CONTENTS
Wednesday 14 October 1992
Ministry of the Environment
Hon Ruth Grier, minister
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
Chair / Président: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC)
*Acting Chair / Présidente suppléante: Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*Bisson, Giles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)
*Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)
Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)
O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND)
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND)
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND) for Mr Ferguson
*Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex ND) for Mr O'Connor
*McClelland, Carman (Brampton North/-Nord L) for Mr Ramsay
*Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND) for Mr Perruzza
*In attendance / présents
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes: Cousens, W. Donald (Markham PC)
Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim: Manikel, Tannis
The committee met at 1530 in committee room 2.
MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT
The Acting Chair (Mr Gary Carr): I'd like to bring to order the standing committee on estimates. We will be looking at the Ministry of the Environment, and as is the practice, the minister will begin with a statement, to be followed by the Liberals and the Conservatives as well.
Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I'm delighted to be back again, defending what is going to be, for the first time, estimates that have been produced by the ministry with me as minister. You'll remember the last time I appeared was early in 1991 to present the 1990-91 estimates of my predecessor, the Honourable Jim Bradley.
I'm here today with my new deputy minister, Richard Dicerni, whom I'm not sure members of the committee have yet had an opportunity to meet, and a number of representatives of the ministry whom Mr Cousens, I think, asked me to introduce at this point.
Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): At some point.
Hon Mrs Grier: They're here to answer the questions that Richard and I choose to send to them for answering. Is that the way to describe it? We have everybody who is necessary for the exercise.
When I was here in early 1991, I gave the members of the committee an indication of my plans for the Ministry of the Environment. I was fairly green, in that interpretation of the word, at that point, and I discussed our environmental agenda in terms of four major principles: first, that everyone has the right to act on behalf of the environment; second, that environmental programs must be based on pollution prevention; third, that a conserver society must be created in Ontario, and fourth, that the government must take the environment into account in all of its decisions.
Mr Cousens: Is there a copy of your remarks?
Hon Mrs Grier: I'm afraid there isn't. There will be, and we can probably make it available to you tomorrow, before we get back into questions and probably before you get Hansard. I'm sorry. It was being worked upon as late as a few minutes ago, so we don't have copies for everyone. I may well decide not to give it all, so we'll give you what I say as soon as we can.
This year my ministry's estimates total $722 million. A supplementary allocation of $24.7 million was recently approved for our share of the Jobs Ontario Capital program. This brings our budget to $746.7 million. That's down slightly from last year's level of $774 million but up 15% from when we formed the government.
Obviously, we are not experiencing the kind of budget increases which Environment would warrant under a better economic climate, and we face some very difficult choices in terms of how we can best deliver our programs. Admittedly, we cannot move as fast in some areas as we would like, but I'm pleased to be able to say that we are moving and moving steadily. We've made steady progress in improving our customer service and learning to do better with less.
The Ontario government believes that environmental protection and economic prosperity are mutually reinforcing and achievable. I think we made that position very clear in the first throne speech of our government which, if I may quote, said:
"We will need to assess our decisions not only by standards of social justice or economic growth but in terms of their ecological integrity. We know that we cannot have a healthy economy without a healthy environment."
A central focus for my ministry and for those of my cabinet colleagues is the creation of a sustainable economy in Ontario. This necessitates the integration of environmental and economic decision-making. In fact we see environmental protection as an important contributor to the renewal of the Ontario economy.
My ministry released a study this past June which shows that revenues for firms in this industry are expected to experience average annual growth rates of 14% over the next five years. I think if members realize what's happening in other sectors of the economy, they'll understand that's a fairly significant rate.
This sector should be further energized by my ministry's movement towards our approach to environmental protection, an approach which is technology-driving, not technology-driven. That's a fairly important distinction that I'm sure we'll have a chance to explore as we get into questions.
This study, which was done jointly with MITT, attributes this to tighter government regulations and the increased environmental awareness shown by businesses and consumers. This study, as well as those done in other jurisdictions, showed very clearly that you don't have a growth in the environmental protection industry without strong regulations to create the foundation for that growth.
In addition, to stimulate employment we have provided capital grants to start up a variety of projects under the anti-recession program in 1991-92 and under the Jobs Ontario Capital fund program in 1992-93.
During 1991-92 ministry expenditures for water, sewage and waste management anti-recession projects were in excess of $15 million. This funding assistance helped our municipal counterparts start much-needed capital projects and created an estimated 600 person-years of direct employment.
For this fiscal year the ministry has approved nearly $25 million in grant assistance to municipalities under the Jobs Ontario Capital program. In total, grants of $60 million will be allocated over a three-year period. These grants, together with the investments of our municipal partners, will create an estimated 1,460 person-years of employment.
We are committed to making the environmental assessment process more effective and efficient, while maintaining its environmental integrity. We have now reviewed all of the recommendations made by the environmental assessment advisory committee and discussed them with the interministerial liaison committee. A cabinet submission was submitted to a cabinet committee last month for its consideration, but in the meantime, and I do want to stress this, we have implemented a number of short-term administrative reforms, and will continue to do so.
What was apparent during all of the consultations with respect to the Environmental Assessment Act was that the act itself was very sound and had withstood the test of time. What was causing enormous frustration -- and still does; we're not doing it perfectly yet -- was the administration of the legislation: the time it took to do government reviews, the lack of concurrent reviews by other ministries, the lack of clarity in the guidelines that were sometimes given to proponents by the ministry.
So we have put our initial efforts into dealing with the administration of the legislation and in taking initiatives to reform and to streamline that process. I'm delighted to be able to share with the committee that those initiatives have in fact shown some real progress.
Our goal was to cut the turnaround times for approvals by half, and we've almost reached that goal. We've gone from an average of 120 days to an average of 65 days turnaround. Let me also say that we've had a couple of complaints from consultants that in fact their contracts are up much sooner than they'd anticipated because they've had approvals from my ministry earlier than they had anticipated in submitting contracts to their clients. That's the kind of criticism we're very glad to have.
