CONTENTS
Thursday 17 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
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:
Caplan, Elinor (Oriole L) for Mr Chiarelli
Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND) for Mr Winninger
Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC) for Mr Harnick
MacKinnon, Ellen (Lambton ND) for Mr Malkowski
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
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Ministry of Environment and Energy:
Nixon, Brian, director, environmental planning branch
Ng, Wilfred, director, approvals branch
Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel: MacKinnon, Margaret, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1016 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): I ask Mr Wilfred Ng and Brian Nixon to come forward. Mr Wilfred Ng is the director of the approvals branch and Mr Brian Nixon is the director of the environmental planning branch. Welcome. You've obviously been briefed about the questions you will be asked, but I want to have the members ask you directly.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Mr Chair, just as a preliminary matter, yesterday we took about a 15- or a 20-minute exercise and put our questions on the record, with ministry staff available. I had anticipated that they were coming here with the initial responses to our questions. Or why did we ask the questions yesterday?
The Chair: Do you have answers to those questions that were asked by the members yesterday?
Mr Brian Nixon: No.
The Chair: But someone in the ministry passed on the questions to you, so you were aware of them. No?
Mr Nixon: I wasn't aware that the committee had set questions for us to answer, Mr Chairman.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Okay, big deal. Let's move on. We'll ask the questions again. Could the clerk remind us what our questions were?
The Chair: The clerk has made a note of a number of the questions you've asked, so it will help to refresh your memories. Mr Offer, do you want to begin?
Mr Offer: Yes, and I guess we'll do this in some sort of rotation for a degree of fairness.
Does the Ministry of Environment and Energy, does the government of the province of Ontario, support this piece of legislation?
Mr Wilfred Ng: I understand that this bill is a private member's bill, and as far as I'm concerned, I'm not aware of any position the ministry has taken on this issue. My involvement on this bill is to provide technical advice to the member for the bill on its impact on waste management activities in the Niagara Escarpment Commission area through the minister's office, but we have not addressed the issue of whether we support the bill or not.
Mr Offer: These are very important questions that all the members are going to ask ministry staff. I will just make this comment before I pass to my colleague. The problem I have with respect to that response -- and I understand that that is your response, and I don't question that -- is that the first question I asked of Mr Duignan in this committee, at approximately 1:30 last Monday, was whether the ministry supported the legislation. The answer was yes.
Mr Ng: As I said earlier, I'm not aware of any position the ministry has taken on this issue and I have no direct knowledge of what the member based his comment on.
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): One of the questions I have is the distinction between "plan area" and "planning area." I've heard a couple of times here that if it's in the planning area, what's in this private member's bill won't cover it, and also that maybe the planning area is a concept that doesn't apply any more. If a property is just outside the plan area, that green spot on that map over there, if it's just outside that but probably within the area the NEC has the right to comment on, is it affected by the bill, either in the form it was passed in on second reading or in the proposed amendments? Have you seen these proposed amendments?
Mr Nixon: Yes.
Mr Murphy: Would something in that planning area be covered by either the bill or the amendments?
Mr Nixon: Not based on my interpretation of the bill. It refers to the plan area covered by the plan.
Mr Murphy: I want to ask where the RSI application is at this point. Is there an application pending for RSI?
Mr Ng: With respect to the RSI situation, we have been meeting with RSI to discuss the issue of effluent quality for the proposed undertaking. I understand RSI has been discussing with the EA board about when the hearing would be reconvened. I believe the application was submitted quite a number of years ago and there was a ruling by the board, and RSI is in the process of reconvening the issue back with the board.
Mr Murphy: Does the minister have to refer the application to a joint board?
Mr Ng: I'm not too sure whether the minister has on this one.
Mr Murphy: But as far as you're aware, RSI has made applications, at some point between applying and actually having a new joint board reconstituted. They had one hearing once, I gather, which didn't proceed because of a technical reason. Is that your understanding as well?
Mr Ng: That's my understanding.
Mr Murphy: So there is an application that is extant.
Mr Ng: That's my understanding.
Mr Offer: In the event that the bill passes into law, is there, in your opinion, a cause of action by RSI against the province of Ontario?
Mr Ng: I don't think my personal opinion is relevant to this issue.
Mr Offer: I'm sorry. I wasn't asking for any personal opinions at all. I was asking you as a member of the Ministry of Environment --
Mr Murphy: Providing advice to the government.
Mr Ng: You've touched on a very broad policy question, and I'm not too sure whether I can answer that question today. I would like to be able to, but I'm sorry, I can't.
Mr Murphy: Can you come back to us with the answer to that question?
Mr Ng: I don't think I'm the one who would be coming back to answer the question.
Mr Murphy: Is there somebody here who can assist you in that, or someone you can ask who can then ask who can tell us?
Mr Ng: If I had to take a stab at it, I would say it should be the legal people who look at the liability issue.
Mr Murphy: Then can you do me a favour? Can you ask the legal people in the Ministry of Environment that question and undertake to provide us with an answer?
Mr Ng: I can convey the message to legal.
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Can I have a supplementary?
The Chair: Do you mind?
Mr Murphy: We'll steal a bit of his time.
Mr Jackson: Are you, as technical advisers to this bill, suggesting that at no point have you asked a question of any member of your staff, when the issue of litigation is a central point in a very small bill? At no point have you had a conversation with staff in the last few months since you've been aware of this bill? Is that what you're suggesting to this committee?
Mr Ng: When we reviewed the implications of the bill, we did look at the liability aspect, but my staff and myself do not have any expertise in this area so we did not --
Mr Jackson: That's not what I asked you. I asked if you've ever had any conversations within your ministry about the issue of litigation. I understand your concern, that you read the bill and saw it dealt with the issue of suing or not being able to sue the government. My question is, have you ever in the last few months had a conversation, at any time, with staff, any staff, regarding the liability issue? I'm just trying to determine how serious an oversight this is for the technical staff who have come prepared today to deal with this bill.
Mr Ng: Like I said, we have identified this to be an issue to be looked into, but we haven't delved too deeply into the issue ourselves. We have identified this to be one issue to be looked at.
Mr Offer: To continue on that point before I move to another area, who is it who provides legal opinion to the ministry on matters such as these? Is it the Ministry of the Attorney General?
Mr Nixon: All the directors of the legal branches in the various ministries work for the Attorney General, so the advice is provided by the director of the legal branch in each of the ministries to the minister.
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): On a point of order, Mr Chair: Do we not have legal opinion? I have a copy of legal opinion, and I wondered what --
The Chair: Yes, legal opinion's distributed on the --
Mr Murphy: That's not the point. We're asking whether there was a view that there was a cause of action and therefore this takes away that cause of action.
Mr Offer: Would the amendment as presently worded stop remediation work on a site that has been closed for any number of years?
Mr Ng: As far as I understand, the amended version does not prohibit that, does not stop remedial work to be carried out a site.
Mr Offer: That has been closed?
Mr Ng: That has been closed, because the regional director can issue an order for remedial activities.
Mr Offer: The regional director?
Mr Ng: The ministry is divided into six regions, with six regional offices. There are a number of responsibilities the regional director can undertake, and it's one of the responsibilities of the regional directors.
Mr Offer: The city of Niagara Falls currently has a matter under petition to the cabinet. The petition is to ask for the life of an existing landfill to be extended in terms of years, from seven more years to nine more years, I believe. In the event that this legislation passes prior to either the cabinet deciding on that petition or the city of Niagara Falls withdrawing that petition, would the city be caught?
Mr Ng: I don't believe the city would be caught, because the amendment indicates that if they've received a certificate of approval now, then the bill would not affect that situation. The certificate of approval was issued to the Mountain Road landfill a number of months ago, so they've got a certificate of approval already. My understanding is they would not get caught.
1030
Mr Murphy: My question is around the phrase "environmentally sound manner" and is twofold. First, it's not clear to me who makes that determination from how this amendment works, and the second is what you understand that to mean. It comes up in a few places, but you'll see it in clauses 27(3)(b)(i) and (iv) --
Mr Ng: I think what that means is that to close off the site, you may have to bring more materials in to provide the proper contour of the site.
Mr Murphy: What you are telling me is what you think it means. Has the ministry taken a look at what this means in any official way? Have you got a legal opinion on what it means, and do you have a legal understanding of how that issue is to be determined?
Mr Ng: I think that issue will be determined by the director of the approvals branch, because it falls within the mandate of the approvals director.
Mr Murphy: Did the ministry help in the drafting of this amendment?
Mr Ng: We looked at the bill initially and its impact on waste management activities and we provided those comments to the minister's office, but we did not draft the bill ourselves.
Mr Murphy: Does the ministry think there are any loopholes in its current legislation that require Bill 62 to be passed?
Mr Ng: Could you --
Mr Stockwell: Ask an easier question.
The Chair: Could you repeat the question, Mr Murphy?
Mr Murphy: Are there any loopholes in the current legislation, as far as the Ministry of Environment is concerned, that require Bill 62 to be passed to achieve what Mr Duignan is trying to achieve?
Mr Ng: My understanding is this bill is a private member's bill.
Mr Murphy: I think we share that understanding.
Mr Ng: I'm coming to a response to your question. Like I said before, the ministry has not taken a position on this bill, so whether or not this bill is because the ministry's got a loophole in existing legislation I don't think is a relevant question.
Mr Murphy: Oh, it's very relevant, but I know you're in a difficult spot and I don't want to belabour the point.
Mr Stockwell: I understand the predicament you're faced with, because you're in a very awkward situation. Let me read through this, not to get you to answer the question about whether the ministry supports or does not support this bill. Let me trace you through the history of this, and maybe you can answer the questions and we can all draw our own conclusions.
I read with some interest the preliminary hearing that was conducted by the joint board between June 1 and June 11, 1992. Have you read that?
Mr Ng: No, I haven't.
Mr Stockwell: This was being heard at the very same time the member was presenting his private member's bill, Bill 62 -- the original bill, not the amended bill. Reading through that joint board hearing, there were many interesting comments made. If the ministry had real concerns with respect to this particular landfill site, with respect to groundwater, with respect to its feasibility and so on, would these kind of concerns have arisen during that joint board hearings?
Mr Ng: I would say yes.
Mr Stockwell: Reading on, there were many conclusions drawn with respect to this landfill site at that joint board hearing. In fact, many of the same issues were brought forward by many of the same people at that joint board hearing that we've heard this past week, yet in the conclusion of that joint board hearing, ministry officials basically said, "This should move on to the next stage." Would you agree?
Mr Ng: I wasn't that much involved with the initial hearing, but my understanding of the hearing is that it went to the joint board, there was some discussion during the preliminary hearing, and I believe at the end of the preliminary hearing the board indicated that because of legality, they would not entertain the proposal any further. That is as far as I understand the issues, so I'm in an awkward situation to respond to your question because I wasn't that much involved at that time.
Mr Stockwell: Do you think the present legislation, properly followed, would ferret out a bad application for a landfill site, such as this one if it is in fact deemed to be a bad application? Would the present-day legislation do that?
Mr Ng: I would have to say yes, that's what the process is for.
Mr Stockwell: Does your ministry believe the legislation you've written to ferret out bad applications is good legislation that has worked in the past and should work in the future?
