It seems to be an improvement.
Mr Offer: The difficulty we're placed in at this point in time is now we have just heard the deputation, very strong in support of the legislation, and as one is speaking about the legislation, amendment is being moved throughout the committee that basically is seemingly moving against, in some way, what was being said by yourself.
I certainly have not had time to digest the wording of this amendment and what it means. I am very sensitive to the previous presenters, who spoke about the need for some change to the bill, and I do not know whether the amendment I am looking at is that which has been envisaged by the previous presenters as the necessary change. Mr Chair, what I hope we can do is copy this amendment for those in the audience and we will be asking some questions, not only in committee but outside the committee, in order to see what the reaction is to that.
Again, I thank you for the presentation. It was very important and the difficulty we have is you were making a presentation on a bill that, as you were making the presentation, was being changed. I don't know if it was being changed in the way you particularly want it to be changed, but I thank you.
Mr Stephen: Could I make one short comment to add to that?
The Chair: Sure, go ahead.
Mr Stephen: What we are in support of at the Halton conservation authority and, I would suggest, all of the conservation authorities along the escarpment, is that we want legislation that is clearly going to say that a certificate of approval will not be issued for a new landfill that is going to utilize aggregate extraction sites in the escarpment as the means to solve a sanitary landfill problem in the province of Ontario. That's what we want, that's what we're in support of and that's what we would hope the Legislature for the province of Ontario will address.
Mr Duignan: Point of order, clarification, whatever.
The Chair: I would like to give you an opportunity at the appropriate moment to do that, rather than just interrupting here. Mr Murdoch.
Mr Murdoch: I was going to say -- it's okay then.
The Chair: Mr Murdoch, you go right ahead. Mr Duignan will find the opportunity to make the point.
Mr Murdoch: Okay, thank you, Mr Chair. I also would like to thank the conservation authority for coming here, Murray, and giving your presentation. I know and understand what conservation authorities are all about and appreciate the fact they're in existence.
I have other concerns on the bill and what you just said there about how you'd hope this bill would say that there wouldn't be landfills on quarries within the Niagara Escarpment, but it doesn't say that. That's the unfortunate part about this whole bill. It was one paragraph and really didn't say a heck of a lot, or you could read a lot into it. That's where I have concerns because, if you let the Niagara Escarpment Commission loose with something like that, they'll interpret it any way they want. That's what they've done with their own plan and they don't seem to follow the rules and they decide what they want to do when they meet. They actually have more power than the Ontario Municipal Board, and that's scary.
1520
I want to ask you, though, what you think when they talk about waste management systems. We, as I said, in Grey and Bruce counties have a lot of area on the Niagara Escarpment plan. What that could do is eliminate septic tanks, if you say that a waste management system includes a septic tank. I want to know, do you think it does or not, because it's open for interpretation.
Mr Stephen: "Waste management system" is, according to the government's own definition, under the environmental protection legislation. I think the problem is that either in crafting that legislation, for whatever reason, you never defined what was meant by "landfill." Therefore, my response back to you is that you need to deal with the definitions, how you've crafted those definitions, and how you interpret and apply those definitions in your current provincial legislation, and not look to an agency such as a local conservation authority or a municipality to answer those problems for you.
Mr Murdoch: Okay, I didn't expect you to give me the right answer. I just thought what you thought, but that's fine. What will happen is, we'll have the Niagara Escarpment interpreting and it has its own interpretations of different things. We can get into those, but we won't. We wouldn't have time to explain all those. It seems persons like yourself and some of the other presenters were worried about landfills, but this bill can go way beyond that if we give control to the NEC. That's where I have very deep concerns about giving them any more control than they've got now.
The Chair: Mr Stockwell, any questions? Very well, thank you very much for coming and thank you for your presentation.
Mr Stephen: Thank you. Mr Chairman, I have a large map here. Do you want me to leave that for reference purposes?
The Chair: That would be fine, yes. Thank you. I would like to invite the regional municipality of Halton, Mr Blair Taylor, solicitor.
Mr Duignan: On a point, Mr Chair: I just wanted to say that the proposed amendment in front of the committee is in a draft stage only and in fact it does not alter the intent of Bill 62 but seeks to clarify some of the issues and bring it more in line with amendment 52, as found in the particular section 27 of the act.
Mr Stockwell: Can I ask a question, Mr Chair, just a quick clarification? It's in a draft stage that has been sent, as I understand it, by your office to the Attorney General's office maybe -- I'm not sure -- and all you're working on now is the legalities of this motion.
Mr Duignan: That's correct.
Mr Stockwell: But this should basically form the new piece of legislation.
Mr Duignan: That's correct.
The Chair: When the official copy comes, then it can be moved into the record. At the moment it's just a draft.
Mr Duignan: It's just a draft. I'm not moving this right now until we get --
The Chair: Obviously. Very well, thank you. Mr Taylor.
Interjection.
The Chair: It's not been moved.
Mr Stockwell: It's not been moved?
The Chair: No.
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALTON
The Chair: Please begin, Mr Taylor. Would you introduce your colleague.
Mr Blair Taylor: I'd be pleased to. My name is Blair Taylor and I appear on behalf of the regional municipality of Halton. With me this afternoon is Mr Robert White. Mr White is a senior member of the management team in the planning department at the region. He's been with the region since 1974. He's given evidence before various provincial tribunals, including the Ontario Municipal Board, and he is very familiar with the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
Our presentation this afternoon will be divided into two parts. While ideally it would be best if each member of the committee would be able to personally visit the Niagara Escarpment, obviously that's not possible this afternoon. Therefore, on behalf of the region, we would like to present in visual form the significance of the Niagara Escarpment in and to the region of Halton. Following Mr White's presentation, I will provide additional comment with regard to the context within which Bill 62 should be examined. Since we're dividing this into two parts, if questions could be held until we've completed both parts, that would be appreciated.
If we could, I would like to just briefly turn out the lights and start up the projector and I'll turn it over to Mr White.
Mr Robert White: The region of Halton, the city of Burlington, the towns of Milton, Halton Hills and Oakville and the Halton Region Conservation Authority have long supported the preservation of the Niagara Escarpment. In fact, many Halton residents believe the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act is the direct result of the concerns raised and efforts made by many people who live and work in Halton.
You have already heard from the Niagara Escarpment Commission that the area covered by the Niagara Escarpment plan has been recognized by the United Nations as a World Biosphere Reserve. This world recognition speaks volumes for the wisdom and foresight of the provincial Legislature in 1973 when it created the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, as well as for the wisdom and foresight of the provincial cabinet when it approved the current Niagara Escarpment plan in 1985.