I want to expand next on some major initiatives within the ministry, and in doing so I want to focus on those four major principles that I identified last year. The first one was the important direction of our government that everyone has a right to act on behalf of the environment, and the cornerstone of that commitment of course has been the environmental bill of rights. I believe that our commitment to an environmental bill of rights was an integral part of a strong environmental platform which helped bring our party into office.
I'm proud to say that this government is acting on its commitment to a bill which will give citizens a far greater say in the environmental decision-making process than they've ever had before. The bill will open doors that previously were closed to the public. What's important also is that we're developing the bill in close cooperation with the key stakeholders.
During the first stage of consultation, which was completed in March 1991, an advisory committee conducted a public consultation on the five principles underlying an environmental bill of rights. Those principles are the right to a healthy environment, improved access to the courts, increased public participation, government accountability and protection for whistle-blowers.
We found in that consultation that the people of Ontario overwhelmingly supported the idea of an environmental bill of rights, but they had many questions as to what in fact that legislation would actually look like. They told us time and again that it was very difficult to comment or to participate in consultation without having a drafted bill of rights in front of them. We then moved to say, "Okay, how can we draft an environmental bill of rights but hold true and fast to the principles that we had outlined at the beginning?"
1540
What we did last October was appoint a task force made up of representatives from key business and environmental organizations and ask that task force if it could develop a draft bill. Many people said it couldn't be done and many people were sceptical that in fact putting representatives of the Business Council on National Issues and Pollution Probe and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the chamber of commerce and the Canadian Environmental Law Association and representatives of my ministry together would not in fact produce a draft bill of rights.
But I think, as members of the committee will remember, the task force achieved what people had said it couldn't and drafted legislation which now has the support of both business and environmental groups. In fact, the task force successfully transformed my vision of citizens' rights into a reality. They took the principles I've outlined and crafted a made-in-Ontario bill that flows from our legal experience and meets the needs of this province.
The bill then went out for public consultation, and the last day for comments is in fact this Friday, October 16. What we're finding is that the comments are, by and large, very supportive. There are some very helpful suggestions for changes in the bill but no substantive requests for changes or amendments, so we will now work on incorporating those comments into a report and I would hope to have a bill ready to be introduced into the Legislature, certainly as soon as possible.
The environmental bill of rights will be a victory for both the public and the business community. For the first time Ontario citizens will have a guaranteed right to participate in environmental decision-making. It will open up the government's environmental decision-making process to much greater public scrutiny and will make government accountable for its decisions in a way that has never happened before, and it will give business a uniform and predictable process for obtaining environmental approvals while giving citizens an opportunity to influence decisions at an earlier stage.
All this of course is in keeping with our view that individuals must have more input into environmental decisions which directly affect their lives and that if we allow that to happen, then we end up with better and more generally accepted decisions at the end of the day.
The second major policy direction I have taken is the requirement that environmental protection programs must be based on pollution prevention. My ministry has taken action on several fronts to make pollution prevention standard industrial practice in Ontario.
Let me make the distinction now between pollution prevention and regulations, or what have become known as end-of-the-pipe controls. One of our first initiatives was the release last August of an abatement regulation setting limits on toxic discharges from Ontario's petroleum industry.
This is the first of nine sectors to be regulated under the municipal industrial strategy for abatement, commonly called MISA, but the release of this regulation is a historic event. It's taken a long time for the monitoring and the preparation for MISA to bear fruit, and this regulation is the first-ever regulation limiting the discharge of contaminants into Ontario waterways.
With this regulation, we've sent a clear and direct message to the petroleum industry and to the other industrial sectors whose regulations will follow. We've sent a message that specific pollution control targets must be met and each and every plant is accountable for meeting them.
This petroleum industry clean water regulation sets out a three-year timetable for substantial cutbacks to the total pollution discharged to Ontario waterways from these refineries. Some contaminants will be reduced by as much as 30%, and the regulation will cut back the industry's discharges of conventional pollutants, such as suspended solids and oils, by 300,000 kilograms a year.
The MISA program is already showing that companies that have been investing in approaches to prevent or reduce pollution have a head start on meeting more stringent environmental requirements, and they also tend to be more efficient, with up-to-date production facilities.
I think it's important to point out that many industries, once the monitoring phase of the MISA program was completed, recognized that changes had to be made in the way they operated and so didn't wait for the regulations to be promulgated but began to invest in changes to their practices to anticipate those regulations.
We've invited public comment on the petroleum regulation and we will certainly carefully consider this comment to ensure that the final regulation is fair and effective in protecting our environment. We are moving along on our plan to develop regulations for the eight remaining sectors and I certainly hope to have another regulation ready for release before the end of this year.
Other pollution prevention initiatives I have undertaken include the establishment of a pollution prevention office, which will assist the ministry to make pollution prevention the primary means of achieving its environmental priorities.
We've signed a memorandum of understanding with the federal government and the Big Three auto makers establishing the first voluntary pollution prevention program in Ontario.
We have released a list of candidates of persistent toxic contaminants which was developed by my ministry and provided to the federal government as a starting point for developing a national toxic chemical reduction strategy.
This began as a result of an initiative on the part of environmental groups and industry who came together in a committee they called New Directions. They did a lot of work and came to an agreement that what was needed was a ban of the persistent toxic contaminants that we knew were in the environment. They then met with both myself and with the federal Minister of the Environment, and Environment Canada set up a process to begin work on how those kinds of bans might be implemented nationally.
The scientific work that had been done within my ministry to develop a candidate list of those chemicals has proven to be a very valuable contribution to that process and we are certainly working with that federal committee -- it's known as the ARETS committee -- to develop a timetable and a process for public consultation. So we're taking an active part in the national multistakeholder committee that has been established.
Another pollution prevention initiative of ours was a spills prevention strategy to ensure better prevention, containment and cleanup to head off the environmental damage caused by accidental discharges and working with industries who have been prone to accidental discharges to ensure that they put in place strategies to minimize these occurrences and make it very clear that control orders would be the result if prevention strategies were not put in place.