Mr Ng: I don't think I've ever questioned the integrity of the ministry's legislation.
Mr Stockwell: The ministry has gone to great lengths, including the members opposite, of not giving a position on this particular application -- great lengths. In fact, the members opposite voted that we not be allowed to ask the minister to appear. The members opposite voted that we not allow the minister to write a letter. They suggested that it wouldn't be worthwhile having the minister's political staff come here. No offense, but we're down to you, and you can't give us a political answer on Bill 62. We're now left in the situation of having to assume what the ministry's position will be, because nobody will tell us what the ministry's position will be.
If you thought the legislation was flawed and this bill was needed, would you as a ministry have brought forward this kind of legislation?
Mr Ng: It all comes back to my initial comment about the position the ministry has taken on this issue. As I've said many times, the ministry has not taken a position on this issue and I don't believe I can answer your question.
Mr Stockwell: Does the ministry consider Bill 62 consistent with existing policies and procedures of the ministry?
Mr Ng: I believe the spirit of Bill 62 is in keeping with the NEC act. Brian would have to help me out with this one.
Mr Stockwell: Let me repeat the question for him. Does the ministry consider Bill 62 to be consistent with the existing policies and procedures of the ministry?
Mr Nixon: That's the same question as you asked before about what the ministry's position is on the bill.
Mr Stockwell: No. I'm just asking you, does the ministry consider Bill 62 to be consistent with the existing policies and procedures of the ministry? That's a very simple question. I'm not asking whether you support or endorse Bill 62. I'm just asking, do you consider Bill 62 to be consistent with your present adopted policies?
Mr Nixon: I couldn't answer that, because I think it harks back to the question about whether there's a position here and whether there's a policy around this sort of bill, which seeks to specifically prohibit a land use.
Mr Stockwell: Mr Duignan suggested that the only reason this application came forward is because of loopholes in the legislation. Do you think this proposal for the Acton quarry is only made because of loopholes in the existing legislation, as stated by the member?
Mr Ng: I think it's the same question about whether the ministry would be taking a position on this issue, and I can't answer that question.
Mr Stockwell: Mr Chair, that's a pretty simple question. I don't think it's political in nature. I'm not asking for their position on Bill 62. The member from Halton suggested the only reason --
Mr Murphy: If I can help clarify, the question is whether you think the process that is established now, of applying for approvals, the joint board process, all of that, is in some way flawed and requires being fixed up by Bill 62.
Mr Ng: In my earlier response, I said I've never questioned the integrity of the process. Like I said, this is a private member's bill and the ministry has not taken a position on this issue.
1040
Mr Murphy: The bottom line is that you're saying the process has integrity, which means there's nothing wrong with it that needs fixing.
Mr Ng: That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I haven't questioned the integrity of the existing process. This is a private member's bill. Whether it has merit or not, the ministry has not taken a position on this issue.
Mr Stockwell: If Bill 62 is allowed to proceed and becomes law, do you agree that it would halt the proceedings to date with respect to RSI and the ministry?
Mr Ng: Halt the proceedings of what?
Mr Stockwell: Would stop it dead in its tracks, would become a non-starter.
Mr Ng: Based on the wording in the proposed bill, I would say yes.
Mr Stockwell: Is that consistent with your Bill 143 policies; with regard to passing legislation that absolutely and categorically takes an entire region of this province off the table for a landfill site?
Mr Ng: Again you've asked me a very broad policy question. Bill 143 underwent great debate when it was passed. We are here to address the technical aspects of the bill, but you have asked me a very broad policy question which I don't think I am able to answer at this point in time.
Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): Getting back to the whole question about RSI's application -- and not being a lawyer, but however -- it's my understanding that it was five days of preliminary hearings, but the hearing itself did not take place before the joint board because there wasn't sufficient information from RSI for the joint board to hear.
Mr Ng: Like I said earlier, I wasn't involved with it at that time, but my understanding was that there was a preliminary hearing held at that time and because of procedural matters, the board indicated it would not further the hearing at that time. That's my understanding.
Mr Duignan: So therefore the joint board did not hear an application from RSI because there wasn't sufficient information for it to go to the board.
Mr Murphy: Noel, that's not what he said.
Mr Stockwell: And that's not true. I read it last night.
Mr Duignan: It is quite true. It did not appear in front of the joint board. In fact, at this point in time, RSI has an application with the NEC to do an amendment based on amendment 52, but it has not been initiated. Is that correct?
Mr Nixon: In checking with the commission, I understand they've had a long-standing application in to amend the plan and they've supplied more information recently to the commission to evaluate the application.
Mr Duignan: But it hasn't been initiated at this point.
Mr Nixon: I'm sorry. I don't know what you mean by initiated.
Mr Duignan: There is no application for a joint board hearing at this point, is there?
Mr Murphy: Yes, there is.
Mr Duignan: Is there? That's what I'm asking.
Mr Stockwell: You've been saying for three days that there isn't. Why are you asking the question?
The Chair: Mr Duignan has the floor to ask questions. Allow him to finish his questions.
Mr Jackson: He needs time to understand it, not to ask it.
Mr Duignan: I quite understand it.
Mr Stockwell: Yeah, sure. Have you read it?
Mr Duignan: Yes, I did.
The Chair: Allow him to finish asking his questions.
Mr Duignan: You've read the proposed amendment from St Catharines. Does the proposed amendment from St Catharines cover all the problems Niagara Falls had in relation to my amendment and my Bill 62?
Mr Ng: My understanding is the city of St Catharines has a number of proposals on the table now. Depending on what option they choose, the bill may or may not affect St Catharines. If they're going to use the existing cells for disposal, the proposed amendment will not catch the city of St Catharines. But if they were to choose another option, which is to go higher, this amendment may catch them. This is my understanding. It all depends on what option they go to.
Mr Offer: Could we be very clear on what amendment we are talking about? I say that in no critical sense, except that every person who came before this committee directed their comments, in the main, to the proposed amendment by Mr Duignan. You are now responding to an amendment. I don't know what amendment you're responding to.
The Chair: You're quite aware of the original amendment Mr Duignan proposed and the draft amendment that he --
Mr Ng: I'm commenting on the copy I received yesterday.
The Chair: The draft?
Mr Ng: I've seen that version this morning, but only about, I would say, 20 minutes ago. I'm in no position to comment on that version, so my comment now is on the one I received yesterday. I recap my opinion about the city of St Catharines: Depending on what options it goes to, it may or may not affect them.
Mr Duignan: You have seen the proposed Liberal amendment to Bill 62. You saw it about 20 minutes ago, but you require more time to review that and see whether that will fit in with the concerns of Niagara Falls.
Mr Offer: I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding what amendment we are referring to. No amendment has been put forward, certainly by our caucus. We have certain ones we have prepared. They are prepared on a certain assumption, and now I'm hearing that there are different assumptions taking place.
Mr Chair, let me put it to you. I have a real concern with the bill essentially being changed in whole -- not in part; wholly changed -- the morning of clause-by-clause. I will say very clearly that people came before this committee and spoke in the main on the amendment Mr Duignan had indicated he was going to move, and all of a sudden, we're hearing that we weren't talking about that bill at all. I have to know, first, what amendment we are talking about. Second, does it catch St Catharines, does it catch Niagara Falls? Is there a possibility that it does? Is there a legal ramification for any of those cities, including the RSI application?
I am hearing from ministry officials that some of the statements about applications by RSI, that we had been told on the record were not made -- those applications have in fact been made, so all of a sudden I have a different idea about where its particular matter was in terms of the hearing process.
On the bill and the amendment of Mr Duignan, the one you held up, that two-page amendment, it has sub (4) at the bottom. It's the legal liability exclusion. I just want to make sure we're talking about the right amendment. Is that the one?
The Chair: Yes. He's speaking to the draft that we were all debating for the last three days. That's what he was speaking to.
Mr Offer: I'm glad the Chair agrees.
1050
The Chair: They're answering questions based on what we've been dealing with for the last three days, not any new motion has been proposed as of 10 o'clock.
Mr Offer: There has been no motion proposed.
The Chair: That will be proposed or will be advanced this morning.
Mr Offer: There has been no motion proposed.
Will the concerns of the city of St Catharines, and indeed the community groups in St Catharines, and will the concerns by the city of Niagara Falls be met if that motion is passed?
Mr Ng: If the amendment goes through the way it is -- I'm basing my comments on this version now -- it will not catch Mountain Road, and I believe that's what I said earlier. They've been issued a certificate of approval. Even though there is an appeal pending before the cabinet, this bill would not have any impact on Mountain Road.
With respect to the city of St Catharines, as I said earlier, there are a number of proposals on the table. Depending on what option they go with, the amendment may or may not have any impact on the city of St Catharines. One of the options is to use existing cells. If that were the case, this amendment would not catch the city of St Catharines. If they were to go higher, the amendment may have an impact on the city of St Catharines.
Mr Offer: Thank you. You've been very clear.
Mr Stockwell: Is the ministry aware of any proposal that's been subject to an environmental assessment and which, during the course of the proceedings, the environmental assessment has been terminated by a private member's bill?
Mr Ng: I'm not aware of any myself.
Mr Stockwell: I didn't hear your answer to the question from the member from Halton about application toward the joint board. Was the answer yes, there is an application to the joint board?
Mr Ng: I need to get some clarification on that myself. I think I'm a little bit confused myself about whether we have an application in or not, but I'll undertake to clarify that aspect.
Mr Stockwell: Is the ministry satisfied that the RSI applications which are presently before the joint board -- I think, but according to the member from Halton they're not, and I'd really like a clarification on that; he's been telling us all week they're not, and if they are, that makes a big difference -- are heard and determined by the joint board on the respective merits, the interest of the ministry and the citizens of Ontario will be fully protected, in your opinion?
Mr Ng: I'm sure the board would deal with all kinds of issues with the goal of protecting the wellbeing of the general public, but I cannot speculate about what the board may rule on this issue. All I can say is that there is a process in place and all the issues will be dealt with during the process.
Mr Stockwell: Mr Chair, through you, I've seen on private members' bills a number of times -- well, not a number of times, but at least since I've been here, which is not long. I recall the Liberal member's bill moving the age of sports lotteries to 18, and the government jumped in with both feet and endorsed that private member's bill. It seems to me it has done this in the past. Could you give me any reason why the government is not prepared to give us an opinion on whether it supports Bill 62? I'd just like to have the rationale.
Mr Ng: I wish I could, but I can't.
Mr Stockwell: I have no further questions.
Mr Offer: You will know that this week the government proclaimed the Environmental Bill of Rights. Is it, in your opinion, possible that the passage of this bill may contravene the principles enunciated in the Environmental Bill of Rights?
Mr Ng: I'm trying to give you an honest response to this one, but since I'm not involved in the whole EBR process, there may be some elements in the EBR process I'm not familiar with.
Mr Offer: Can you give me a best available?
Mr Ng: I'm sorry, I can't answer that question. Unless I'm fully versed in the whole issue, I would not be able to give you an indication one way or the other.
Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Can I ask a supplementary to that? I think that's really important.
The Chair: Sure. Ms Caplan will ask a question, Mr Stockwell will have a final one, we'll move to the government members to see if they have any questions, and then we will move into clause-by-clause.