Despite the United Nations recognition of this truly world-class environment, we must not forget that the Niagara Escarpment plan area only covers a very small percentage of Ontario, perhaps less than 1% of the total province.
Having lived and worked in Halton for many years, I know the people of our region have very strong feelings about the Niagara Escarpment. The reasons for these feelings are easy to see. This slide is one of my favourites, as it shows Mount Nemo in Burlington.
The Niagara Escarpment is by far Halton's most prominent and important landscape feature. This feature, and the Niagara Escarpment plan, dominate the landscape, covering over 50,000 acres or about 25% of the region's total land area. The escarpment cliff face in Halton is quite pronounced. It virtually divides the region in two from north to south, starting first in Halton Hills and then winding through Milton and Burlington. The following slides show the cliff face at Halton's Rattlesnake Point, the Milton outlier and Mount Nemo. I think you will agree with me that the view from on top of the escarpment is quite impressive.
Besides its beauty, Halton's escarpment is critically important from a surface water and groundwater perspective. You have already heard from the Halton conservation authority that the source of many of Halton's streams is found on top of the Niagara Escarpment. These slides show typical escarpment ponds which lead to streams found throughout the Niagara Escarpment plan area. The quantity and quality of water from these streams is a major concern, not only because it gives life to the 38 environmentally sensitive areas located within Halton but also because it provides the drinking water for Milton, Georgetown and Acton.
There are numerous rural communities scattered throughout Halton's rural area, almost all of which depend on the groundwater that comes from the limestone bedrock and sand and gravel deposits located on the Niagara Escarpment. Halton and its local municipalities are becoming increasingly concerned with the possible pollution of the region's groundwater. In fact Halton is so concerned council recently approved funds to begin a comprehensive groundwater study.
There are over 20 environmentally sensitive areas located within the Niagara Escarpment planning area. Several of these wildlife areas have been identified by the province as provincially significant areas of natural and scientific interest. Many of these wildlife areas are the habitat of rare and endangered species as identified by the province's Endangered Species Act. Recently, 800-year-old trees were discovered on the escarpment. These trees pre-date Christopher Columbus and are possibly as old as the Magna Carta. The rarity of these trees, the fact that they survived and were found on the escarpment, only heightens the importance of this biosphere.
All this beauty and wildlife so close to Toronto has attracted tremendous interest from conservationists, tourists and residents. As a result, numerous parks, agreement forests and reserves have been established in Halton's escarpment plan area. Every year, thousands of people come to the region to explore the Bruce Trail, hike old logging roads, stroll along boardwalks, relax beside tranquil lakes, tour in a historic Indian village or museum, play in a winter wonderland, take in some cross-country or downhill skiing or even experience the thrill of rock climbing. Reconciling all these competing interests has been the job of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, in cooperation with the other provincial bodies and municipalities, such as those in Halton.
1530
In 1978 Halton region adopted its first official plan. The Halton plan established a regional land use designation which protected the escarpment cliff face and lands within its vicinity. In 1980 Halton supported the proposed Niagara Escarpment plan at the hearings in Ancaster, Owen Sound and Burlington. In 1988 Halton's official plan was the first official plan to be brought into conformity with the current approved Niagara Escarpment plan. In 1992 Halton once again supported the Niagara Escarpment plan at the hearings on the Niagara Escarpment plan's five-year review.
Since 1974, the regional municipality of Halton and its local municipalities have consistently supported the commission in its effort to protect the escarpment in accordance with the purpose and objectives of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.
Mr Taylor will now continue with the second part of our presentation.
Mr Taylor: Bill 62 doesn't come before this committee as an isolated or unrelated piece of legislation. Rather, in our view, Bill 62 comes to give statutory expression to the policy which underlies all environmental legislation and resulted in the approval of NEPA 52. In that regard, I would like to provide you with a brief overview of some of the environmental legislative initiatives that have occurred.
We're just about to put up an overhead which will take you back to about 1956. In 1956 we had the passage of the Ontario Water Resources Commission Act. In 1956, the Ontario Water Commission Resources Act established the Ontario Water Resources Commission, whose function was to construct, operate and distribute water systems and also to dispose of sewage.
You will see from this overhead that in fact in 1958 the Air Pollution Control Act was passed, and that act allowed the minister to fund, research and investigate air pollution problems and assist municipalities in drafting bylaws.
You'll see from the overhead that in fact between the years of 1960 to 1970 there was not considerable legislation on environmental matters, but with the onset of the 1970s, a number of pieces of legislation were introduced which had their roots in the 1960s. That legislation included the Waste Management Act, and that was an act that required landfill sites to have certificates of approval. In 1971 we have the Environmental Protection Act, and that encompassed both the Air Pollution Control Act and the Waste Management Act. In 1973 we have the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, followed in 1975 by the Environmental Assessment Act.
As we jump into the 1980s, you'll see that in 1981 the province required municipalities to be subject to the Environmental Assessment Act. As well, the province toughened its standards with regard to environmental enforcement by establishing the special investigations unit at the Ministry of the Environment. In 1985, the spills bill, as it was then known, now part X of the Environmental Protection Act, was proclaimed. As well, regulation 309 was put into place with regard to the transportation of dangerous substances, or hazardous substances. In 1986 you have the Environmental Enforcement Statute Amendment Act, which increased environmental penalties, and also the personal liability for directors and officers was introduced.
In the 1990s, we have the hearing officer's report on NEPA 52. In 1992 that was implemented by cabinet order, and in 1993 we have the Environmental Bill of Rights.
That's an overview of the legislative context within which Bill 62 would fit.
I'd like now to take you back to 1973 and to look at the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act. You will note that then, in 1973, the purpose of the act was "to provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment and land in its vicinity substantially as a continuous natural environment, and to ensure only such development occurs as is compatible with that natural environment."
The chair of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the first delegation this afternoon, noted in her comments that in order to implement section 2 of that act, section 8 of the act provided that a Niagara Escarpment plan was to be prepared and certain objectives were to be sought by the commission in preparing that plan. The chair mentioned four of those criteria or objectives. We'd like to have a look at these in totality.
The first is "to protect unique ecologic and historic areas," second, "to maintain and enhance the quality and character of natural streams and water supplies," third, "to provide adequate opportunities for outdoor recreation," fourth, "to maintain and enhance the open landscape character of the Niagara Escarpment in so far as possible, by such means as compatible farming or forestry and by preserving the natural scenery," fifth, "to ensure that all new development is compatible with the purpose of this act as expressed in section 2," sixth, "to provide for adequate public access to the Niagara Escarpment," and finally, "to support municipalities within the Niagara Escarpment planning area in their exercise of the planning functions conferred upon them by the Planning Act."