Finally, the Advisory Committee on Environmental Standards is holding public consultations presently on a proposed materials management policy and on guidelines for sediment and lakefill quality. A consistent and appropriate way is needed to manage these materials without threatening human health or the environment. Better management practices such as this is an additional way of preventing problems from occurring.
The principle of prevention, as opposed to cleaning up and curing problems, is a very integral part of our work towards sustainable development and all these approaches will lead to reductions in the amount of toxic chemicals discharged into the environment and the amount of hazardous waste that we produce.
The third principle I early established was the move and shift of attitudes and habits that would take us from being a consumer society towards being a conserver society. One of the greatest challenges facing my ministry is to establish the policies and programs that would facilitate that move.
Two years ago I made a commitment to meet and try to exceed the objectives set by my predecessor that 25% of the waste currently going to landfill should be diverted by the end of 1992 and 50% by the year 2000.
Our plan is to guide Ontario through a major positive shift in direction: environmentally, economically and socially. A consumer society like ours doesn't change into a conserver society overnight. We can only achieve environmental sustainability by progression from a waste-producing society to a waste-reducing society.
In terms of meeting our goal for 1992, I'm delighted to be able to tell the committee that we are very, very close. We now have reports in from 100 municipalities for the first six months of this year, and these reports represent municipalities that cover 80% of our total population, which we believe is enough to get a reasonably clear indication of our progress. Based on those data, even if there is no further improvement this year in our diversion rate, we estimate that no more than 7.6 million tonnes of Ontario waste will go to disposal inside or outside our boundaries.
That's still an awful lot of waste, but it's a 21% per capita reduction from five years ago, because 1987 was the base year from which these estimates and targets were made. I think that's a very real achievement in two years of programs. It's a conservative estimate and I expect the news on the last six months will be even more encouraging.
When I was meeting recently with some members of the private waste management sector, they said how pleased they were to hear this indication of progress and how excited they were to know that the changes were making a difference. They pointed out to me that many of their figures had not yet been shared with our ministry. So I think it's entirely possible that we might well exceed the 25% by the end of the year.
1550
We're cutting away at our mountain of garbage, and I believe that we can build on that success and do even better, because as I've said, at the outset those targets must be minimums, not maximums.
One important initiative I've taken, and which is also a pollution prevention initiative, is the ban on future municipal solid waste incinerators and the imposition of tough operating controls on existing facilities. In addition to protecting Ontario's air quality, this will ensure that recycling operations won't be denied the steady supply of recyclable materials needed to make them viable. I know we had many discussions about that initiative before the committee that was dealing with Bill 143.
The blue box is of course a key element in our programs of waste diversion. It was recycling's greatest success story by 1990 and has continued to flourish in Ontario. Two years ago, more than half of Ontario's householders were involved in blue box recycling. Today, three quarters of all households actively recycle. The newsprint and newspaper industry has made great gains in the past two years. They were recovering just over a third of Ontario's newsprint from the waste stream two years ago; now more than half is recycled. A current recovery rate for old corrugated cardboard is 40%; for container glass, 33%; for PET plastic, 52%, and we're recovering 20% of our gypsum and 52% of our wood waste.
I think it's important to stress that for all these materials, there are markets. One often hears it said or rumoured that materials that are separated for recycling are not in fact recycled. I was pleased at the opening of Waste Reduction Week to hear the director of the Recycling Council of Ontario give the lie to any of those rumours by pointing out very clearly and definitively that in fact there are markets for the waste that is recovered, and a growing market for most of it.
The second key element in waste diversion is of course composting and we have made that a major emphasis of our policies. Studies have shown that kitchen and yard waste make up about 40% of the household waste stream. We're committed to tapping that potential. To date, the government has contributed $12.5 million in capital support for backyard composting programs, funding close to half a million home composters.
It's estimated that about one million Ontario homes are active composters, and I'm sure that all the members of this committee had composters before they were handed out by their municipalities. So we don't count into these figures all the many hundreds of thousands of people who were doing it naturally long before it became the trendy thing to do. Ultimately, we believe, about 1.8 million Ontario households can divert as much 400,000 tonnes of kitchen and yard wastes into their home composters.
The third key in our policies is of course encouraging the diversion of industrial, commercial and institutional wastes, and we are making significant progress in this area. Two years ago there was, I think, a certain amount of resentment on the part of single-family home owners that all the emphasis on the 3Rs was falling on them, because the blue box was the only program available for waste reduction. We are expanding that into the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors.
Since the industrial waste diversion program was announced, we have committed $50 million to 453 projects. At the same time, the companies involved in these projects have invested a total of $172 million. The projects already operating and those approved for funding will divert significant quantities of industrial, commercial and institutional waste from landfill.
I have some analogies here that relate to sports, and as I said when I used them in a speech recently, I regret at this time of the year that I don't have any baseball analogies, but you may forgive me if I tell you that 1.5 million tonnes of solid waste is enough to fill 500 football fields up to the crossbar on the goal posts, and that will be diverted annually. The annual diversion of hazardous waste will amount to 80,000 tonnes, which is enough to cover eight football fields to the depth of one metre. For those of you who aren't football fans, we will also see 20 million litres of liquid industrial waste diverted by these projects and that's enough to fill 10 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
The only contribution I can make to the baseball season is to tell you that for Waste Reduction Week my ministry prepared a very evocative model of the SkyDome with green plastic bags filling it, and all of the waste produced in Ontario, if piled in the SkyDome, would reach to twice the height of the CN Tower. So I gather that there is no waste in the SkyDome today and of course my objective is to make sure that there is no further waste to go anywhere in this province ultimately.