Mrs Caplan: I found this discussion very interesting, and I'm having trouble understanding why you're having difficulty on the policy side of the questions. As we have legislation, the Environmental Bill of Rights, that has just been passed, I think it's important that the committee, which is going to be asked in a few minutes to vote on this, know that what we're doing here will not contravene a piece of legislation that has just been proclaimed.
So let me ask it the other way: Can you guarantee the committee that Bill 62 will not contravene the Environmental Bill of Rights or Bill 143, both of which were passed by this government in the last little while?
Mr Ng: As I said, I don't know enough to make a judgement on that issue.
Mrs Caplan: Is there anyone who can come before the committee to give us that information? That's critical for us to know before we vote on a piece of legislation.
The Chair: They can't answer that question.
Mrs Caplan: Can anybody come, Mr Chair?
The Chair: I am not certain at this point.
Mr Stockwell: I have a question about Bill 143 and the legislation surrounding that. It seems to me, as I recall Bill 143, that when searching for a landfill site, the socialist opinion was that you must examine all available sites, right? That was the cornerstone of Bill 143. The second foundation block of Bill 143 was everyone must dispose of their waste within the boundaries of their region, was it not?
Mr Ng: It's one of the principles.
Mr Stockwell: Let me ask you this. Say Halton has to find a landfill site some time in the future and it has to examine all available sites and it must dispose of its waste within its region. Would this bill not in fact go against the legislation adopted on Bill 143? We're excluding a huge area, not just Halton, but eight regions would then have to exclude huge tracts of land within their area, which is exactly what Bill 143 said you couldn't do. Wouldn't you agree to that?
Mr Ng: It would appear that the bill would have that kind of impact. This is why I said the ministry has not taken a position on this issue, because without going through a detailed analysis, we would not be able to come to a position.
Mr Stockwell: Mr Chair, maybe you can assist me on this. I'm not certain that this bill doesn't contravene the Environmental Bill of Rights that was just proclaimed with fanfare, balloons and confetti. I'm also not so sure it doesn't contravene Bill 143, which was proclaimed with far less confetti, fanfare and balloons. It seems to me, and you'd know this being a good member of the government, that it must contravene Bill 143, because if we adopt Bill 62, eight regional governments can no longer look for the best available site within their region because we've excluded huge tracts of land within those regions.
The Chair: Mr Stockwell --
Mr Stockwell: I'm asking you a question.
The Chair: It's not for me to answer, because --
Mr Stockwell: I'm asking you, how do we get the answer to that question and the question asked by --
The Chair: These are statements you can make, that you are making --
Mr Jackson: A point of order, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Hold on, Mr Jackson. Mr Stockwell, to your point, this is a statement you're making. I cannot answer your question, nor would I. These are statements you can make, that you are making, either in response to the motions that are going to come forward or not.
1100
Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: My colleague was asking a question and seeking the guidance of the Chair. He specifically uttered the words, "We need your direction to find an answer to these questions." These were not comments, Mr Chairman. This is a point of order --
The Chair: It's not a point of order, but I hear what you're saying. The guidance, he cannot get from this Chair. These answers he cannot get through me.
Mr Jackson: I didn't ask you to answer the question, Mr Chairman. This is not a point of clarification, it's a point of order.
The Chair: It's not a point of order, Mr Jackson.
Mr Jackson: You haven't heard my point of order. If you'd stop arguing with me, Mr Chairman, and allow me to place my point of order according to the rules of this House --
The Chair: Place your point of order then. We can't have a preamble that will last for ever. State your point of order.
Mr Jackson: The point of order is that a member of the committee has asked the Chair for guidance in how to seek an answer to a question. For the Chair to insist that he's making a comment, the Chair is not listening to my colleague.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Jackson, for your comment. Mr Stockwell asked me to help him, and I made my comment on his statement or question.
Mr Stockwell: Then can I ask you this, just this motion? Could I ask this committee to stand down our clause-by-clause until these two very important questions are answered about whether this bill contravenes two previous pieces of legislation adopted and passed in the Legislature?
The Chair: This is a private member's bill.
Mr Stockwell: I've heard that before.
Mr Murphy: He made a motion, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Is that a motion, Mr Stockwell?
Mr Stockwell: It's a motion moved by my friend Mr Murdoch; I don't have standing at this committee.
The Chair: Mr Murdoch, are you moving that motion?
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Yes.
The Chair: Debate on that motion, Mr Murdoch?
Mr Murdoch: No. We'd just like to vote.
The Chair: Okay, we'll move to the motion. All in favour of the motion? Opposed? That is defeated.
Mr Stockwell: Mr Chairman, I'd like to know what the vote was.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Mr Stockwell: So you voted against it?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Offer: May I ask the guidance of the Chair in this matter, and maybe of the clerk and legislative counsel?
Interjections.
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Mr Chair, I don't think he understands how the system works.
The Chair: It's not helpful.
Mr Murphy: When was the last time Tony was helpful?
Mr Jackson: Well, we can thank him for bringing these people today.
The Chair: Mr Offer, please begin.
Mr Offer: I have a slight concern that has been raised as a result of some of the questions and answers, that notwithstanding the wording of the bill, indeed the passage of the bill may contravene a law of the province of Ontario. I'm not saying "will" but "may." I have a concern when any legislative committee undertakes to pass a bill which is potentially against the law. I would like your guidance about whether that is a problem, for any committee. If the bill exempted itself from the operation of the Environmental Bill of Rights and from Bill 143, of course my concern would be ill-founded; that would be another issue. But my concern is that it doesn't and we might be.
The Chair: Let me state my opinion as I see it. We were discussing a draft amendment that may now appear not to be moved at all. We are now in a situation to discuss motions that are going to be proposed this morning. Given that we're going to be talking about different kinds of motions this morning, I'm not certain whether some of your comments apply. That's my first point.
My second point is, once accepted or once approved by this committee, whatever way, it would then go for third reading. The ministry is then involved with this bill. As I see it, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, the ministry would then be involved with this bill.
Mr Stockwell: No, they're not. It's a private member's bill.
The Chair: Presumably it would be referred to committee of the whole for debate if there appeared to be a problem from the ministry point of view, right?
Mr Jackson: In order words, it goes to the House.
The Chair: It would go to the House.
Mr Jackson: If it's called.
The Chair: I wanted to get to these motions that are before us, and the motion that's before us is a Liberal motion.
Mr Offer: No, no, no, Mr Chair. There has been no motion moved by the Liberal Party on any matter. There were certain assumptions in existence when that was drafted --
The Chair: You're quite right. I'm assuming that the motion you made this morning you would be moving this morning. Am I assuming incorrectly?
Mr Offer: My assumptions on all of those things have been changed, based on information --
Mr Stockwell: Can we get direction from the government? Are they moving the amendment we've been debating for three or four days?
The Chair: Mr Duignan, I think it's useful to ask you, what are we moving?
Mr Duignan: Mr Chair, a couple of points. I would have liked the privilege of asking a further question of the ministry staff here. You gave the courtesy to a member, who's not a member of this committee, to ask a question.
The Chair: We can deal with this other matter. If you have another question, that's fine.
Mr Duignan: I want to return to Bill 143, for example. Does Bill 143 exclude the Halton area from a landfill search?
Mr Nixon: I can't recall whether the bill does or if the process is excluded, but it did exclude the Niagara Escarpment, either the process or the bill. I'm not familiar with the details of the bill.
Mr Duignan: And, as I understand it, Halton as well, so I think that answers some of the questions asked across the way.
Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The member suggested that that answers a lot of the questions. I just ask for clarification: So that policy with respect to looking for all available sites, that everything's on the table and nothing can be excluded, is not a policy of the government.
Interjections.
Mr Stockwell: I'm looking for clarification.
The Chair: Mr Duignan had the question. That was answered. Mr Stockwell is seeking clarification.
Mr Nixon: I just qualify my answer because I'm not familiar with the details of 143. I understand either the process or the specific requirements of the bill screened out the Niagara Escarpment for site selection purposes.
Mr Stockwell: That then means that when looking for a site in Halton or any of the regions that have any part of the Niagara Escarpment, that has been stated a policy by the government, that they've screened out the Niagara Escarpment.
Mr Nixon: I can't recall specifically.
Mr Stockwell: It's clear as mud, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Mr Duignan, you were the person who had the floor to ask your final question, so please do that and then we'll excuse these other individuals.
Mr Duignan: I just wanted clarification in regard to the Halton region and 143 and the exclusion of the Niagara Escarpment from the landfill search area.
You asked whether I was moving my draft motion --
The Chair: Mr Duignan, before you do that, I thought we should end our questions with the ministry staff. Have we done that?
Thank you very much for attending today to answer our questions.
With respect to whatever motions we've moving today, Mr Duignan, are you moving anything?
Mr Duignan: Mr Chair, the whole purpose of public hearings is to hear public input on a particular piece of legislation, be it a private or be it a public bill. Most amendments to a bill don't happen until clause-by-clause turns around and then we begin to discuss those particular amendments. To facilitate debate on my Bill 62, I circulated a draft of a proposed amendment I would make during the clause-by-clause process to help facilitate debate.
After listening to a number of people making presentation here during the course of the last couple of days, Mr Chair, I will not be moving that draft of the amendment, but I will be moving support for the Liberal motion that I understand has been filed with the committee, if they move it. If not, I will be moving something similar to it. I have a couple of little problems with that particular motion, but we're generally in agreement and support that particular Liberal motion.
Mr Stockwell: How about a week of public hearings?
Mr Murphy: On the new bill.
Mr Offer: Mr Chair, the long and short of all this is that we are now sitting, after four days, and we have not had one public submission on Bill 62 as is now in the mind of the member. The member shakes his head, but Mr Chair, you will know, and everybody who is in the audience who made presentation will know.
POWER, one of the very interested groups, I believe has sent a letter in support of Mr Duignan's motion, the Niagara Escarpment Commission has indicated support of the amendment, and people came before the committee making presentations and directing their minds to the amendment, because the amendment became the bill. There was no other section except the amendment.
Now what we hear is that that amendment, which was the subject matter of the public hearings, is not going to be the subject matter of clause-by-clause. It seems we have been sitting here for four days discussing something which is never going to be in existence.
I do not know what the position of the Niagara Escarpment Commission is, or the position of anybody who came before this hearing, on this bill as is now attempted to be proposed by the member. We are now moving into an area that we don't know what people's opinions, comments and concerns on the bill are going to be because of this little matter that the member has now -- it's a debacle, it's an absolute debacle.
Mr Duignan: On a point of order, Mr Chairman --
The Chair: I will give you the opportunity to respond if that's what we need to do, okay?
Mr Perruzza: Mr Chair, I suggest we send him the Hansards of the committee hearings.
Mr Duignan: The intent of the Liberal motion does not change the intent of my bill whatsoever. What we're doing is addressing some of the concerns raised by the city of St Catharines and possibly by the city of Niagara Falls. This does not change one little bit the intent of my bill. The purpose of these public hearings was to discuss Bill 62. As I said, my draft amendment helped to facilitate that, to address some of the concerns raised by some of the individuals. The intent of this amendment does not change my bill. In fact, it's very similar to my draft amendment, clauses (a) and (b) of this particular motion.