In the NEPA 52 hearings in 1990 and 1991, the hearing officer was appointed by the province of Ontario, and he was required to hear and to report on the proposed amendment. One of the areas he covered in his hearing and in his report concerned a seven-factor test to assess the hydrogeological suitability of landfill sites. He outlined those seven factors in these words:
"(1) The hydrogeology of the area must be comprehensible to the board;
"(2) The loss of contaminants should be minimal (and preferably zero) as a result of either natural containment or engineered works;
"(3) Natural containment and attenuation of contaminants is preferred to engineered containment and attenuation;
"(4) If it is predicted that contaminants may move away from the landfill site, then the postulated contaminants' migration pathway should be predictable;
"(5) It should be demonstrated that predicted leachate migration from the site will have no adverse impact on surface waters;
"(6) Monitoring to identify contaminant migration and escape pathways should be straightforward; and
"(7) There should be the highest possible confidence in the effectiveness of contingency measures to intercept and capture lost contaminants."
At the conclusion of his report, the hearing officer, in a section entitled "Overall Comments and Recommendation," made this statement:
"Evidence heard seriously questions the suitability of escarpment lands for the siting of landfills. The weight of this evidence was that, despite careful engineering in the preparation and management of sites, these escarpment lands are generally unsuited for the siting of landfills, due chiefly to the uncertainties for satisfactory containment of contaminants."
The hearing officer recommended that amendment 52 be accepted by the Niagara Escarpment Commission. It was, and it was also taken to the province, to the cabinet, where it was approved in 1992.
If I take you back to 1973, the province created the Niagara Escarpment Commission. It provided the commission with its purpose, "to provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment and land in its vicinity substantially as a continuous natural environment, and to ensure only such development occurs as is compatible with that natural environment."
1540
In 1975, through the passage of the Environmental Assessment Act, the province established a process by which undertakings would be evaluated.
In 1992, the NEPA 52 amendment confirmed that landfilling in the Niagara Escarpment is incompatible with the purpose of the Niagara Escarpment Planning Act. What's happened since that time? In 1993, Ontario proclaimed the Environmental Bill of Rights, and as a preamble to that bill of rights, the province said this:
It said firstly, "The people of Ontario recognize the inherent value of a natural environment." Secondly, "The people of Ontario have a right to a healthful environment." Thirdly, "The people of Ontario have as a common goal the protection, conservation and restoration of the natural environment for the benefit of present and future generations." Finally, "While the government has the primary responsibility for achieving this goal, the people should have the means to ensure that it is achieved in an effective, timely, open and fair manner."
In conclusion, it is respectfully submitted that Bill 62 gives statutory expression to the policy which underlies all environmental legislation and resulted in the approval of NEPA 52. The hearings officer, the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the cabinet have all agreed that waste disposal is a use which is incompatible with environmental policies relating to the Niagara Escarpment and should consequently be deleted as a permitted use.
We would respectfully submit that Bill 62 is the natural extension of NEPA 52 and the thrust of environmental legislation since the passage of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act. Bill 62 would prohibit the issuances of certificates of approval for waste disposal in the Niagara Escarpment plan area. In so doing, the Legislature of the province would be acting in a manner that is consistent with existing environmental protection policies and the preamble that's set out in the Environmental Bill of Rights; that is "The people of Ontario have as a common goal the protection, conservation and restoration of the natural environment for the benefit of present and future generations." It is respectfully submitted therefore in that regard that the Niagara Escarpment, recognized by the United Nations as a World Biosphere Reserve, deserves that protection.
Thank you for your attention. We would be pleased to attempt to answer questions that you might have.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much for that presentation, bringing us way back and right up to today's date.
Just for my information, and I think you've made your case with respect to the particular piece of legislation, but I would like to ask this question: In the regional municipality of Halton, in dealing with recycling facilities, the region is made up of a number of local municipalities. Are there any local municipalities which share particular recycling facilities?
Mr Taylor: I live in the region of Halton and I'm not aware, in my own municipality, of any shared recycling facility. Mr White might know.
Mr Robert White: No.
Mr Offer: No transfer stations or composting stations of that kind?
Mr Robert White: I can't think of a shared one.
Mr Offer: Because we have an amendment before us and I wanted to make certain that it wouldn't negatively impact on your particular area. Thank you again for the presentation. I think that it was very important, and it was very exhaustive in its scope and thoughtfulness.
Mr Murdoch: Just a statement, and Chris has a question. One thing: I challenge your comment when you said, "...the wisdom of the cabinet to form the Niagara Escarpment Commission." I challenge that wisdom, and I challenge you. There are not many of them left who did that, so thank God they're gone.
Secondly, you showed some good pictures of the Halton area. I can challenge any of those. We have probably just as nice or better ones up in Grey, and we've protected them ourselves, without the commission.
The other one: You were talking about rights. You just forgot to add that there are property rights too. That's all I wanted to say.
Mr Stockwell: Did the region of Halton take a position on Bill 43, the landfill issue, with respect to provincial legislation?
Mr Taylor: We're not aware of any position that was taken by the region.
Mr Stockwell: You're not aware that they took a position, or you just don't know if they did?
Mr Taylor: I don't know. I'm not employed by the region of Halton; I'm an outside lawyer.
Mr Duignan: Thank you for an excellent presentation. What you've said is what the people of Halton region and right across a lot of the Niagara Escarpment have said for many years. I've presented to the House a petition of over 12,500 names and I've received some 2,300 letters in support of my bill, Bill 62. They want this simply to happen and they're saying that the Niagara Escarpment is no place to put a landfill site. I'm very appreciative of you coming along here this afternoon and presenting such an excellent case. You've presented it extraordinarily well, and thank you for doing that.
Mr Taylor: Thank you kindly for those comments.
Ms Harrington: You've given a very good presentation, and I want to thank the people of the Halton region for initiating the whole idea of the Niagara Escarpment many years ago. It seems, from what you've said, that's where the initiative did come from.
Have you been in contact with your colleagues at the region of Niagara, whether they are solicitors or planners, as to whether they back you exactly in what you are saying today? What would be their position?
Mr Taylor: As I indicated in one of the earlier questions, I am not an employee of the region of Halton and I have personally not been in contact with any person with the region of Niagara.
Mr Robert White: The city of St Catharines was present in the NEPA 52 hearings. They did make submissions and they did have some concerns with regard to the NEPA amendment. I'm not aware of the region of Niagara taking a specific position.