However, to get back to the programs. These three key elements are now in place as the foundation of our waste reduction action plan and we are now consolidating and building on these positive achievements. The Waste Management Act of 1992, which was the subject of prolonged discussion in which some members of this committee participated, provides a powerful instrument to help us meet our goals. The act establishes the legal framework for putting the waste reduction action plan to work. It provides the framework of our 3Rs regulations. It allows us also, and I think it is a very important component of that act that has not been fully recognized, to cut the red tape associated with the approvals process and to introduce regulations requiring waste auditing and source separation of secondary materials.
The ability to cut red tape in approving recycling facilities was a key factor in our partnership with the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute and the makers, blenders and sellers of lubricating oils. Together we were able to open a system of used lubricating oil collection facilities across Ontario last month.
Without the provisions in the Waste Management Act, every service station that agreed to take back used lubricating oil would have had to be permitted separately as a waste transfer station, and that would have been a very long and complex program. Because of the provisions in the Waste Management Act, we were able to arrive at an agreement whereby there is permitting by rule; if they meet certain criteria, then they can get a permit. The conditions in the criteria were worked out in conjunction with the industry and I think that is a very good model of how we would like to proceed with other industrial sectors and a way of working in partnership with the private sector and with industry to achieve the goals that all of us what to achieve.
Let me commend that industry, and as I did at the opening, issue a challenge to other industrial sectors to assume the responsibility for and stewardship of their products. I see the same kind of process as being very applicable to batteries, to paint products and to other consumer chemicals. There's a lot more room for corporate initiative to help people reduce, reuse and recycle the valuable materials that for too long have been discarded as garbage.
1600
Of course, the other side of that kind of program is one that I think was pointed out in the House today by the member for Markham, that if you can prevent used oil from being discarded in the garbage, then you prevent it from going into landfills and then you diminish the risk of the leachate from those landfills being contaminated or containing products that would in fact lead to the deterioration of the liners of those landfills. That's the real advantage in some of the hazardous waste programs that are being put in place by municipalities across the province.
This is just part of our partnership efforts, with business and institutions, to reduce waste and to use and make products containing recycled materials. Our waste reduction office has brought together working teams made up of industry, labour, government and environmental group representatives to develop strategies for the reduction, reuse and recycling of construction and demolition materials, plastics, paper and rubber and for the composting or direct land application of natural organic materials.
We're working with institutions and businesses to establish employee-run waste reduction programs in the workplace and to encourage them to use products and packaging made of recyclable and recycled materials. We're teaming up with trade associations and unions to develop industry-specific waste reduction strategies. We're working closely with municipalities to ensure that they have what they need to plan and carry out effective waste reduction programs and to finance those programs adequately.
We are also making a serious effort to cut red tape in the assessment and approvals processes. This will expedite the development and setup of these programs while maintaining high standards of environmental protection.
In all these areas, we're working as partners to develop and implement effective and efficient programs. In the end, regulations will be established to ensure that all are treated fairly and stand on a level playing field with their peers.
Individually and collectively, people are more accountable for the waste they generate in their homes, their workplaces, their institutions and their recreation facilities. They need information if they are to keep up with, take part in and take advantage of this progression towards a conserver society.
Mr Chair, I see you looking at the clock. I'm wondering whether you want me to try to keep to the half-hour, or whether I could be granted the time to continue and finish the few more pages I have.
The Acting Chair: I suspect most of the members would want to hear your statement.
Hon Mrs Grier: Thank you very much. I'm sure the same latitude will be granted to my critics when they come back with their comments. I appreciate that very much.
One of the major components of change in societal habits and attitudes is, of course, education. As a ministry, we are developing a province-wide education and information campaign on waste reduction, we're providing a referral service for people who want more information on waste reduction topics and we're promoting the benefits of home composting.
This has been very well received by the public. The request for phone calls and tips during Waste Reduction Week generated a flood of phone calls, and from the calls and the tips we received last year, we were able to incorporate new ideas into our programs and into the education programs we had for Waste Reduction Week this year. I think that's what enables people to feel that in fact they are making a difference and have a role to play. As we members of the Legislature all know, there are an awful lot of good ideas out there among our constituents, and we have to find a way of putting them into the policy-making process.
An important education initiative that we've worked on with the Ministry of Education is known as TAG, for teaching about garbage. I didn't think schools would want to teach about garbage, but there is enormous enthusiasm for this kind of course, which we have piloted in a number of primary schools. I spent a morning with one of them earlier on this month.
TAG attempts to integrate waste management topics into a variety of study areas including science, mathematics, visual arts, music and literature. Education kits for students from kindergarten through grade 6 have been tested and will be distributed to schools during October and November. The program eventually will cover students all the way through senior high school. I think that's particularly appropriate, because I'm sure all of you, like me, have run into adults who rather shamefacedly confess that they are using refillable bottles or using a composter because their children had come home from school and told them that was what they had to do for the environment. We intend to build on that kind of initiative.
The province's schools have already shown great interest and support for recycling. Our Student Action for Recycling program, known as Star, is a big success. The objective of the program is to get 5,000 schools recycling by 1994. To date, more than 3,500 schools from about 50 school boards now participate in the Star program. In cooperation with organizations such as the Recycling Council of Ontario, we are promoting public education campaigns such as Waste Reduction Week and Zero Garbage Day. We are working with municipal recycling coordinators on public education for their programs and with educators and school boards to develop a school curriculum program on waste management from kindergarten to grade 13.
In accordance with the fourth policy direction which I outlined at the beginning of my ministry, the importance of being a green government, the Ontario government is committed to a comprehensive approach that makes the environment an integral part of its decision-making process. For example, six ministries were involved in the work of the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy. The round table has developed strategies for creating an environmentally sustainable economy in Ontario. Last month, I released the round table report, which was titled Restructuring for Sustainability.
The work of the round table puts Ontario in the forefront of a worldwide movement towards sustainable development. Also, I think it has been a clear demonstration of the value of bringing a variety of groups together, the multi-stakeholder consensus-building process -- to use the jargon that is applied -- which I think has been shown very clearly to work, not only with respect to the round table but in other of the partnerships I've identified in my comments here today.