There are four other private member's bills up for discussion, some this week, some in a couple of weeks' time. For example, there's another private member's bill being discussed this week to which there's somewhere between 23 and 27 amendments.
So this is not unique. This is a private member's bill, not a public bill, and in fact I do not know of any public bill going before committee that's passed committee without some substantial amendments to it, be it a Liberal, Tory or NDP bill.
Mr Huget: Mr Chairman, could I request a 20-minute recess? Perhaps in that time the government member may discuss what his intentions are and clarify some of the confusion with the opposition members, and then we'll resume at 11:35.
The Chair: We'll recess for approximately five minutes. Is that sufficient, do you think?
Mr Stockwell: No, we need more than five minutes.
The Chair: We'll recess until 11:30.
The committee recessed from 1113 to 1135.
The Chair: I call the meeting to order. Mr Duignan.
Mr Duignan: I understand we have an agreement that we will adjourn till 2 o'clock.
The Chair: Very well. This committee adjourns until 2 this afternoon.
The committee recessed from 1135 to 1407.
The Chair: I call the meeting to order. We're ready to proceed with the clause-by-clause.
Mr Stockwell: Of what?
The Chair: Amendment of Bill 62, this bill.
Mr Murphy: Why don't we ask the author of the bill to move his amendment?
The Chair: What we have, in the way the clerk has helped us to organize this, is a Liberal motion. The clerk can actually comment on this, if you want.
Mr Murphy: Let Noel move his amendment.
The Chair: Let's do that. Mr Duignan, move your motion.
Mr Duignan: I move that section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"1 (1) Section 27 of the Environmental Protection Act is amended by adding the following subsections:
"Niagara Escarpment plan area
"27 (2) Despite subsection (1), no person shall use, operate, establish, alter, enlarge or extend a waste disposal site in the Niagara Escarpment plan area as set out in the Niagara Escarpment plan, unless the director has issued a certificate of approval or a provisional certificate of approval before this subsection comes into force.
"Exceptions
"(3) Subsection (2) does not apply with respect to,
"(a) a transfer station or recycling facility, including a composting site, which receives waste only from the local municipality in which it is located; or
"(b) in the case of a site approved before this subsection comes into force, a proposed use, operation, alteration, enlargement or extension of a waste disposal site which will not result in a greater area at a landfill site being covered with waste than permitted under the existing approval.
"No proceeding
"(4) No proceeding directly or indirectly based upon the prohibition in subsection (2) may be brought against the crown in right of Ontario, the government of Ontario, any member of the executive council or any employee of the crown or government."
The Chair: Debate?
Mr Stockwell: Debate on the amendment itself? We'll wait until clause-by-clause.
The Chair: We are on clause-by-clause now.
Mr Stockwell: Oh, of course, one clause.
Mr Offer: It's just "clause," not "clause-by-clause."
Mr Stockwell: Clause 3(b) says "in the case of a site approved before this subsection comes into force, a proposed use, operation, alteration, enlargement or extension of a waste disposal site which will not result in a greater area at a landfill site being covered with waste than permitted under the existing approval." Does that therefore mean they can have a lift?
Mr Duignan: Yes.
Mr Stockwell: And that lift then means there'll be more garbage, and this is to protect -- is it Niagara Falls or St Catharines?
Mr Duignan: Both, I believe.
Mr Stockwell: Are you trying to stop further landfilling or are you just allowing a lift for covering purposes?
Mr Murphy: That's going to be a tough one to get the answer to.
Mr Murphy: These are ministry people. Perhaps we can invite them to join and act as advisers to us, if it's acceptable.
Mr Stockwell: Noel, does the ministry support this?
Mr Duignan: I understand you were asking the exact same question at the other private member's bill down the hallway. Now, Chris, if you could repeat the question.
Mr Stockwell: I understand that you are wording it in this fashion so as to allow a lift on Niagara Falls or St Catharines. Would that lift include more garbage, or is it simply for covering and remedial purposes?
Mr Duignan: It does not increase the footprint of the existing landfill site.
Mr Stockwell: I know that. I understand what a lift is. A lift makes a dump higher; it doesn't expand it.
Mr Duignan: That's quite correct.
Mr Stockwell: But does the lift include, for St Catharines and Niagara Falls, more garbage?
Mr Duignan: It could. In this case it doesn't, but it could.
Mr Stockwell: In this case it doesn't, but it could.
Mr Murdoch: What the hell does that mean?
Mr Stockwell: "Not necessarily," I heard in the back: not necessarily conscription.
Mr Offer: If I could ask a question on this amendment, there are a few changes between the amendment you've just proposed and the original amendment you brought forward. The phrase "environmentally sound manner" is not in the motion you have just made. Is there a reason? Why have we taken out the phrase "environmentally sound manner?"
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Because it was what you wanted.
Mr Murphy: No, we just wanted to know what it meant.
Mr Offer: We just ask the questions.
Mr Duignan: We understand that the legal people in the ministry indicated that it wasn't really necessary.
Mr Offer: May I ask one further question? This morning there was some discussion over the legal opinion provided by Mr Jack Johnson of the Ministry of the Attorney General on this bill. I took from the discussion that because of the legal opinion by the Ministry of Environment, a sub (4) "no proceeding" section was not necessary. Now the "no proceeding" section has found its way back in as a necessity. I remember the initial question. Does the passage of this bill possibly allow a citizen of the province of Ontario to sue the government?
Mr Duignan: Look at the bottom of page 2 of the same legal opinion, the last paragraph, where it states: "On the strength of the law as reflected in this case, Bill 62 cannot be classified as an expropriation, and therefore amendment subclause (4) is unnecessary. It may nevertheless be prudent to retain subclause (4), subject to any advice which legislative counsel may wish to offer as to the implications for other legislation." We're just proceeding on the advice of legal counsel.
Mr Offer: I'm just trying to figure that one out. I've got a person in the Ministry of the Attorney General, a well-respected counsel for many years, who says an amendment sub (4) is unnecessary, but we have sub (4). How come?
Mr Duignan: All I can say is that we're acting on the advice of legal counsel of the ministry.
Mr Offer: Then I guess it follows that there is the possibility that the passage of Bill 62 would permit a citizen of the province of Ontario to sue the government of Ontario as a result of Bill 62.
Mr Duignan: That's a possibility in any legislation.
Mr Offer: There are probably other questions.
The Chair: People are asking, before debate, for clarification. Is that it? Okay.
Mr Stockwell: Did you have any opportunity during the break to discuss the question about the Environmental Bill of Rights, whether it contravenes the Environmental Bill of Rights?
Mr Duignan: We did discuss it, and we believe there is no contravention of the Environmental Bill of Rights.
Mr Stockwell: I assume you discussed it internally rather than actually seeking a legal opinion.
Mr Duignan: We discussed it internally, which means we talked among ourselves and among a number of people within the ministry.
1420
Mr Stockwell: Let me be a little more direct. Did you consult any lawyers with respect to whether it would contravene the just-proclaimed Environmental Bill of Rights?
Mr Huget: Did you?
Mr Stockwell: No, I don't have any lawyers. You guys have all the lawyers.
Mr Duignan: The ministry's lawyers have been dealing with this bill for a couple of days, and at no point in any of the discussion around this bill did any lawyer indicate there was any problem with this bill contravening the Environmental Bill of Rights.
Mr Stockwell: I understood that before the break, Noel. All I'm really looking for is, did anyone bring up the issue? Did you bring up the issue?
Mr Duignan: As I said, I talked internally to our own people.
Mr Stockwell: Your own solicitors?
Mr Duignan: I don't have a solicitor. I can't afford to have one.
Mr Stockwell: The ministry solicitors?
Mr Duignan: No. We didn't talk to the ministry solicitors; we talked to some ministry officials.
Mr Stockwell: So it was staff?
Mr Duignan: Yes.
Mr Offer: I have one thing, again on sub (4). We've been provided with a letter dated December 19, 1990. It is to a law firm that acts for RSI. It's a very short letter, but we should know that it is a letter signed by the Premier of the province. It reads:
"Thank you for your letter dated November 6 and attachments. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying to it.
"I can assure you that our government will respect the environmental assessment process, a process which is independent of our actions and assures the parties concerned a fair public hearing.
"With regard to the view held and/or expressed by Mr Noel Duignan, I can only say that he is an elected member of the provincial Parliament with the right to judge what is in the best interests of his constituents.
"Thank you for bringing these concerns to my attention.
"Yours sincerely, Bob Rae."
What brings a question to my mind is the phrase, "I can assure you that our government will respect the environmental assessment process, a process which is independent of our actions and assures the parties concerned a fair public hearing." My concern almost goes right back to the first question. The Premier of the province is saying he stands for a fair hearing under the environmental assessment process and that the parties will receive a fair public hearing. My question is whether there has been some discussion about whether the Premier has changed his position on account of the potential passage of Bill 62, which I understand will stop any hearing.
Mr Duignan: That letter was written before I introduced my private member's bill. Politics change and people make different decisions. I guess you'll have to ask the Premier. This is my private member's bill.
Mr Offer: I understand that, and I appreciate and know full well, as all members here know full well, how private members' bills proceed. I must say I am concerned for the many people who came before the committee, who came with a certain expectation that this bill would be supported by the government and passed into law. They came with that expectation. They didn't come with an expectation of: "I've got a free week. Let's chat before a committee." They came with a certain expectation that the government would support this particular legislation, so that some of the things they have said in the past and some of the things they have gone through would not proceed.
This letter, just from a very quick reading, paints a different picture. I think we owe it to the people who took their time to come before the committee as to whether this bill is supported. I'm no longer asking for the support of the Ministry of Environment or the minister. I'm asking, does the Premier of the province support the bill? We have a letter here which clearly indicates that he is in support of the environmental assessment process.
Mr Duignan: So are we. I'd like to point out that I've got the support of my colleagues; otherwise my private member's bill would not be going through this process here today. It is strange that you ask this particular question, and it's strange that at the committee down the way you're asking exactly the same question of a colleague of mine who's also introducing a private member's bill.
The Premier is very well aware of my private member's bill. The Premier is very well aware of the feelings of my constituents on this particular matter, and constituents from across the province. He's received many letters, if not thousands of letters, on this particular subject urging the Premier to support my bill. The Premier, like any member of the Legislature, when it comes to a vote for third reading, has a vote.
Mr Stockwell: We all received letters. I can therefore only assume that the Premier writes responses that have no basis in fact or truth. That seems to be a rather condemning analogy by the member from Halton.
Mr Duignan: That's your interpretation.
Mr Stockwell: Well, you're suggesting we received lots of letters and that you responded accordingly. The Premier, the head of the NDP, the leader of the government, would not, I would hope, write letters that are not based on fact and truth and beliefs. This seems very clear. It's kind of difficult, I suppose, when you're trying to do business in a province, where you write the head of a government that's in charge of the province asking for his interpretation on the environmental assessment process and how it affects you as a business person in this province, and you get assurances that you are guaranteed -- I don't think there's any debate -- "the environmental assessment process...independent of our actions...assures the parties concerned a fair public hearing." Some three short years later, all of that goes out the window, because the Premier can write letters saying whatever the heck he wants.
I ask through you, Mr Chair, to the member from Halton, in terms of clause 3(a), would the quarry site you were trying to close down qualify? If they applied as "a transfer station or recycling facility, including a composting site," would that be allowed on that site?