Ms Harrington: Okay. You are a planner with the region of Halton?
Mr Robert White: Yes, I am.
Ms Harrington: Have you been in contact with any of the planners at the region of Niagara about this issue?
Mr Robert White: No.
The Chair: Thank you both for your presentation.
WALTER ELLIOT
Mr Walter Elliot: I'm here as a citizen of the town of Milton to make a presentation about Bill 62. Before I begin the formal presentation as set out in my outline that has been circulated, I'd like to indicate that I've been a long-time advocate of the Niagara Escarpment and the preservation of it as a natural heritage.
I was born in a little town called Chesley in Bruce county. Most of my ancestors came from Grey county, so I share some of Mr Murdoch's thoughts with respect to the beauty of that area. I worked as a youth in Vineland, so I'm familiar in some way with that part of the Niagara Escarpment; attended university at McMaster; spent a great deal of time in the Wentworth area of the escarpment; and my second degree I got at Brock, which took me a little bit further down the peninsula again. I also was a teacher and a principal of the Orangeville District Secondary School for a number of years, which bordered on the Hockley Valley, a very significant part of the Niagara Escarpment.
I feel very strongly about the principle of this bill that we're talking about today, particularly because my wife Anne and I -- and Anne is in the back row listening to all of this -- now live in the protected area of the escarpment in the town of Milton. We moved there by choice in 1986 because she paints watercolours and a mile or so from our backyard is Rattlesnake Point. So I feel very strongly about what I'm saying today.
1550
My presentation will have five parts. First of all, I support the bill. I want to ask a question: When is enough enough? I'd like to comment on long-range planning, make a few recommendations, and I'd like to make a plea, finally, that maybe in this instance we should rise above party politics.
Large holes in the Niagara Escarpment are not the place to dump garbage, because the fractured limestone cannot be engineered to ensure the safety of the water supply. Why put such a sensitive area of our environment to risk? If all the land in Ontario were ranked on a scale from one to 10, with 10 being lands which should not be used for waste disposal sites and waste management systems under any circumstance, the Niagara Escarpment plan area would rank 10-plus.
How many times does a specific site have to be determined as unfit for dumping garbage? The site in Halton Hills that Bill 62 is really aimed at is beginning its fourth go-round. First, the GUARD group successfully turned back the dumping of garbage in the area about 20 years ago. Secondly, the site was rejected in the initial stages of the environmental assessment that eventually located the present Halton landfill site, which is just down the road from our home. This is the first and only landfill to be established so far in the province by the process of the day. It took 17 years and millions of dollars.
Thirdly, the first RSI proposal was so seriously flawed that they are starting over again, I understand. Their first proposal has cost Halton region, the town of Halton Hills and citizens' groups more than $800,000. A new proposal, the fourth, will almost surely cost more.
With billions anticipated in revenue, any corporation can bankrupt all opponents over time. In order to avoid this, at some point specific sites and land areas should be classified as unsuitable for landfill. It is only fair, if landfilling is prohibited in certain areas, to categorically state that fact so that corporations will not invest in prohibited areas.
The Niagara Escarpment plan already clearly establishes guidelines for waste management in the area. All eight regions and counties along the escarpment should be aggressively formulating their waste management plans well into the next century within the limitations of that plan.
The residents of these regions and counties must assume responsibility for reducing, reusing and recycling so that the waste stream can be reduced by 80% to 90% of the 1987 levels. As these goals are met and as new technology and alternative methods of waste disposal are developed, and they will be, massive landfilling may become a temporary problem. This planning is best performed at the local level. The provincial government should only coordinate the planning.
I recommend that Bill 62 be passed after it's been fine-tuned. Include a transition period to allow regions and counties to adjust their waste management plans. Where private waste management proposals are introduced, the entire cost of the proposal should be borne by the proponents, not the opponents. The onus must be placed on the opponents to prove that a site can be engineered to meet all environmental concerns.
Give the Niagara Escarpment plan some teeth. Bill 62 will make it much harder to amend that plan. It will protect a piece of our natural heritage by stopping future garbage dumps on the Niagara Escarpment.
In this instance I think it's one of those situations, as I said, where we should all rise above party politics. I'm a strong believer that in many legislative situations members of the Legislative Assembly should not be bound by party discipline. Ruth Grier's Environmental Bill of Rights was a reworked bill first proposed by Murray Gaunt, a Liberal member from Bruce. How could any Liberal or NDP vote against it? Bill 62 is another such bill. I recommend strongly that the bill be fine-tuned and passed.
A comment I wrote down as I listened carefully to the other presentations was, "If the members of the official opposition and the members of the third party who are on this committee don't find satisfaction with the amendment that was just circulated, their job is to make amendments to the amendment and make it right. That's what the people out there are expecting." Thank you very much.
Mr Murdoch: I have to thank you for bringing this to us. It's a very good report. I agree with you about the natural beauty we have up in Grey and Bruce, and you're pretty close to Grey when you're in Chesley.
The thing I have a problem with is that in Halton we have such a narrow area where the Niagara Escarpment plan takes over, but then when you get up into Grey and Bruce it does widen away out. If you look on the map -- we should have maybe had one of the maps here -- Dufferin has a certain amount, but when it gets up into Grey and then into Bruce it expands away out.
The problem I have with the bill is that it's taking in the whole planned area. Of course, you probably know that in Bruce and Grey we have some problems with the rural area of the plan being even in the plan, because in a lot of areas it's nowhere near the escarpment natural area. It looks like somebody, in their wisdom when they drew the plan, meandered through the country and took in the natural area and got most of the places they got -- they even missed some of those -- but then they came to the protected area and the rural area and they got lazy and they just started going concessions and the map gets square, as you can see. When it's squared and off and away out, maybe two to three miles, from the natural area, it's still within this plan. If this bill's passed, it would cover that.
In Grey we're going through a plan for the waste of the Grey area. They're going to look for a site and one of those sites could easily be on the rural area. That's where I have a problem. You know what it's like up in our area. Do you agree with me there? Could there be amendments put forward or would you agree with amendments put forward if we maybe took the rural area out of some of the plan to allow this?
Mr Elliot: I feel very strongly, having looked at the escarpment for quite some time now, that there are three distinct areas to the escarpment, in my mind. My son and I have walked it, he all the way from Milton down to Niagara Falls on the Bruce Trail. I have accompanied him as many times as I could. Living in Grey and Bruce and the Hockley Valley, we have a fair idea of what's up in that part of the country. But I think from HamiltonWentworth on down to Niagara Falls, it is quite a different kind of an area because of the narrowness of the consideration. Winding through our area in Simcoe and Dufferin, it's a little bit different and, you're right, it does expand out into Grey and Bruce.