There are essentially two major messages in the report of the round table. First, as our government said initially, the health of the economy and the environment are indivisible and the economy and the environment must work in harmony. You cannot have one at the expense of the other and hope to sustain both a healthy economy and a healthy environment over the long term. The second message is that the way we make our decisions must change, particularly our economic decisions.
The report of the round table outlines four key strategic directions that were developed from the six principles articulated in the round table's challenge paper issued early in 1990. Those six principles have been widely quoted and adapted and I think are worth repeating for this committee today.
The first is anticipation and prevention, and I've already referred to that. We must put environmental concerns at the core of the decision-making process, and it is both cheaper and better to anticipate and prevent instead of reacting and curing.
The second principle is full cost accounting. If we take into account the true environmental costs of our activities and build that into our decision-making process, we make better decisions.
Third, those decisions must be informed. We need good information and informed decisions if we are to protect both the environment and the economy.
The fourth principle is living off the interest. Interestingly enough, that is a principle the business representatives on the round table had no difficulty in articulating, finding examples of and applying to environmental principles, but one which I think people in the environmental community have perhaps not paid enough attention to in the past or not articulated as clearly. Living off the interest requires that individuals and companies put back more of the renewable natural resources they extract, recycle as much of the non-renewable materials as possible and search for alternative materials.
The fifth principle was quality over quantity, which involves, among other things, insisting that suppliers provide products that last, using our strength as consumers to look for better products and lasting products, making sure that planning mechanisms consider ways to reduce energy consumption and water consumption and doing everything possible to encourage recycling.
1610
The final principle is the one in which the aboriginal representatives on the round table made a very particular, important contribution, the principle that we have to always have a respect for nature and the rights of future generations.
Application of these principles will ensure that Ontario moves towards sustainability, and they contain recommendations that apply to all of us, whatever our role.
I'm very proud that the round table was able to reach a consensus on some critical issues and also that the government is already acting on this report. Many of the activities of my cabinet colleagues reflect the thinking of the round table, and it was interesting as the round table completed its work to see how much of what it was doing was complemented by the work of the Task Force on the Environmental Bill of Rights or by the work of the Sewell commission and the Crombie commission and policy development initiatives from other ministries.
The report of the round table does not spell the end of the round table. It is indeed the end of the beginning. The round table will be renewed to promote the implementation of its recommendations and to foster more local round tables and workplace round tables.
In addition, my ministry is coordinating the provincial response to the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, which was headed up by David Crombie. The royal commission has recommended options for fostering waterfront development in ways which are environmentally sustainable; the waterfront regeneration trust will be carrying forward that work.
The Crombie commission, I think, popularized the concept of an ecosystem approach to land use planning and established those clear nine principles that are essential to waterfront policy, that we must have clean, green, usable, diverse, open, accessible, connected, affordable and attractive waterfronts; simple understandable words that I find are being repeated again and again in communities around the province.
The process that the Crombie commission used, working with all levels of government, different agencies, community groups and other interests, including the private sector, was one that developed a set of common goals which both protected the public interest in the waterfront but did so in ways that were compatible with job creation, economic development and a healthy, accessible waterfront.
We have begun to implement those recommendations by the introduction of legislation to establish the waterfront regeneration trust, by adopting the ecosystem approach and the nine principles of waterfront policy, by approving and beginning to implement the waterfront trail that was recommended across the greater Toronto area. We've declared a provincial interest in the east Bay-Front port industrial area and played a major part in the environmental audit for that area, and have asked the regeneration trust to develop policies to deal with the area known as Garrison Common and also the Gardiner-Lakeshore transportation study as well as shoreline regeneration.
Nowhere, of course, is the ecosystem approach to land use planning more apparent than in the Niagara Escarpment plan, a plan that was adopted by this Legislature with the support of all three parties. I'm very proud of being able to have strengthened the Niagara Escarpment Commission by the appointment of members who strongly support the protection of the environment and the escarpment, and we have further supported the escarpment by purchases of land such as the 390-acre Lac Minerals property in Halton, which was threatened with development and which by negotiations will now remain in the public domain for ever; land which includes a mixture of hardwood forests to wetlands, a small stream and open fields.
A number of other ministries have initiatives under way that respond to the Crombie commission's recommendations, and that's all part of being a green government. A number of other interministerial initiatives that I have taken also involve environmental protection.
My colleague Health minister Frances Lankin and I have announced a strategy to treat and dispose of biomedical waste. The strategy makes Ontario self-sufficient in handling biomedical waste and involves the phase-out of inadequate hospital incinerators in the future.
The Ministry of Energy is taking the lead on the province's green industry strategy. The ministry is charged with developing plans and programs which would stimulate the growth and expansion of Ontario industries, producing globally competitive products and services.
With the sustainable forestry initiative which was developed by the Ministry of Natural Resources, the government is developing sound new changes to forest management practices through public policy development and consultation.
John Sewell, in heading up the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario, which reports to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, is looking at ways to green the planning process and restore confidence in planning at both the municipal and the regional level.
Regional operations are a very important part of my ministry's work. They are the front line in our regional operations division and receive approximately 54% of our budget. Our regional staff are best able to appreciate the true cost of years and decades of environmental abuse and neglect. These are the people who oversee the cleanups of long-standing pollution problems, such as the PCB problem in Smithville. We will soon finish incinerating the PCBs stored at that site -- stored improperly and in a way that contaminated very large areas of the ground. It will have cost more than $30 million to get that job done properly, and this year alone we will spend $5.9 million on that cleanup.
Other costly remedial efforts that are under way include a $5-million pipeline for the village of Manotick to restore contaminated water supplies. We've also spent $8.4 million to date to compensate the regional municipality of Waterloo for costs incurred due to water supply contamination in Elmira. More costs are expected in the future to correct these problems. The exorbitant cost of these cleanup projects underlines the need to prevent pollution from occurring in the first place.