Mr Duignan: As you are well aware, my amendment would permit a transfer station or a composting station in the quarry, but only from the local community. For example, it would be just from the municipality of Halton Hills.
Mr Stockwell: So they could open up in that quarry a transfer station, recycling facility or composing site?
Mr Duignan: But it would have to go through the amendment 52 process.
Mr Stockwell: And if they did that --
Mr Duignan: If it went through that particular process.
Mr Stockwell: They'd be allowed to operate one of those sites there.
Mr Duignan: That's what my amendment reads: "A transfer station or recycling facility, including a composting site, which receives waste only from the local municipality in which it is located."
Mr Stockwell: So it can only receive it from Halton.
Mr Duignan: That's right. That's from the lower-tier municipality, which would be Halton Hills. It wouldn't be Halton region; it would be just Halton Hills.
1430
Mrs Caplan: The concern I have is that the people who have come before the committee and have been bringing their concerns to the committee have had their expectations raised. Because this private member's bill has been supported by a majority of the Legislature, certainly by the government caucus, there's some expectation that it's going to be called for third reading, provided it passes the committee here, and that this bill will become law. We have a letter from the Premier which contradicts that expectation of the people who have come here before the committee.
I think it's very important for the member to tell us what assurances he has had from the government House leader as to whether this bill will ever be called for third reading or whether this is in fact a charade. If it's a charade, given how people feel about politicians -- they don't like any of us very much; the public is very cynical about the way they're treated -- if this hearing is a charade, I'd like to know about it. I'd like to ask the member whether he has had any commitment from the government House leader to place this bill for third reading on the government agenda should it pass this committee.
Mr Duignan: It's strange, the Liberals playing these games. You're saying exactly what they're saying down in the other committee as well, just playing political games. I can assure you, if this bill passes this committee, I will as a private member be asking my House leader to place this and bring it forward for third reading. This is not a charade. Do you think I would bring it here for a charade, to get the expectations of my constituents up for a charade? You may play that type of politics, but I certainly don't play that type of politics.
Mrs Caplan: Having served in cabinet, knowing how the Legislature works -- I've been here since 1985 -- a private member doesn't come forward with a bill to committee without some expectation from his House leader that it's going to be accepted and placed on the government's agenda. That's the way the place works.
Mr Duignan: Do you think my House leader would have let it come to public hearings without some expectation of it going to third reading?
Mrs Caplan: So you are telling us today that your House leader has committed to putting this on the agenda for third reading. I just want to be clear that I understand this.
Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: This is where I'm getting a little fuzzy and I'm no longer clear. When it comes to the House, I'm going to support it. I suspect there are some people here who are going to support it. You may support it, some of your colleagues may support it, and we may pass this. That's what's going to happen, so I don't understand where this is all leading to and where you're trying to go with it. Please make the point.
The Chair: Mr Perruzza, thank you for the comment. It's not a point of order. I direct the members to refer themselves continually to the amendment before us as best they can. Do you have another question?
Mrs Caplan: I'd like an answer, to know from the member whether his House leader has agreed. What I've heard him say is that he has the agreement of the House leader to place this for third reading if it passes this committee. I have to say, Mr Chairman, given the letter from the Premier which says he supports and respects the environmental assessment process, we have a contradiction that is of great concern to this committee. In fact, I'm concerned that in light of the letter from the Premier, the member -- I don't want to use the term "mislead," but perhaps he's been misled by his House leader. I would be prepared to say today that there's no way this bill will ever appear for third reading. In fact, I'm prepared to help it pass this committee to see --
Mr Huget: You're prepared to see to it that it never does.
Mrs Caplan: No, absolutely not. I'm going to support it here to see if it is called by the government.
Mr Duignan: I'm very glad of your support for my bill, and I look forward to your support at third reading.
Mrs Caplan: It will never see the light of day.
Mr Murphy: I have a question on clause (3)(a).
Mrs Caplan: It's a sham, a charade. Shame on you.
Interjections.
The Chair: Mr Murphy, please get into your point, otherwise you allow and permit this.
Mr Murphy: My question relates to the issue of receiving waste only from the local municipality. Bill 7 envisages the possibility of transfer of waste from a local to an upper-tier municipality. There are many smaller municipalities that pool those kinds of things, and I'm wondering whether that wording creates a problem for those kinds of places.
Mr Duignan: The intention of my amendment was to keep it to a small transfer station, a small recycling facility, including a small compost facility, and limited to the particular local municipality in which it exists. That was the intention of my amendment, not to engage in region-wide or area-wide facilities.
Mr Murphy: I understand that, but your bill might then contradict the Bill 7 process. For example, if there's a transfer station, recycling facility, even a composting site, within the plan area now operated by more than one local municipality, they can't do anything with it at all, according to this wording, because it receives waste from other than a local municipality, receives waste from two or three or four. I just see that being a problem in many places up and down the escarpment. That's all.
Mr Duignan: This, as you know, just confines it to the plan area. It doesn't necessarily talk about -- it's a very small area.
Mr Murphy: Absolutely, but there are lots of local municipalities in the plan area.
Mr Duignan: As I say, this confines itself to the plan area. Bill 7 can deal with the rest of the municipalities, but this is particular to the plan area and it's my intention to keep it small-scale to that local municipality in which it's located.
Mr Murphy: I can see that and understand that. I'm just trying to work out in my mind what this does. If Halton Hills and a couple of other municipalities in the area have a transfer station they use in common, or a composting site or some recycling facility, and that is located within the plan area, this prohibits any change whatsoever to that existing transfer station, recycling facility, composting site, if those municipalities decide it would be a smart thing to permit that to happen, because it's receiving waste from other than a local municipality. First, is that right?
Mr Stockwell: Yes, that's right.
Mr Duignan: If the local municipality has an existing composting facility in operation, for example, it wouldn't affect. It would affect if they wanted to have a new region-wide composting facility situated in the plan area.
Mr Murphy: Yes, or if there was an existing shared facility, it would prevent --
Mr Duignan: If it's already there, already up and running, it wouldn't affect it.
Mr Murphy: No, but it would prevent any alteration, enlargement, extension, wouldn't it?
Mr Duignan: No.
Mr Murphy: I think it would.
Mr Duignan: I believe it does not apply to a composting facility.
Mr Murphy: No, that's not what it says. The way it works, you've got your subsection (2) which says you can't do anything at all with a waste disposal site. "Waste disposal site" includes, by definition, transfer stations, recycling facilities, composting sites.
What then sub (3) says is that for those three types of waste disposal sites, you can operate, alter, enlarge or extend those three types of waste disposal sites provided they receive waste only from a local municipality. In fact, by the wording of subsection (2), they can't even operate a facility in the plan area if it accepts garbage from more than one local municipality.
Mr Duignan: The whole purpose of this amendment is to keep it small-scale within the local municipality it comes from.
Mr Murphy: This is not to criticize your purpose. It may be that this needs an amendment for those kinds of facilities.
Mr Stockwell: It's also the economies of scale. Lots of them can't run their own, so they get together and run collectively.
Mr Murphy: Absolutely. I think most people would say these types of facilities aren't landfills. As I think you have said quite clearly, this is really meant to focus on landfills: "We don't want landfills in our area."
1440
Mr Duignan: I would point out that this subsection is consistent with amendment 52. It's not different from amendment 52.
Mr Murphy: This is a statutory prohibition.
Mr Duignan: It permits a small-scale transfer station, recycling facility and composting site to the local municipality.
Mr Murphy: Does anybody know whether, within the entire plan area, there is one of these three -- transfer station, recycling facility, composting site -- which receives waste from more than one municipality? Is there one of those in the plan area now?
Mr Stockwell: There's got to be a transfer station somewhere. That's just where they dump the garbage so you can get the other trucks to take it to the dump.
Mr Duignan: My region is Halton.
Mr Murphy: Halton, you don't think so, but the plan area covers a lot of municipalities.
Mr Stockwell: You've got Niagara Falls, St Catharines. You've got some major cities there. You probably have transfer stations, I would assume.
Mr Duignan: But if they already exist, this doesn't affect them.
Mr Murphy: No. You're wrong on that. If they take it from more than one local municipality, this disallows them from even operating the thing. Look at it: "Despite subsection (1), no person shall...operate...a waste disposal site," except if it's "a transfer station or a recycling facility...which receives waste only from a local municipality in which it is located."
Mr Duignan: "Or in the case of a site approved before this subsection comes into force."
Mr Murphy: But you can't expand it, you can't have a greater area. This really is a landfill site. Clause (b) is a landfill site clause. That's what it says.
Mr Duignan: All I can say is that the intent of my amendment is to limit it to small-scale within the municipality. I understand the point you're talking about: If a municipality isn't big enough and needs to combine with other municipalities --
Mr Murphy: I think there's a problem in the wording of this.
Mr Duignan: Halton does it on a region-wide basis, but it's not situated on the plan area. They can do it outside of the plan area but not in the plan area. The plan area's a very small percentage of land.
Mr Murdoch: Noel, I just want to tell you, Owen Sound has a dump in Sydenham township which also takes St Vincent's, another municipality, because St Vincent's landfill site has been closed. Is this going to stop them? Owen Sound dumps its garbage in Sydenham township, and they have transfer stations on the escarpment.
Mr Stockwell: This would stop them.
Mr Duignan: No, if it's already existing.
Mr Murdoch: But it's not their municipality. It's not in the local. There are four municipalities.
Mr Stockwell: Hey, Tim, did you hear that? He's got a transfer station that takes four municipalities on the escarpment.
Mr Murdoch: The transfer station's on the escarpment. The garbage dump isn't.
Mr Offer: Well, guess what, buddy? Not any more.
Mr Murdoch: It won't hurt us, but poor old St Vincent, which has been closed by the government --
Mr Duignan: Under sub (b) it's "in the case of a site approved before the subsection comes into force," so if it's already existing, you're okay. Any new site would have a problem, because it would be limited to the local municipality within the plan area.
Mr Murdoch: The dumps are using the quarry, four municipalities, and we have the escarpment all around there.
Mr Duignan: But if it's already existing --
Mr Murdoch: You're saying they can't do any more, but they're still going to use the same dump, and this is going to limit them if they have to set up another spot. Now they won't even be able to apply for one.
Mr Murphy: It depends on what their existing certificate lets them do.
Mr Offer: If you read the exception -- I'm thinking about a recycling facility, and I'm thinking about one in my area. If there is a recycling facility which serves more than one municipality, under this bill it cannot be altered or enlarged or extended. You cannot do anything to that recycling facility.
Mr Duignan: Except --
Mr Offer: Except nothing. The only exception to a recycling or waste site or transfer station is the issue about whether it is servicing one municipality or more than one municipality. If it only services one municipality, then it might fall under some exception. If it happens to serve two or more, then it's done. No? Why not?
Mr Duignan: Sub 3(a) is talking about new transfer stations or new recycling facilities etc. If you already have an existing transfer station or recycling facility or whatever, clause (b) comes into effect: "in the case of a site approved before the subsection comes into force."