This is the kind of background thinking that I put in when I made the one statement that we've got to pay attention to what the counties in the region say about their particular area. The closer to the problem, I think the better the solution would be, because it's just like at these hearings: If you talk about the recycling in Halton region, Blair was here talking about the legal aspect and gave a great dissertation on the history of how we got to here, but in Halton region recycling is a regional matter. The collection is local municipality; it's disposed of at the regional level. So very definitely there's cooperation on the recycling front throughout the Halton region.
That was a plan that was developed by the Halton region and that's why it is pertinent and good for the Halton region. Bruce and Grey should be developing and having a great deal of say into what is developed in their region, in the same way. I think you've got an onerous task here, to amend that one clause that we've got here to make it satisfactory to all eight counties and regions. I don't really envy you your task in that, to make it perfect, because it's going to be hard to do.
But the comment I'd like to make in conclusion is that what evolved into the Niagara Escarpment plan, through the planning that was done there, has been well thought out, has taken 30 years to do, and any bill on the environment that's associated with the Niagara Escarpment planning area that doesn't take into consideration all the things that have already been established is seriously flawed. Really, a bill like this one should address where we're at with the Niagara Escarpment plan right now. It shouldn't go back to square one. In this case, I would feel a lot more comfortable if they just said, "No more landfill in the Niagara Escarpment plan area."
Mr Murdoch: That's basically what they're saying.
1600
Mr Elliot: Everybody would understand the thing. But the way it's worded, it took me a long time to find out what was really meant by the waste management systems, that type of thing.
Mr Murdoch: I certainly appreciate your comments on local autonomy, and I know the Niagara Escarpment Commission's here, so hopefully they will listen to that. Thank you very much.
Mr Elliot: I wondered why Joan picked this spot to sit, because I thought a couple of times that a knife might have come out.
Mr Murdoch: You get your point across. I appreciate it and I know the people of Grey will.
The Chair: No knives allowed here.
Mr Duignan: Welcome, Walter. I guess you're used to this type of system as well. A very worthy opponent from the last election; nice to see you here, Walt, and a good presentation.
Again, the trouble is when you give a simple idea to a group of lawyers to work with, you get back a page of amendments. We will seriously take a look at the amendments you suggested here and see if there's some way we can work these amendments in and work with other amendments that other groups will bring forward over the course of the week. That's hopefully what clause-byclause will do. But the main intent of the bill is to stop any new landfill sites on the Niagara Escarpment. That's the intent of the bill and that's not going to change.
Mr Offer: Good to see you again, Walt, and thank you for your presentation. I noticed what you said earlier on about Joan sitting behind you. Hansard should show that you sat in front of her and it wasn't you moving around. But I'd like to thank you for the presentation and for your coming before the committee and sharing some of your fairly broad experience in these areas.
I want to address, however, the issue that you have raised, and that's with respect to the amendment. I know that you've been here all day. The problem that we've had on the committee is that from the first presenter on, they've spoken about the support of the bill but the need for a fine-tuning, a refinement, an amendment, and we didn't have that amendment save as to a statement by the member that there was something coming.
Now we've received it. I don't know if you've had the opportunity of seeing it.
Mr Elliot: I glanced through it, yes.
Mr Offer: Can you draw any conclusion from this as to whether it maintains the purpose of the bill that you feel should be enshrined in legislation?
Mr Elliot: My impression was that the thrust of it is to address the concerns that have been made by several presenters this afternoon.
Mr Offer: Okay.
Mr Elliot: I'm not a lawyer.
Mr Offer: That's right. You always caught me like that, Walt.
When you talk about a transition period, I'm wondering if you could just expand on that for the regions and counties.
Mr Elliot: This bill could very easily be amended in a satisfactory way and third reading be given and then royal assent has to come along, but I really think that some input should be made by each of the regions and municipalities as to whether or not they can live with the bill as amended. How long that transition period would take, I have no idea. It just depends on how quickly they could react to it.
I go by my own environment, and that's Halton region. It's been said a couple of times that we've already sited a landfill. It took a long time to do it. We're in pretty good shape as far as landfilling is concerned, but even in Halton region my question when I talk to people about landfill again is, "What are you going to do after the present one fills up?" Because of the reduction, it's been extended from 20 to 35 years already. It may last a lot longer than that, but I haven't been convinced that there's not going to be any garbage that doesn't have to be piled or buried. Hopefully some technologies will come along that may reduce it even further, but the long-range plan should have some idea in mind of what's going to happen beyond the current facilities. Every region or county should be addressing that matter.
The unfairness of this kind of fight for a town like Halton Hills is that it's spent the $800,000. I just learned today that this doesn't count the amount of money that the region has spent. It's a lesser amount, $100,000 or so. It doesn't account for any of the money that the citizens' groups have spent in fighting the proposals over the years. As one of the groups that's here said to me, when you start talking $100,000, that's a lot of cookies that you've got to sell, because that's how they raise the money.
Mr Offer: I'd like to thank you again for coming before the committee and outlining your position on the bill and some of the thoughts you have with respect to how it can be implemented. I appreciate it.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Elliot, for your presentation.
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION
COALITION ON THE NIAGARA ESCARPMENT
FEDERATION OF ONTARIO NATURALISTS
The Chair: We invite the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Ms Taylor, and the Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment and Canadian Environmental Law Association, Mr Lindgren.
Interjection: He's representing both of us.
The Chair: Welcome, Mr Lindgren.
Mr Richard Lindgren: Thank you, Mr Chairman. That's correct, I'm Richard Lindgren. My colleague, Ms Taylor, is planning to be here, but I propose to commence my presentation and she can join in when she gets here.
Just to be clear, I'm a staff lawyer with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, otherwise known as CELA. I'm also on the board of directors for the Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment, otherwise known as CONE, and I've been authorized by both of these organizations to come here today and speak in support of Bill 62.
In terms of the format, I'm going to take you briefly through our justification for Bill 62 and why we think it should be passed. As well, I've had an opportunity to look at the proposed amendment, and at the conclusion of my remarks I'll offer some of my observations on the amendment and why I have some grave concerns with the amendment.
CONE and CELA have been long-time supporters of the Niagara Escarpment. We participated in the original hearings on the Niagara Escarpment plan back in the early 1980s. Most recently, we've participated in the five-year review hearings on the Niagara Escarpment plan. We've also done our fair share of landfill hearings, including the Halton hearing that we've heard referred to already today.