Enforcement is a very important part of my ministry's programs and we are committed to strictly enforcing Ontario's environmental laws and to getting the message out to would-be polluters. This past June I released the ministry's first ever annual report on environmental charges and convictions. Offences Against the Environment, as we called it, is a record of the names of all individuals, companies and institutions convicted of environmental offences in this province, a who's who of polluters in Ontario, and we strongly suspect that those companies and individuals who found their names on the list will attempt not to be there again. In the past we released only general numbers with no detailed breakdowns or names.
In addition to serving as a deterrent, the report increases government accountability by giving everyone access to the details of this information in a public document.
I should note here the contribution made by my predecessor, Jim Bradley, in making the investigations and enforcement branch such an important and effective tool for environmental protection. This is a trend which I have continued and accelerated since I became minister, and our investigation and enforcement branch is often visited by people from other jurisdictions around the world and looked to as an example of a way of policing the environment and making sure that the rules and regulations are adhered to.
There has been a 30% increase in the number of convictions in 1991 compared to 1990, and 1991 was a record year for total fines: 485 convictions resulted in $2.575 million in fines. These numbers show that we've improved our enforcement activities, and they also show that judges are handing down sentences which reflect the seriousness of environmental offences. Consider the case of Severin Argenton, the president and owner of Varnicolor Chemical Ltd, who is now serving eight months in prison for offences related to the storage of hazardous chemicals.
Judges are also making increased use of creative sentences. One company was ordered to pave a one-kilometre stretch of road after being convicted of discharging dust. Another was required to establish environmental scholarships worth $30,000 at Lakehead University after spilling oil into the Kaministiquia River, and other companies have been stripped of profits or required to set up trust funds and training programs, and one was required to make a contribution to a non-profit recycling operation in its community. So we think that the courts are being very creative and that these are good ways of both acting as a deterrent and drawing attention to the effects of crimes against the environment.
As Minister of the Environment, I'm exercising my responsibility to deal with environmental problems which stretch beyond Ontario's borders.
1620
With respect to global warming, the Canadian government is committed to stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. I have been working with other ministers of the environment across the country to press my federal counterparts for specific actions as part of the national action strategy for global warming and there are actions that my ministry is taking. We are developing our own strategies to address global warming by cofunding studies of greenhouse gas inventories and measures to reduce gas emissions, by reviewing economic projects and the costs of action and by organizing stakeholder consultations with respect to the action plan.
To deal with ozone levels, we are continuing to implement Ontario's program to control ozone-depleting substances. This program involves eliminating the use of CFCs and developing ways to capture and reuse them.
Currently, we are developing a program to strengthen legislation ensuring the capture and recycling of refrigerants. A stakeholders' forum was held just last month, the information for which is now being reviewed, in order to improve that program.
My ministry also is continuing to monitor the progress of Ontario's four major producers of acid gas emissions as required under the Countdown Acid Rain program. While the reports show that these companies are on target for meeting their 1994 reduction targets, we're looking for ways to improve this. A consultant's study is now being undertaken to evaluate abatement technologies and costs required to reduce acid gas emissions beyond the 1994 limits.
We continue to work with our federal and local counterparts on the remedial action plans developed for 17 areas of concern on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes. Fourteen stage 1 reports have been submitted to the International Joint Commission and the remaining reports in this series, which identify environmental conditions and problems, will be submitted to the IJC this fall. Four stage 2 plans containing recommended options for implementation will be completed in 1992, with the remainder to follow in 1993.
We don't need to wait for completed plans before we begin implementation of remedial efforts. We're working to upgrade a number of sewage treatment facilities -- that's part of the capital expenditures I referred to earlier -- and our Clean Up Rural Beaches program has had additional funding.
We are also negotiating for a renewal of the Canada-Ontario agreement. The Canada-Ontario agreement review team directed the preparation of a draft paper which lists priorities for the Great Lakes' cleanup. These are: the implementation of the remedial action plans; the protection of Lake Superior, Lake Ontario and the Niagara River; and, of course, our programs on pollution prevention. Within the next six months we anticipate that a strategy will be developed culminating in federal-provincial resource-sharing arrangements. We will not, however, be rushed into any agreements without ensuring that Ontario's requirements are looked after.
I am also a full participant in the activities of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Some of the issues to be addressed by the council in the next two years include global warming, air quality, solid and hazardous waste management and a follow-up to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development that was held earlier this year.
As you can see, the work of the Ministry of the Environment covers a wide range of activities, and some of those, upon which I have touched only briefly, I'm sure will be the subject of questions over the continuation of this committee's work. Our activities range from investigating small spills to participating in complex negotiations on global environmental problems.
I believe my ministry is carrying out these duties responsibly and effectively. We've built a strong record of achievements in the last two years, a record that we expect to build upon and improve upon in the coming years.
I look forward to discussing all of this in much greater detail and I thank you for your patience for what has been an overly long presentation.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. Now will be the turn of the Liberals. Mr McClelland.
Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Minister, thank you for your presentation. In view of a number of factors -- I understand that you have some time constraints and, quite frankly, I think that the greater benefit for certainly ourselves and members of the committee is generally achieved in, if you will, the questions and exchanges on the more specifics.
I say this with no hidden pejorative slant whatsoever. I think it's easy for anybody, myself included and yourself, to talk in general terms, and we all have a tendency to do that in this business. I think that perhaps as we get into some of the line item discussions, we'll be able to more clearly understand what you're doing and hopefully be of assistance as we fulfil our roles in respect of roles and responsibilities in opposition.
I think too at the outset I'd like to comment that perhaps one of the easiest positions in the world is to be in the position of a critic. It has often been said that anybody can knock a barn door down -- actually, there's a bit more colourful language that I think goes with the little saying -- but it takes an individual with skill to hang one properly.