Mr Offer: I disagree with you, I'm sorry. A certificate will say, "This is what this recycling facility can do; this is when it can do it," and that's what it is. If it serves more than two municipalities and these municipalities want to extend their recycling program, want to do more recycling, they can't use this facility because their certificate has frozen them for all time. You cannot expand recycling programs under this bill.
Mr Stockwell: You may not enlarge or extend.
Mr Duignan: You cannot enlarge the footprint of an existing site.
Mr Murphy: That's a landfill.
Mr Offer: No, no. I'm talking about a recycling facility, and that is exception 3(a); it falls under the exception that it serves but one municipality. If it serves more than one municipality and wants to recycle goods so that waste is reduced to 5%, wants to recycle 95% of all waste, and it needs to have its certificate amended, it can't get it, the bill stops that. That's my reading of it. I just don't know. Are we freezing for all time the recycling capability of municipalities located within the Niagara Escarpment? It's sort of an anomaly.
Mr Duignan: The plan area. The plan area in any municipality is a very small land mass.
Mr Offer: Am I wrong here?
Mr Murphy: It is the plan area, but that's a lot of land.
Mr Murdoch: Just to carry on, you're saying it's a small area, but no it isn't, in our area. We have a dump site in the township of Sydenham. It's not on the escarpment, but four municipalities use it, and there's all kinds of Niagara Escarpment area around there. That's why I went on about the rural part of it. That means they won't be able to have a transfer site anywhere else other than the ones they've got now. Is that what this means?
Mr Duignan: A point of clarification: Are you saying the existing site is not in the plan area?
Mr Murdoch: The dump isn't, but they have transfer stations that are.
Mr Duignan: Well, if the transfer station is an existing site, you're okay, it's covered.
Mr Murdoch: But what if they want to change? You've got to realize that you're making a bill here, and I know it's for your use where you live, but unfortunately this bill is covering all over Ontario. That's where you run into problems, and that's what I'm trying to tell you.
In our area, it's a large portion of my municipality. The dump is not very far away from the plan area, but it isn't on it, so that's fine. But where they pick up the garbage and stuff, it is. There is garbage on --
Mr Duignan: It's an existing site, right?
Mr Murdoch: Some of them are, but they may want to alter it or change it or enlarge it or move it. Right now, one of the spots is at the municipality, and it's going to want to change that and now you're saying it can't, with a bill that's never gone out to the public in our area. Here you are going to change it, just like that.
Mr Duignan: That's not our reading on the issue.
Mr Murdoch: If they want to change it, it is. You've said that.
Mr Stockwell: Ask that question: What if they wanted to move the transfer site?
Mr Duignan: Move it to where?
Mr Murdoch: Down the road.
Mr Duignan: On the plan area?
Mr Murdoch: It's on the plan area now. What if they wanted to move it?
Mr Duignan: If you wanted to move it, it would be a new site, and unless it was just dealing with waste from the local municipality, it wouldn't be allowed.
Mr Stockwell: So you couldn't move it.
Mr Murdoch: But four municipalities use it. You've got to realize that a lot of municipalities share dumps now. This is your government's way of --
Mr Duignan: It's the same under amendment 52. It's no different from amendment 52 that exists right now.
Mr Stockwell: Where is amendment 52?
Mr Duignan: It's part of the Niagara Escarpment plan.
Mr Murdoch: They can do it under amendment 52. They'll have to go through the plan --
The Chair: When you all jump in and out, it's hard for the fellows at the back to record you.
Mr Stockwell: They keep referring back to 52. Where is the wording? They say it's exactly the same. Oh gosh, you're a crackerjack, I'll tell you. Give me the wording on 52.
Mr Perruzza: Chris, what does your sheet say as a possible answer to the question?
Mr Stockwell: My possible answers? I don't have them.
The Chair: It's not helpful to have this cross-dialogue.
Mr Duignan: Under amendment 52, "Part 1.5, Escarpment Rural Area, Permitted Uses...is amended by adding the following new use: Small-scale recycling depots for paper, glass, cans etc, serving the local community."
What we haven't used is the word "small-scale," but it's the same as existing in amendment 52. In part 1.5, the escarpment rural area, or part 1.4, the escarpment protection area, it's the same clause repeated for the two areas.
Mr Stockwell: Read it for me again, please.
Mr Duignan: "Small-scale recycling depots for paper, glass and cans etc, serving the local community."
Mr Stockwell: But that's not a transfer station. That's a little recycling depot where you come and bring your cans and stuff; like at the cottage, you take it to the depot there. That's not a transfer station.
Mr Duignan: If the committee permits, we will get back to the committee in about 10 minutes on the whole question around whether this particular bill or amendment will have any impact on existing transfer stations.
The Chair: Okay. This committee will recess for approximately 10 minutes.
The committee recessed from 1453 to 1504.
The Chair: I call the meeting to order. We're continuing with questions, comments, debate. Mr Duignan, you have an answer?
Mr Duignan: While we're waiting for the response, maybe we'll stand down that particular question and move on to the next question.
Mr Murphy: It strikes me that Mr Duignan has moved this bill at least in part to prevent future landfills being located on the escarpment, but this letter with respect to the environmental assessment process from the Premier presents a problem, because obviously there is an existing application relating to RSI. It seems to me that there is a way to accommodate the desire in the future to prevent landfills from being located on the escarpment plan and yet accommodate what the Premier said and the Premier's commitment: to exempt from his bill that landfill process to which this letter refers, which is the RSI application.
The question I have for Mr Duignan is whether he's prepared to achieve that compromise to maybe help him get his bill to proceed by amending his own bill to exempt the RSI application so that his Premier won't be embarrassed. I'm just wondering if he's considering doing that.
Mr Duignan: I wouldn't worry about my Premier being embarrassed about this particular section. And no, I won't be entertaining such an amendment.
Mr Stockwell: Just a thought on this letter from the Premier. It would seem to me that the independent private group that was working on the Acton site, having received the opinion from Jack Johnson -- would this letter give rise to an opinion that may change from Mr Johnson?
I'll tell you why. It would seem to me, if I were operating a business in the province of Ontario and I had spent millions of dollars preparing a site, for any project of any kind in the province, and had written to the Premier seeking his opinion on whether I could be comfortable in proceeding to spend millions more dollars with the thought that I would get a fair and impartial hearing, and having received a letter from the Premier saying, "Of course you will receive a fair and impartial hearing, independent of our actions," and having spent the money -- and clearly the member from Halton is on the record over a significant period of time on a number of occasions saying, "This bill is designed to close the opportunity for the Acton site."
It would seem to me there's got to be something actionable in receiving a letter saying, "Yes, proceed in good conscience. Go ahead. I know you've spent millions. Spend millions more, because in this province with this government you're going to get a fair hearing," and then three years later, reading Bill 62, designed by the member from Halton to -- he says without any concern at all, "I'm doing this to shut this project down." If Mr Johnson knew that, would his opinion change?
Mr Duignan: You can talk to Mr Johnson, but I don't believe it would. Let me make a couple of references. What about the deal about the Toronto airport, for example, or the deal about the helicopters? What about those deals?
Mr Stockwell: They're paying for those deals. They're paying big-time for those deals. It's called compensation. Good analogy, Noel.
Mr Duignan: We'll wait and see that one. I also bear in mind a newspaper article dated April 3, 1990, prior to the election, which quotes Mr Rae. "`You can't have garbage dumps in the middle of the biosphere,' Mr Rae told about 20 members of Protect Our Water and Environmental Resources. `That is a direct threat to the integrity of the escarpment. It is going to blow up in his face if he doesn't take the tough steps needed in this situation.'"
1510
Mr Stockwell: With all due respect, I don't want to get into a long-drawn-out debate about what Mr Rae said about garbage dumps around this province.
Mr Huget: It has no relevance.
Mr Stockwell: I think it does have relevance.
Interjection.
Mr Stockwell: Mr Chair, you're saying we're off topic to some degree, but when Mr Offer asked if the ministry staff supported it, the first thing I asked for was a legal opinion on whether there was an actionable case here for us unduly punishing a private business with the threat of loss of money spent today and opportunity lost. That's how I started this whole thing.
What's come to light is a few issues:
(a) That the ministry maybe doesn't support this.
(b) That when the member from Halton answered the question, it wasn't entirely accurate.
(c) We got a letter from the Premier saying, "Yes, you'll be treated fairly. You've spent millions. You're going to spend millions more."
(d) A rather interesting legal opinion that looks like -- and I don't know the gentleman. He's probably a fine person and a good lawyer, but to be frank, it's almost like an economist wrote this: "on the one hand" and "on the other hand."
Having said all that, I think I'm within the bounds of discussion here, because this is what I started the whole process off on: What are the legal ramifications of passing this piece of legislation for the people of the province? I'm saying to you, Mr Chair, considering this letter, considering the member's comments on the record, it would seem to me there's a case here to be made, that I think this company can make and maybe make very well, considering the information before us.
It's just shameful, in my opinion, that we couldn't have had a solicitor or the ministry before us, or the ministers themselves, to answer these kinds of questions, because they're not answered, in my mind. The only thing that's answered is that the member includes in his bill -- which scares the hell out of me, I'll say -- a "no proceeding" clause which basically says, "No matter how badly we treat somebody, no matter how much money you've lost, no matter how much investment opportunity you've lost, you have no right to sue us or claim back any of your money." Is that the way we treat people in Ontario? If so -- I started it off this way and I ask you again, Mr Chair. I haven't had the lawyers come forward to answer my questions. I've got this response --
Mr Duignan: I think I've answered this question numerous times. Let's move on to a new question.
Mr Stockwell: -- and now we have this letter from the Premier. I don't think, as a committee, we're covered from a legal point of view to make the kind of decisions we need to make on Bill 62.
Mr Duignan: We've got a legal opinion already.
The Chair: I understand your comments. You've raised them many times, and obviously you feel you haven't got the kind of answers you're looking for.
Mr Stockwell: An answer, period.
The Chair: Any further discussion on this amendment?
Mr Murphy: Do we have an answer to the earlier -- he's coming. Okay.
The Chair: Is there anything additional you want to raise?
Mr Murphy: Well, it depends on the answer.
Mr Stockwell: I'll ask the question directly to the member from Halton. Do you think it's fair and reasonable that your bill, Bill 62, will be adopted, that a company will have spent millions of dollars in this province, with a letter from the Premier saying they'll be treated impartially, treated fairly under the process, and in fact will be out literally millions and millions and millions of dollars? Do you think that's a fair process and a fair undertaking and a fair message to deliver to the people of this province when it comes to doing business here?
Mr Duignan: My bill is a fair bill for the people of this province.
Mr Stockwell: That's not the question. I'm talking about this group. Let's get right down to the short strokes.
Mr Duignan: That's my answer. Tough if you don't like my answer -- and tough that you're taking your advice from the RSI lawyers over there.
Mr Stockwell: This group has spent millions of dollars to develop this site. Is it fair to them that they're going to spend millions of dollars and lose it?
The Chair: Mr Stockwell, you've made the point. I think he's answered it. I know you're not happy with the answer.
Mr Stockwell: It's not a question of being happy. Let me make the point that he doesn't answer the questions, and when he does answer the questions, they're inaccurate.
Mrs Caplan: He should be in cabinet.
The Chair: Any further questions or points that people want to speak to with respect to this amendment?
Mrs Caplan: Can we just vote?