It's in light of that experience that we believe waste disposal facilities are fundamentally incompatible with the protection and conservation of the Niagara Escarpment. That's why we fully support Bill 62 in its current fashion, in its current state, and urge all parties to work together to ensure the speedy passage and proclamation of Bill 62.
I have prepared a brief submission on Bill 62 and I've given it to the clerk, who I understand has distributed it to the members. It may come as a great relief to most people that I'm not going to take you line by line through this material. In fact, I want to hit the highlights, and the highlights only, and these are found at page 7 of the brief. That's where I reproduce our conclusions about Bill 62.
You'll see under the heading "Conclusions" we've listed three bullet-point reasons why we support Bill 62. I propose to go through each of those bullet points in a little bit of detail.
The first says that waste management facilities are incompatible with protecting and conserving the unique and internationally significant Niagara Escarpment environment. You've heard a number of submissions today outlining the value of the escarpment and its unique diversity. I think it's beyond dispute that it is a significant landscape that we're blessed with. It has provincial and national and international significance. The provincial significance was recognized, of course, by the passage of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and by the passage of the Niagara Escarpment plan and by the creation of the Niagara Escarpment Commission itself. Clearly, the province itself has recognized that this is a treasure that we have in our backyards.
The international significance of the Niagara Escarpment, of course, was recognized when it was designated as a World Biosphere Reserve. It's interesting to note that there are only five other biosphere reserves in Canada. They're intended to form part of a global network of particularly significant ecosystems and natural areas. Again, UNESCO, through the designation, has recognized that the Niagara Escarpment is indeed a valuable treasure.
1610
That's why we support any and all attempts to protect the escarpment against the effects of incompatible land uses, and in our view waste disposal sites and waste management facilities are land uses which are fundamentally incompatible with protecting and ensuring the long-term sustainability of the escarpment environment.
We all know some of the horror stories about landfills in the province of Ontario. There are lots of them. They leak; they contaminate groundwater; they contaminate surface water; they generate greenhouse gases; they produce nuisance impacts such as odour and noise and dust and traffic and so forth. These are all reasons why that particular land use should not be permitted to occur within the Niagara Escarpment environment. They have no place, in my view, on this internationally significant landscape.
That brings me to the second bullet point on page 7, that waste management facilities are incompatible with the purpose and objectives of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act. A few moments ago Mr Blair Taylor reviewed for you section 2 of this legislation. In effect, the purpose of the legislation is to protect and maintain the physical, natural and visual resources of the escarpment. As Mr Taylor went on to indicate, the legislation also provides that the Niagara Escarpment plan is supposed to do a number of things: It's supposed to protect unique ecological areas, it's supposed to protect and maintain water resources, it's supposed to maintain open landscape character and it's supposed to maintain natural scenery.
It can't be seriously argued that a waste disposal site, a landfill, somehow maintains or protects the visual or physical or ecological resources of the area. Landfills are simply inappropriate for the escarpment environment, and if we're serious about fulfilling the purpose and objective of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, then Bill 62 must be passed immediately.
This brings me to my third and final bullet point, that waste management facilities are not permitted uses under the Niagara Escarpment plan but site-specific amendments may allow the establishment or expansion of such facilities within the plan area. The members of the committee will know that it was amendment 52 that deleted waste disposal facilities as a permitted use and we fully supported amendment 52 when it was circulated and being considered by the NEC.
However, we're still very much concerned that it's still open to waste management operators to come forward and apply for a site-specific amendment to permit either a new or an expanded waste disposal or waste management facility within the plan area. That, in my view, is a significant loophole and it's a loophole that must be plugged by Bill 62. In our view the most efficient way of plugging that loophole is by an express legislative amendment to the Environmental Protection Act which clearly says in unequivocal terms: Waste disposal sites and waste management facilities shall not be permitted henceforth on the escarpment or within the plan area.
Some people have suggested that Bill 62 unnecessarily constrains the site selection process under the Environmental Protection Act or the Environmental Assessment Act. We clearly and strongly disagree with that perspective. We think it's necessary and appropriate to declare up front that escarpment lands are simply off limits for landfilling purposes. The escarpment, as I've said, is a special area. It deserves special recognition in law. It deserves the protection that Bill 62 attempts to give it.
Just backing up for a step, I think as a general proposition we can agree that there are some special areas in this province in which landfilling should not occur. I think we can agree, or at least there would be a consensus, that we shouldn't be putting landfills within provincially significant wetlands, old-growth ecosystems, or provincial parks for that matter.
It's for that kind of reasoning that we say landfill should also be excluded on the escarpment. For the policy reasons that I've outlined earlier, we need to protect this resource, and for the technical reasons you've heard as well. The escarpment is generally unsuitable, from a hydrogeological point of view, for these kinds of facilities. There is just too much concern and too much potential for adverse impacts arising from the fractured bedrock that we find throughout most of the plan area.
So that's why I say to you that Bill 62 does not eliminate a proponent's discretion within a site selection process under the EPA or the Environmental Assessment Act. Instead, Bill 62 structures the exercise of that discretion and focuses the proponent's energies and public energies and resources on more appropriate alternatives, more appropriate sites. That's why we urge the government, with the support of the opposition parties, to pass Bill 62 and proclaim it in force as quickly as possible. I think the bottom line here is that we've only got one Niagara Escarpment in Ontario, in the world. Let's not squander it by permitting these incompatible uses, such as landfilling.
I came here earlier today and listened with great attention to some of the submissions being made on Bill 62. I also had an opportunity to read the draft amendment that was circulated some 60 minutes ago.
Quite frankly, in my view this amendment is not necessary because I think it unnecessarily narrows the otherwise proper breadth and scope of Bill 62. When I read Bill 62 I saw the words "waste disposal site" and "waste management systems" included within the general prohibition and I thought that was done for a reason. I thought we were making a provincial statement that those kinds of facilities and those kinds of sites are not going to be tolerated in the escarpment. That's what we support and that's what we look forward to in terms of the ultimate outcome of this exercise.
But then I see this draft amendment. We see some attempts to whittle down the scope of Bill 62. Subsection 27(3) says the general prohibition doesn't apply to a transfer station. I'm concerned about that proposed exclusion. The transfer station can give rise to the same environmental impacts that I've just outlined: odour, noise, dust etc. It's also not clear to me whether this particular transfer station exclusion would be limited to municipal solid waste, or does it mean any facility that's a transfer station that handles hazardous waste or household hazardous waste? Would that be excluded as well? I'm not sure.