Indeed, one of the failings of opposition in our system, I think, is to quickly get into a negative mindset and to begin to look for all the things that are wrong, to begin to look for the part of the glass that is half empty instead of looking at the things that are full. But indeed part of what we need to do is to measure goals and objectives against what is actually happening. I appreciate your coming here today and beginning to set out, first of all, the framework of the policies upon which you have undertaken the discharge of your responsibilities as minister, and then some of the specific programs.
My comments at this point I hope will be brief -- my colleague Mr Eddy wanted to make a few comments as well -- and they will be, I suppose, a preface to some of the questions that will be coming.
I will want to explore with you the area of enforcement. I thank you sincerely for the tribute paid to your predecessor and your colleague and friend and my friend Jim Bradley in terms of that effort and some of the other efforts that were undertaken or begun under his leadership.
I think again in the area of enforcement, if I can perhaps draw maybe an all-too-thin thread, but draw a thread to the changing mindset that you talk about with respect to moving from a consumer to a conserver society, the whole concept of enforcement, as beneficial as it is and as necessary as it is, is something that we need to balance in terms of the prevention up front. I appreciate the fact that you talked first of all in terms of prevention and secondly in terms of enforcement.
I start with the enforcement because I think implicitly in your comments and the way that you framed them you're giving primacy to the prevention aspect of it, and the enforcement is what comes after the fact and deals with those that fall through the cracks in terms of prevention for any number of reasons. I respect that position, and I think it's more than coincidental that you ordered your comments in that sequence.
The enforcement aspect of the Ministry of the Environment raises some concerns with myself and my colleagues in opposition and indeed, I think, with people generally involved in the environmental community in the province of Ontario.
Through our questioning a little bit later on, one of the things I'd like to try to draw out is the extent to which our enforcement is concentrated sometimes, and not with any sense of malice, on companies, organizations -- the corporate sector, if you will -- that are trying to play by the rules; in other words, those that aren't maliciously and wantonly breaking the laws of the land. I'd like to explore with you and with your staff the extent to which we effectively use enforcement to deal with the bad actors.
I'm looking for and obviously don't have a good description, but I think you know what I mean, Minister, because of your experience and involvement for many years, that there are many organizations, many companies -- let's just use the waste management companies as an example -- that try to abide by rules, that try to abide by the specific requirements of the law in filing and in the submission of documents and in adherence to the requirements that are running with their certificate of approval.
1630
There seems to be a tremendous amount of concentration of enforcement effort making sure that they obey, if you will, the letter of the law, while at the same time I think there's fairly ample evidence, which I hope we'll be able to explore, that there are those who would blatantly disregard the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law, and many of those are being missed.
I think that's something that we'd like to see a move towards and a concentration on, with the assistance of those players in the marketplace that are doing their best and their utmost to comply with the rules. In other words, I think that they're looking for a level playing field and I think that we have a responsibility to move towards that.
I'm interested in your comments with respect to our international and national involvement. As I said, it's all too easy to be critical. I'm somewhat hesitant to next say that we have some concerns about what's happening with waste management in our interrelationship and our interaction with the marketplace in waste management internationally; what's happening with the IC&I sector and the shipment of waste that you refer to and how we are going to resolve that; the apparent contradiction that we see in terms of the government policy being established that says that municipalities must deal with waste locally, at the same time knowing full well that there's a tremendous amount of transborder shipping; the distinction, if you will, between household and IC&I sector waste and how we're going to wrestle with that and some of the rationale for that apparent distinction and apparent application of different rules for different sectors. I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to deal with that in some detail.
You referred to our role as the province of Ontario in the national scene and your role with other ministers of the environment, the provincial ministers and the federal minister. I have some concerns in terms of the Waste Management Act and part IV that we've talked about and as you made reference to in your earlier comments in another committee -- and many of the members, many of our colleagues sat on that committee -- with how we mesh, how we stay in sync with what's happening in the rest of the country.
I do not want to suggest for one moment that the lowest common denominator ought to prevail, recognizing that Ontario has a role to play in terms of leadership and that we have played that role and I believe will continue to play that role, but at the same time must be in harmony with what's happening with the rest of the country and elsewhere in North America, as we very much recognize that we're very much tied into a North American marketplace.
I'm sure my colleagues and I will be talking about that as we get into some of the line items as well and will simply say that we have concerns with the fears that have been expressed by a number of organizations, a number of enterprises, in terms of the potential of falling out of sync with the national packaging protocol and how Bill 4 might impact that.
What kind of tax structures are being contemplated? Are you thinking of moving to a half-back system? Certainly, with the regulatory empowerment under the Waste Management Act, we would like to have, and hope that you would be able to give us, some specific ideas of where you're planning to go with that. We'd like to know where the regulations are in terms of their development under part IV.
I know that we've had the initiatives paper and you have had the initiatives paper and some exchange related thereto, and that is the genesis of and the beginning of the development of your regulations, so we'll have some specific questions we'll want to deal with on that.
If I can work backwards in terms of your four principles or your four basic policies, Minister, you mentioned the green government and the round table. I've asked you questions in the House and had some concerns, and I appreciate your response in the House to concerns with respect to the future viability of the round table. We're delighted that this is continuing and that you have undertaken to see the round table remain viable and an important part of what's taking place in this province.
You mentioned that six ministries are involved, and we'd be interested in knowing to what extent other ministers are becoming actively involved in showing leadership and providing the kind of leadership we think is essential to see the round table continue to be viable, the overall implementation, again not in terms of just general policy and concepts but the specific line-by-line operational manifestations of the policies, the six principles the round table has adopted in terms of the greening of the Ontario government.
Allow me to backtrack just a little bit in terms of the enforcement issue. It's easy to jump on the things that people miss; it's easy to jump on the top part of the empty glass of water. But I think in terms of the "refillable" regulation and the tremendous erosion in terms of the numbers, your previous commitment, and commitment stated numerous times, to ensure that the enforcement of the soft drink industry's refillables is in compliance.
I don't need to tell you that their required refillable quota under the regulation is 22.5%, and you had indicated your desire to see a 30% achievement. Yet we find as of the end of the summer we're below 6%, in fact at about 5.4%. I found that as I called the enforcement branch this morning they had no idea initially. They said they'd take two and a half to three hours but they would provide the information later on.