The Chair: I think people are ready.
Mr Duignan: First, we have two answers to two questions. The legal people say there is no conflict with the Environmental Bill of Rights. Second, on the question of the transfer stations, there are two exceptions to the prohibition provided in subsection (2). The first is (a), that any new transfer stations, recycling facilities etc are okay if they serve the local municipality; and the second exception is (b), where any site, landfill, transfer, recycling etc was approved prior to the bill, except where it would expand the footprint of that particular site.
Mr Murphy: You've outlined what the policy view is, which is that you don't want any transfer station, recycling facility or composting site to be enlarged, except by way of a lift. My concern on clause (3)(b), the way I read that, is that it's really directed to landfill sites and does not encompass transfer stations, recycling facilities and composting sites. I'm wondering if you would consider amending the wording to make it clear, if your purpose is that, that it's more than just a landfill site that's being referred to in clause 3(b).
Mr Duignan: We can list them in clause (3)(b).
Mr Murphy: Then I think you should do it. You've got the people surrounding you. I'm just throwing this off the top of my head.
Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): There ain't much there.
Mr Murphy: Thanks for joining the debate. I appreciate it. I'm sorry to have disturbed you.
Mr Duignan: I've directed legal counsel to add "transfer station, composting site and recycling facility" to (b).
Mr Murdoch: Say that again, Noel. Give us that again.
Mr Duignan: For clarification, I'll reread clause (3)(b).
"(b) in the case of a site approved before this subsection comes into force, a proposed use, operation, alteration, enlargement or extension of a waste disposal site, transfer site, recycling facility or composting site which will not result in a greater area at a landfill site being covered with waste than permitted under the existing approval."
Mr Murphy: I think it would make more sense to put those three additional places after the words "landfill site" than after "waste disposal site." Alternatively, instead of saying "landfill site," just put "waste disposal" and that includes them all.
Mr Stockwell: Strike "landfill" and put "waste disposal."
Mr Duignan: I'd just like two minutes to rewrite this properly.
The Chair: Okay. We'll recess for a few moments.
The committee recessed from 1520 to 1525.
The Chair: I call the meeting to order.
Mr Duignan: I think we've got it finally worked out. I will reread clause (3)(b):
"(b) in the case of a site approved before this subsection comes into force, a proposed use, operation, alteration, enlargement or extension of a waste disposal site which will not result in a greater area at a waste disposal site being covered with waste than permitted under the existing approval."
We've taken out "landfill site" to substitute "waste disposal site."
Mr Stockwell: I think that does it.
Mr Offer: With respect to the amendment, it's moved, but it's still clear that a recycling facility servicing more than one municipality will not be able to be expanded save skyward, and that, in most cases, because of the technology, is impossible. By this amendment, whatever the certificate says at the time of the passage of the bill freezes that facility for all time, and that, I will tell you, I believe runs contrary to the government's position as stated under Bill 7.
The Chair: Are members ready for a vote on this?
Interjections.
The Chair: I'd rather discourage this other dialogue.
Mr Stockwell: Mr Offer, would you explain that very briefly?
Mr Offer: Under clause (3)(a), where it speaks to subsection (2) not being applicable to a recycling facility which receives waste from a local municipality, it therefore must be that it does apply to a recycling facility which services more than one municipality. Therefore, any recycling facility in this area that services more than one municipality, cannot, by virtue of Bill 62, have its capacity expanded. In other words, the recycling the area is doing cannot be increased without some significant cost, by transporting out of the area the bill applies to. It's absolutely clear.
Mr Stockwell: I don't think that's what you're intending to do.
Mr Murphy: Or is it? Maybe it is.
Mr Stockwell: I don't think it is. You're not suggesting that recycling depots or areas, should they become hugely successful under your government's 3Rs program, not be allowed to expand. But the only way you can expand, the way you've got it worded here, is if you go up in the air, and you can't do that in the recycling program.
Mr Murdoch: Tin cans fall down.
Mr Murphy: Maybe that is your policy intention: that you can't expand them in the plan.
The Chair: Do you want to pursue that one?
Mr Perruzza: We're going to stand that one down and we're going to get back to you on that one, okay?
Mr Murdoch: Do you want another adjournment? Is that what you're asking for, Tony, another adjournment?
Interjections.
Mr Murphy: Mr Chair, through you to the member who's moving the bill, all I want to understand is the purpose he's trying to achieve. If this accords with the purpose, that's fine, we understand. If it doesn't, maybe other changes can be made. All I want to know is, is the purpose of this amendment as moved, to have the result so that you can in fact establish, alter, enlarge, operate or extend a transfer station, recycling facility or composting site, provided it takes waste only from a local municipality? That, it seems to me, is purpose one. That you can do, is my interpretation, and I assume that's your purpose.
The second thing you can do, in a case of a transfer station, recycling facility or composting site that takes waste from more than one municipality, the only thing you can do with that -- well, there are two things. One is that it has an existing certificate and it can do whatever that certificate allows it to do, and second, it can expand or be altered or changed provided those changes don't expand the area in which the recycling or transfer or composting occurs.
That's my understand of how this now works. All I want to know is, is that what you're trying to do?
Mr Duignan: That's what I'm trying to do.
Mr Murphy: Okay, thank you.
Mr Offer: In other words, a recycling facility that is designed to serve more than one municipality in this area would be prohibited?
Mr Murphy: No, a new one would be.
Mr Offer: That's what I'm saying. A new recycling facility --
Mr Duignan: That serves more than one municipality would be prohibited under this bill, yes.
Mr Offer: So if you're in favour of recycling, you would be against this amendment.
Mr Duignan: No. I'm in favour of recycling, and this amendment deals with recycling within that local municipality. Don't forget that they can build recycling facilities outside of the plan area. We're talking about a very unique, special area, the Niagara Escarpment. This bill prohibits large-scale transfer stations, waste etc within the plan area.
Mr Stockwell: I'm sorry, but this point needs to be made. If he's going to go on the record saying this, it's important. If Sydenham and St Vincent, which are in Grey, which have populations of approximately 3,000 each, wanted to get into a recycling program, they couldn't do so unless they did it on their own. They'd have to institute a full recycling program for 3,000 constituents.
Mr Offer: They're in favour of a whole bunch of little recycling plants.
Mr Murdoch: The plan area takes half our township.
Mr Stockwell: I don't think that's what he means.
Mr Duignan: If it's in the plan area, but there's nothing stopping them from doing it outside the plan area.
The Chair: I think you've all made your questions very clear on the record. Are we ready for the question?
Mr Duignan: We're ready, Mr Chairman.
Mr Stockwell: No, I want to speak to that clause. This particular piece of legislation is reaching such a stage, is such a dog's breakfast at this point, that you have the member from Halton suggesting to this committee and to the public in general that no, you can't have -- I mean, they've been talking recycling since they got elected -- a recycling depot for a community unless it just takes the recycled materials from in that community.
There are communities out there with 3,000 and less that have 50% of their town property on the area your bill covers. If you're suggesting to me that you're either tired of doing this and it's becoming tedious, that's one thing, but to suggest as a policy statement that you can't amalgamate recycling depots in communities across this province is absurd.
I'll give you an example. Metropolitan Toronto, with some two and a half million to three million people, itself operates mutual and joint recycling depots, and it has two million or three million people. You allow them to work in concert to recycle goods through Metropolitan Toronto, yet a little place like Sydenham or St Vincent, of 3,000 people, you're telling me can't. That's just absurd.
Mr Murdoch: I have a question for Noel. In our area also, the city of Owen Sound recycles, and in the township of Sydenham a company just got the contract to pick up the recyclables. They've applied for a permit, and I know it's in the rural area. The permit's been applied for but it hasn't been granted at this point. If this bill passes, they won't be able to go ahead and recycle. Is that what you're saying? This just occurred to me right now.
Mr Duignan: I think I've already answered the question.
Mr Murdoch: No. They're not going to be able to, are they?
Mr Duignan: I've already answered the question.
The Chair: That question has been raised many times.
Mr Murdoch: Not that question. I just mentioned Owen Sound.
Mr Stockwell: This isn't a transfer station. It's a recycling station.
Interjections.
The Chair: Hold on. You've asked your question.
Mr Murdoch: The whole point of this is that this bill's been designed for one area, but unfortunately you're infringing on the rights of other areas. You may have a problem at home, and I understand that. I'm just saying that a company has applied for a permit for recycling, and it's not going to be able to do that now. For them to operate, they're going to have to pick up more than just one municipality. They do the city of Owen Sound and the township of Sydenham, but they're looking for more around there. I know the site they're going to put the recyclables on is on the rural area. They've applied for it, so they're going to have to make sure they go down and try to hustle that permit through before this is passed, is that right?
Mr Stockwell: Economy of scale.
Mr Murdoch: If it doesn't -- they own the land already. They've owned the land for some years --
The Chair: I think the point is clear, Mr Murdoch.
Mrs MacKinnon: Are they in the plan area?
Mr Murdoch: Yes, they are in that plan area.
Mr Duignan: If the recycling facility is by that local municipality, they would be able to site it within the plan area. If it's more than one municipality, they would not be able to site it within the plan area.
Mr Murdoch: So they'll have to collect the recyclables for the one municipality, dump them in one spot, have a lot of people upset, and then they're going to have to go down the road and do it in another spot.
Mr Duignan: I'm sure the particular municipality would be able to find a site that's not within the plan area.
Mr Murdoch: You don't understand, that's your problem. You don't understand that a lot of that area is taken up, up there. When you talk about the plan area, you've gone too far. Now we'll have two sites instead of one because of your bill. Do you realize that? Maybe even four sites.
Mr Duignan: That's just your speculation, Bill.
Mr Murdoch: No, it isn't. I live there.
Mr Offer: A great deal of discussion has gone on around this particular amendment. There is absolutely no question that there are some concerns about how this particular amendment will work, or not work, in practice. I certainly have some concerns about whether it meets the needs of not only the people who have come before this committee, but, I must say, whether this particular amendment to the bill meets the principles and objectives of the mover of the bill.
I would think that the way in which one can deal with these concerns would be to move this bill out of this committee into committee of the whole so that the problems of this amendment can be dealt with.
The Chair: Is that a motion you want to make, or is that a suggestion you're making?
Mrs MacKinnon: That's a motion.
Mr Murphy: Can we do that?
The Chair: You can move that, I suppose.
Mr Duignan: We're in the middle of debating another motion here right now.
The Chair: I realize that.
Mr Offer: I'm saying, let's pass this bill out of this committee. Let's put it into committee of the whole and deal with this amendment, which has many questions that still have to be answered.
Mr Stockwell: And then you bring it back and pass it today.
The Chair: Obviously, there's an amendment on the floor. That's something the mover may want to consider. If not, this is the amendment we're dealing with at the moment.
Mr Murphy: That means it passes through this stage. We don't reconsider it.
The Chair: I think you're quite clear. Your point is clear.
Mr Murphy: I'm not sure that the people out there would understand what's going on. It's important for them to know that what we're proposing is that this needs further consideration and consideration in the House --
The Chair: It was clear.