Then we see "recycling facility." There's an attempt there to permit recycling facilities notwithstanding Bill 62. I think recycling facilities are kind of like motherhood and apple pie. Everybody wants them. We certainly need them, but I still have to question the overall wisdom of saying we can put recycling facilities of any size or any magnitude within the plan area. As I mentioned earlier, I think we can all agree there are some special areas in the province of Ontario that should be off limits. I personally do not want to see recycling facilities, as desirable as they are, in an old-growth forest or provincially significant wetland or the plan area, for that matter.
So I don't like clause 27(3)(a). I think it's unnecessary and unduly constrains the scope of Bill 62. But that concern pales in comparison to clause (b), which purports to carve out a very large exception for waste disposal sites so as to enable such sites to be operated in an environmentally sound manner.
If the concern is that we need to have some mechanism to allow the Ministry of Environment to address problem sites, this is not the way to do it. The ministry, in my view, already has sufficient legislative tools under the Environmental Protection Act to deal with problem sites. The ministry, for example, can issue a director's order requiring the immediate cleanup or installation of a leachate collection system or purge wells or whatever might be necessary to bring a site into compliance with the law. We don't need to carve out this kind of exception. When I read this, as a lawyer I can say there are a lot of weasel words in here that lawyers would have a heyday playing with and I think it would be counterproductive to put in this kind of language.
In closing, before I turn it over to Ms Taylor, I would certainly urge this committee to exercise extreme caution when it's considering this kind of amendment. I like Bill 62 as drafted and I don't think this kind of amendment is necessary or appropriate for the escarpment.
The Chair: Welcome, Ms Taylor. There are about 10 minutes to the presentation, but if you want to make some comments please go ahead.
Ms Marion Taylor: My comments will be quite brief. I just wanted to basically support my colleague Rick Lindgren. We are both on the Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment and I would just like to say a word about my organization. The Federation of Ontario Naturalists has a long history in this province of protection for natural areas and wildlife and is also an agency that has given rise to a number of other worthwhile conservation efforts, among them the Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment. It was born at FON and we continue to support it wholeheartedly as we continue to support the Niagara Escarpment plan.
1620
I would like to say too about my own presence here that I'm a constituent, I guess, of Mr Murdoch's. Part of my time is spent in Grey county at Holland Centre so I'm just outside the planning area. I may say that the planning area as it exists is a minuscule portion of what was originally proposed and I would say that most of my area ought to be in that because we're sitting on the water supply for two river systems there. There are springs, there are headwater areas all along the back line on which I live, yet it is not within the plan.
I would simply like to say that I think the time has come in terms of planning that certain lines have to be drawn and, to risk perhaps an offensive illusion, that it's time no meant no in every respect. There are certain areas that by their very nature should not be developed, and I guess it boggles the imagination to think of why anyone would propose to continue to put waste sites on an area which is geologically an area through which water percolates. Certainly the area that I'm in, a large part of the water supply of southern Ontario probably originates there. There's a huge aquifer in the Dundalk area there which they know very little about and it extends for a great distance.
I think the bill is legitimate in opposing further waste sites within the escarpment planning area. I can't logically or rationally see any reason why anyone would propose anything different. It is simply not in anyone's best interests. I stress again, I come back to the idea that I'm looking at a beautiful area, but I'm also looking at water supply. It doesn't make any rational sense to permit continuation of dumps on the escarpment.
Ms Harrington: Thank you both very much for your presentations. Mr Lindgren, you had mentioned that you felt without Bill 62 there was a significant loophole, and I believe you led further to say that you feel there may be another loophole with this amendment. Is that how you're feeling?
Mr Lindgren: That's right. I think the amendment is a slippery slope.
Ms Harrington: I'd like to bring up the case of the city of Niagara Falls. You may be aware of that situation.
Mr Lindgren: I'm not as familiar with it as you, I'm sure. I've been watching it from a distance but I'm not personally involved in it.
Ms Harrington: They may be here speaking too tomorrow, if you're able to come, or anyone. I appreciate you listening. They may have concerns about this bill and I'll tell you why. First of all there may be remedial work needed to our landfill site, which is on the escarpment, and also we have started composting and recycling, which is also at that site. What would you suggest to the city of Niagara Falls or a similar situation?
Mr Lindgren: If they have an existing certificate of approval to carry out that activity they're not going to be caught by Bill 62 in any event. I think that's the short answer.
Mr Stockwell: For remedial work they would be.
Ms Harrington: Okay, so you're saying that Bill 62 without this amendment would be fine?
Mr Lindgren: No. I'm saying, if they already have the necessary approvals to carry out that work, the bill wouldn't catch them.
Ms Harrington: Oh, you're talking about the remedial work only or the closing of the site?
Mr Lindgren: I think we're operating on different wavelengths. What I think I'm hearing is, they have to undertake certain remedial actions on the site. All I'm saying, without being familiar with that situation, is that if they've got the approvals to do it, if the Ministry of Environment and Energy's already said, "Go ahead," then the bill doesn't catch them.
Interjection: They haven't.
Mr Lindgren: I hear some comments over here that they haven't got those approvals. That may be the case. I don't know. I'm just saying if they're got it they won't be caught by the bill.
Ms Harrington: Okay.
Mr Duignan: Do you support amendment 52?
Mr Lindgren: Yes, we do, but it didn't go far enough.
Mr Duignan: Most of the proposed amendments that you see in front of you are included in amendment 52.
Mr Lindgren: That's right. We've supported Bill 62, but that doesn't necessarily mean we support all of the baggage that was attached to it. We certainly supported the purpose and intent of the bill, but I for one didn't like the way in which some of these other things were permitted by way of the back door.
Mr Duignan: Very, very briefly, the whole purpose of subsections 1(2), (3) and (4) is to allow some remedial work to take place at an existing landfill site if needed. It won't add any greater landfill area or landfill unless it's to do that work, to carry out the remedial work.
Mr Lindgren: I guess I would respectfully suggest to you that I make my living interpreting provisions like this and I can tell you this would be just a gold mine for lawyers on both sides of the fence. I'm telling you that it's not even necessary to do this kind of stuff. I'm here to say that the Ministry of Environment can issue a wide variety of administrative orders under the Environmental Protection Act that would require the necessary work without getting into cynical discussions as to whether or not the amendment permits larger or smaller quantities of waste, permits new types of waste, results in a greater service area. Who wants that kind of dispute? Just eliminate it in its entirety up front.
Mr Duignan: I appreciate your comments. Thank you.
Mr Offer: Thank you, Mr Lindgren, for your presentation. We started the day with the bill, we then moved into an amendment and we are now slowly getting into more of an understanding as to what the actual amendment means. Your comments, both on the bill and on the amendment, have been very helpful.