Mr Murphy: If I can just complete, and that we think it also needs the further input of the Ministry of Environment, those officials of the government, and being in the House will provide that opportunity for that debate. We think the principle of protecting the escarpment deserves that this be passed for that consideration in the House. The proposal is to pass this into the House to be fixed there, so we're not doing this on the back of an envelope; we're doing it after full and due consideration, so we can get a bill that the people who came in front of this committee can live with and that satisfies concerns for procedural fairness.
Mr Offer: And, Mr Chair, I would hope that the members of the government would be in support of moving the bill from the committee stage to the Legislature.
1540
The Chair: All right. Your points are very clear. On this amendment before you, are you ready for the vote?
Mr Stockwell: I think he's moved a motion.
The Chair: But he can't. We're dealing with an amendment before us. That's the difficulty. I understand what both of you have said. That's something they can consider. They could withdraw that.
Interjection: Is there a motion to defer?
Mr Murphy: No, it's not. It's referral, a motion to refer.
The Chair: You could move to refer it, if you think there's anything to be gained by doing that. I think they understand what you have raised, and if they want to propose that --
Mr Stockwell: I think it's a worthy motion. It's a motion to refer. Let's deal with it.
Mr Offer: Do you understand? It means we've passed the bill.
The Chair: Mr Offer, they have understood. There's a motion to refer this to committee of the whole. I think we're ready for the vote. All in favour of that motion? Opposed? That is defeated.
On this amendment, are we ready for the vote? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? That carries.
We have a PC motion in front of us. Do you want to read it into the record, Mr Murdoch?
Mr Murdoch: Okay, but it's a little different now because now it's an amendment to their amendment. I can't move an amendment to the original bill.
The Chair: You would be amending the bill through your motion. Just read your motion.
Mr Murdoch: I move that section 1 of the bill, as amended, be amended by striking out -- it's the word "planning" area and not "plan" now, and it's in the third line; we can get that straightened out, if it's just the bill as amended -- by striking out the word "planning" in the third line and substituting the word "natural." Can I read what that would do to subsection (2)?
"(2) Despite subsection (1), no person shall use, operate, establish, alter, enlarge or extend a waste disposal site in the Niagara Escarpment" -- where it says now "planning area," I'm changing that to -- "natural area as set out in the Niagara Escarpment plan." Okay? That's the word I'm changing.
I don't know whether everybody understands, but the planning area includes different areas within the planning area, and the important area on the escarpment is the natural area, which I think everyone in the province wants to protect. I don't know of anybody who doesn't. I think if we protect that natural area, we're going to protect the Niagara Escarpment and the integrity of it. We don't need to go out beyond that. That's the reason I'm moving this motion, that that area would still stay protected and this bill would go on. I could support it.
Mr Murphy: Just a question of clarification: Am I right that there are natural, protected and rural areas?
Mr Murdoch: That's right.
Mr Murphy: So this would apply only to the narrowest, the natural?
Mr Murdoch: The important one, the one we've heard about all day, how there are holes within the rock and if we put a garbage dump on it, it will leak. That's where the natural area is, that's where the swamps are, and that's the important area of the escarpment. That's what we want to protect. We had an expert here say that if you put it in areas where you have clay and a bit of sand, that would be a fine area. Well, if you get out into the rural area, that's what you have.
The Chair: Additional remarks or comments on this amendment? I think we're ready for the vote.
All in favour of this amendment? Opposed? This one is defeated.
Is there another PC motion?
Mr Stockwell: I move that section 1 of the bill, as amended, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Compensation
"(3) The Ministry of Environment and Energy shall provide compensation to any individuals or corporations who experience economic loss as a result of the application of this act."
I phrased it as "economic loss," but I'm prepared, if the government members want to amend it, to talk about "the tangible loss," or "accrued" or "approved" or "accepted loss." If you as a government are going to entertain motions and pieces of legislation such as Bill 62, you have, in my opinion --
Interjection: That's out of order.
Mrs Caplan: No, it's changed the intent.
The Chair: My sense was that it's different, but we're just getting some advice here. We'll see.
Mrs Caplan: It commits the treasury, and a private member's bill can't do that.
The Chair: The point Mrs Caplan is raising is what we're getting from legislative counsel.
Mr Stockwell: So what is the ruling?
The Chair: There are two things: You can withdraw it, or I'll rule it out of order.
Mr Stockwell: I know you have the power to rule it out of order, but usually when someone rules something out of order they give a reason.
The Chair: When it commits the government to expenditures of public funds, that is a problem. Therefore it would be out of order.
Mr Murdoch: How do you know there's going to be any funds?
The Chair: Because it's "shall provide compensation to."
Mr Stockwell: Then I will say "The Ministry of Environment and Energy investigate providing compensation." You've got to get up pretty early, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Mr Stockwell, would you do us the favour then of withdrawing the previous motion and rereading it into the record?
Mr Stockwell: Will do. I withdraw what I just read into the record and I now put in the new, amended, amended version into the record. Same amendment, same section etc.
"The Ministry of Environment and Energy shall investigate compensating any individuals or corporations who experience economic loss as a result of the application of this act."
I thank the member for Oriole for her assistance, and the member for St George-St David as well, and of course the member from Halton.
1550
There are a couple of points of view I have vehemently disagreed with this government about. Some will say everything, but that's not quite true. I did agree with the way they negotiated the NBA deal with David Stern. But as to Bill 4, the rent control legislation, they retroactively changed the regulations that people were supposed to live by and it caused economic hardship on landlords, because they were acting and moving within the law of the land at the time and then the government changed it.
In my opinion, a government that enacts legislation that way, by writing legislation like that and by putting in, subsection (4)s, like it did here today, is the lowest form of government that could possibly be elected. I say that from the bottom of my heart. I don't believe any government should legislate change that adversely impacts a private citizen in this province from a financial point of view.
I am prepared to accept the fact that the socialists are in power in Ontario, and I accept the fact that from September 6, 1990, on, if they are going to introduce legislation that is going to cost the taxpayers of this province and the individual business people of this province money, so be it. That's the right they have, because they got elected on September 6.
What I find distasteful and absolutely unacceptable is retroactive legislation or legislation that is designed to cost a publicly traded or publicly owned company money, for their own ends. Fundamentally, we all know why this bill is before us. It's as clear as a pane of glass.
The member from Halton does not want the Acton quarry landfill site to be opened. I understand that. I accept that. That may be a good reason to elect the member from Halton and it may help significantly in his re-election campaign. I understand that as well. I understand the issues surrounding politics -- I've been involved for the last 12 years -- so you're not surprising anyone with the motion, how it's worded and the positions. All this love and comfort about recycling and protection and so on and so forth comes down to one simple fact: The member from Halton wants to shut down the Acton quarry because it makes good political sense.
Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: When you allowed that, how long can he go on for?
The Chair: We try to urge the member to come to the motion, of course. We allow for some latitude from time to time, but I think Mr Stockwell is ready to finish.
Mr Stockwell: Mr Chair, with all due respect, this is absurd. It's beneath even the member for Downsview or Yorkview, I'm not sure which.
The Chair: To be fair, you should speak to the motion.
Mr Stockwell: That's what I'm doing. Before you can deal with the motion, you must understand what motivates the bill, and I'm telling you why the bill is here. I'm sorry if the member for Downsview or Yorkview doesn't agree with that, but I'm trying to point out why this bill is before us.
I'm not arguing with the member from Halton's right to bring it forward. I'm not arguing with the right of those people out there to be here and suggest that this is a bad place for a dump. For heaven's sakes, I sat through hours and hours of public hearings about why dumps shouldn't be where they're proposed to go. I understand that.
But the point I'm trying to make with this amendment, is that if you're bound and determined to make these kinds of decisions in the province that affect communities and areas around the Niagara Escarpment, and when citizens out there, who are also citizens of this province, have invested millions of dollars to bring a landfill site forward in the Acton quarry, well within the law, I might add --
Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: This is an environmental issue. I disagree with that partisan, political stuff. That's my own particular point of view.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Perruzza. It's not a point of order.
Mr Stockwell: I can't believe that anyone in the Legislature of the province of Ontario would suggest he doesn't agree with politicking.
What we have here is a bill that is designed to shut down an operation that is legal, conforming, and making its way through the environmental assessment process that you yourselves accepted and in fact implemented. If you're going to do that, if you you're going to shut down this landfill site, which you have the right to do and may in fact do -- I'll say to the member for Downsview or Yorkview, I'm not sure which, as long as you go like that, I guarantee I'll go longer.
If you are prepared to tell a business in this province that it is going to lose millions of dollars operating within the law, that it is going to have a legislative bill saying, "No matter how badly we treat you, you can't sue us," and when they have a letter from the Premier saying, "We're aboveboard and we won't treat you any different from anyone else, and the process is independent from our actions and assures the parties concerned a fair public hearing," then all I say to you members across the floor is that you must compensate. It's a simple, fair fact of life.
If it were a citizen coming forward here today, who was in the middle of building an extension to their house on the parcel included in this bill and you said to them, "You can't build this extension; it's against the law," I would ask the same for them: that you must give them the money they've invested in that extension that you will not allow them to complete, when they were operating within the law.
That's simple. It's a simple case of fairness. That's all I say: fairness. If you want to stop this, you'd probably have a lot more support on this side of the House, or at least from this party, if you were going to treat the parties fairly. The minimum fairness is, give them back the money they spent within the confines of the law that you yourselves set down. I don't know of anyone who would argue with that point and have a clear conscience doing so.
Mr Murphy: I do have a concern about the procedural fairness, especially given a kind of undertaking, essentially, from the Premier to the RSI people that they should proceed and spend money on the process. The issue then falls down to whether you say you should allow the process to continue; if not, because you've in effect told them they could go ahead, you should compensate them for the money they've spent. Legislation that takes away both presents a real problem.
I just found a quote from a judge in a very recent case which I think talks about exactly this issue. He says this kind of taking away both those options "is repugnant to the tradition of our Legislature...enacting an ex post facto statute that deprives citizens of the fruits of their judgements attained or likely to be attained under prior legislation, other legislation which in good faith they relied on to their pecuniary cost." I think that's the principle that is being espoused by the amendment.
I have some concern about economic loss. I don't know how you would calculate loss of profits and whether there should be profits calculated and whether all individuals who are in the process should be compensated. I think there is a clear distinction between RSI, because of the letter by the Premier that gave them an undertaking, and other circumstances, although there may be ones of which we're not aware. Mr Murdoch made reference to a recycling application in his area which may be in a similar standing.
The amount of the compensation -- when, how paid, whether it just compensates the actual money they've spent -- are issues about which there can be reasonable debate. I think it's appropriate that the government at least consider the issue.
The Chair: Further debate? Seeing none, all in favour of this amendment? Opposed? That is defeated. Now to the whole section: Shall section 1, as amended, carry? That carries.
Shall sections 2 and 3 carry? That's unanimous.
Interjections.
The Chair: Oh, sorry. I thought I heard "carried." Opposed? That's carried, just not unanimously.
Shall the title carry? That carries.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Mr Offer: Recorded vote.
The Chair: On a recorded vote. All in favour?
Ayes
Akande, Caplan, Duignan, Harrington, Huget, MacKinnon, Murphy, Offer, Perruzza.
The Chair: Those opposed?
Nays
Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Stockwell.
The Chair: Ordered that the Chair report 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, as amended, to the House.
The committee adjourned at 1601.