I don't see in this amendment where there is the remedial work permission that has been indicated by Mr Duignan. We're going to have to really take a look at the amendment over the evening to get a full understanding of it.
The bill carries an explanatory note. It says, "The bill amends the Environmental Protection Act to prohibit all further waste management systems and waste disposal sites in the Niagara Escarpment plan area set out in the Niagara Escarpment plan." With this amendment, will that purpose be met?
Mr Lindgren: I would say that if the amendment is passed as proposed, it would certainly impair the fulfilment of that objective. I would say that if you are out to fully achieve that objective, pass the bill as is and as drafted.
Mr Offer: I appreciate your comments. We're going to have to take a look at what this amendment is and get a better understanding as to what its impact may be. Thank you.
Mr Murdoch: Welcome. Was your trip down from our area tough? Is it snowing up home or not?
Ms Taylor: I came down this morning. There's lots.
Mr Murdoch: Oh, you came down this morning. Okay. I came down last night. I thought maybe today was bad.
I've always thought the Niagara Escarpment plan and the commission and everything is like expropriation of people's property without compensation. That's the way I feel about it, and a lot of other people do. You may not. What I'm getting back to is people do own some of the land that these pits and quarries and things are on. Would you be in favour then that the government should buy these lands and maybe the conservation authority or people like that take them over?
Mr Lindgren: With respect, I disagree with the premise of your question, which is that people have these untrammelled rights to use and own and develop property, and if it's in any way constrained by government, they're entitled to compensation. That's a complete non-starter in law, to begin with.
Mr Murdoch: That may be so, but a lot of people don't agree with you. Anyway, go on.
Mr Lindgren: That's what the courts say, and the courts I think have the final say on these legal matters.
Mr Murdoch: We'll see.
Mr Lindgren: They've determined that. It's open to the province of Ontario or any planning authority to enact regulations or laws which constrain or restrict use of land.
Mr Murdoch: You didn't answer my question, though -- I used that as an opener -- and that's fine. As a lawyer, you want to go on with something else, but I asked you the question, would you be in favour of the province buying these lands and turning them over to conservation authorities or things like that?
Mr Lindgren: I'm not sure that the province of Ontario has the necessary economic resources to even attempt that, even if it were a good idea. So the answer is no.
Mr Murdoch: Okay, that's fair. That's what a lot of people have thought would be a good idea. I didn't know that CONE acted that way. You're speaking on behalf of CONE?
Mr Lindgren: When I'm speaking here today, I'm speaking on behalf of both CELA and CONE. CONE does not believe, nor does CELA, that we should necessarily compensate land owners because their right to use property has been constrained or restricted or regulated by law.
Mr Murdoch: But CONE in the past had advocated that a lot of this area be bought and put in park systems and things like that.
Mr Lindgren: There's no doubt that one way to protect natural areas is through property acquisition and management. That's always a good idea in principle, but given the current economic climate, I'm not sure that's a viable option these days. So we'll have to be looking at other ways to protect these areas.
Mr Stockwell: I'm sure there will be some argument with respect to depreciating value and so on. Certainly in a municipal world, downzoning someone's property, which in effect is expropriation without compensation, is certainly actionable and has been actionable in the past, and courts have found in favour of the people who have been downzoned.
Mr Lindgren: That's not right, but go ahead.
Mr Stockwell: It is right. I've been in situations where they have in fact found in favour, where we had to compensate.
As a comment to the statement made -- it was made by the lawyer for CONE and CELA -- that it's fundamentally incompatible to put landfill sites within the locations we're talking about, it was also determined that it was unacceptable to put landfill sites within these regions.
I would add that we never really do have problems determining where we're not going to put landfill sites. There usually isn't a big argument or demonstration. The problem we generally find is where we are going to put the landfill sites. The difficulty you're faced with, I might add further, is if this is fundamentally incompatible, I wonder if you can give me some fundamentally compatible areas where landfill sites should go.
Mr Lindgren: That's to be determined within the site selection process, but I'm here to tell you that the site selection process should operate within certain constraints and does operate within certain constraints. Certain lands are off limits, and I'm here to tell you, very respectfully, the escarpment lands should be off limits to landfilling.
Mr Stockwell: I understand, but the question is that it's fundamentally incompatible. There may be many people who agree with that. I'm sure a lot of them are in the room here today. But the question is, where is it fundamentally compatible to put landfill sites? That's always the problem we end up with, not where not to put them. Always the problem we have is where are we going to put them, and if we have fundamentally incompatible sites, we can only therefore assume there must be fundamentally compatible sites. I'd just like to know where they are so we could just go ahead with it and we wouldn't have to have these meetings.
Mr Lindgren: The fact is landfill sites do get selected and approved within the province of Ontario.
Mr Stockwell: So you say where they're sited today are fundamentally compatible sites?
Mr Lindgren: No. I'm just saying to you it's not impossible to locate and site a landfill in Ontario.
Mr Stockwell: It's not impossible to find a fundamentally compatible site that everyone can agree on is a good place for a landfill site?
Mr Lindgren: There are some what they call willing host communities that exist.
Mr Stockwell: Can you name one?
Mr Lindgren: I prefer not to name them on the record, but there have been situations where landfill sites have either been expanded or proposed with the support of the local municipalities.
Mr Stockwell: So if the local municipality would want a landfill site as part of even this region, it's unacceptable?
Mr Lindgren: It's unacceptable for the larger policy and technical reasons that I outlined earlier.
Mr Stockwell: I understand. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Chiarelli, one last comment.
Mr Chiarelli: Does a waste management system or a waste disposal site include a single-service lot, septic-tank type of situation? Are we saying here that if there is a farm or a lot or a piece of property on which you could now build a single residence with a septic tank, you won't be able to do that?
Mr Lindgren: I couldn't answer that off the top of my head, because the phrase --
Mr Chiarelli: Is it not a significant point?
Mr Lindgren: Just let me finish. The phrases "waste disposal site" and "waste management facility" are defined with a great deal of precision under the regulations. You'll see that there are a lot of things that are included as waste management facilities and waste disposal sites, but a lot of them are then exempted from the operation of the act. It's a very circuitous route, if you will, as to what's caught and what's not by the definition. So I couldn't offer you an opinion.
Mr Chiarelli: Are you suggesting that you can't tell us right now that it does or doesn't include single-lot servicing?
Mr Lindgren: I can't tell you off the top of my head.
The Chair: Ms Taylor and Mr Lindgren, thank you very much for your presentation today.
This committee will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The committee adjourned at 1632.