I just use that by way of example, saying that I think we have to begin to take a look at what we have in place and do that well, as well as looking at the future initiatives. I think sometimes we can get caught up in the plans and in the rhetoric of where we want to go.
I'm concerned about skipping back to your basic policy of the consumer and conserver society as it impacts waste management. I don't want at this point to begin to revisit Bill 143 and the issues that are related thereto. We'll have ample time to do that during the exchange and interaction in the House tomorrow. Tomorrow, Mr Cousens, is opposition day with respect to waste management in the greater Toronto area. So we'll save that investment, I hope, for tomorrow and subsequent days.
Hon Mrs Grier: I can hardly wait.
Mr McClelland: I'm sure none of us can.
The Acting Chair: We'll all put that on our calendars, to be there. Sorry, go ahead.
Mr McClelland: Come early and intercede. We won't have quite the response that our friends down the street are having right now. I might add, and this is totally unrelated, that I just glanced up at the screen in relation to that comment. We won't tell for the record what's on the screen, but I asked some of our colleagues if they'd be in the House today and a few of them assured me they'd be in the House. They added parenthetically, "The house that Paul Godfrey built." That's where some of them are today. Were it so that all of us could be there at the present time.
In terms of the movement from the consumer society to the conserver society, Minister, one of the things I'd like to explore with you and with your staff is the extent to which we collectively stand back from problems and begin to look at the long-range impact of apparent solutions.
It's easy for any of us -- and I've done this so many times. I have fallen into the quick-fix solutions in my mind. I'd like to discuss some of those areas with you as we look at moving to achieve the goal of a conserver society. You mentioned the 21% reduction. I have to ask you how much of that is attributed to the reduction in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector that is perhaps going out of the country in terms of the recycling.
Has that been accounted for in our benchmark measuring back to 1987? How much of it is attributed to reduction in the production simply as a result of the economic realities in the province today? What will be the impact of part IV of the Waste Management Act when we begin to do audits, and what kinds of benchmarks are we going to use? How are we going to begin to give practical meaning to the implementation of the regulations that we're anxious to see coming forward?
1640
In terms of the education initiatives, think of the Environmental Youth Corps, an opportunity this summer past where literally thousands upon thousands of young men and women were looking for work, yet we had a reduction in the raw numbers of people employed, as I understand. We'll have an opportunity to explore that. You look at me quizzically and I'm sure you'll correct the record if that is misinformation, but my understanding is that we had a reduction of the number of young people employed under that program. That's an area of concern we want to discuss with you.
Moving back to your number two, protection programs based on the concept of prevention, you mentioned the petroleum regulations. Where are we going with the other MISA initiatives? What's happening with pulp and paper? Where do you stand on your commitment made previously in terms of the organochlorine issue and a whole variety of issues that will fall out of that? I raise this again, as I said, just as a general preface to our discussion that will take place in more detail.
The environmental bill of rights -- I'm looking forward to that document. Again a major change, a departure from what we had originally contemplated, I think it's safe to say, and from what you had originally contemplated to what we have now. I'm not necessarily saying that's worse, but certainly different; perhaps much better in some respects. That will be an issue of some discussion, but the fact of the matter remains that we've had a significant change from what was said was going to be done and what in fact was done.
Therein, I suppose, lies the thrust of what I want to do and what we would like to do during the few hours allotted to us for estimates with the Ministry of the Environment. What is the practical and real implementation of the words that you said -- and I appreciate your candour; they're so easy to run off, the euphemisms we get caught up in, the jargon of the day.
I look forward to the page-by-page, sometimes tedious, work of going through estimates to ask some of those questions to find out where we're going as a province; to find out where the ministry is going and to see how we measure up, how we square up, if you will, some of the conceptual ideas we have paid lipservice to, some of which we have achieved and many that remain ahead of us as challenges.
With those basic comments, I'm going to defer now to my colleague and await your response to that. As I said, I look forward to next week when we begin to address some of those issues in a very specific way, indicating again -- and I want to say this -- that as we go through this process, one of the easiest things in government is to be a critic. The hard part is to be a critic and to try and offer, collectively and in a sense of harmony, some practical solutions.
I hope we might even have, if you will, a sense of forthrightness and honest exchange that perhaps we haven't experienced at the estimates process, where we can really get down to some nitty-gritty and talk about things and say: "Here's where we're falling off the mark. Here's where we need to move forward. Here are some things where we basically have to abandon our plans, for whatever reasons, or change them significantly." That may not be the case; we may affirm the direction we're going in.
As we look at the line-by-line items in the context of the four principles you've set up, your four basic policies and some of the principles, and look at the regional operations, the various departments in the ministry, I think it'll be a useful exercise, certainly for me in my role as critic and, I hope, for all of us involved in the process as colleagues in the House.
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): What did he leave me, 20 minutes?
The Acting Chair: Yes.
Mr Eddy: Thank you, Minister, for your presentation. I appreciate the information you've submitted to us. Very briefly, I have two or three things I'd like to mention.
Number one is ethanol. I noted that you did not mention ethanol at all, and it seems to me that's one of the sunrises on the horizon, especially with the new process developed by Queen's and now purchased by Seaway ethanol co-op. I was interested and pleased to note that ethanol can be added to diesel fuel and heating oil, as well as gasoline. It seemed to me that was a great improvement, realizing that it's from a sustainable production of corn and indeed other products. It has tremendous potential, and I hope you do whatever you can to further use of it.
It's one of the things I have the most inquiry about in rural areas: How can we get using it more, and when can we get a plant going? Of course, that's why we were so interested in the proposal of Sunthetic Energy Inc of Sudbury, which I guess would use corn mostly as well, which is hopefully grown every year.
I had a concern about the regional operations, and you mentioned adequate enforcement. I'd like you to comment at some time whether there is a backlog, whether you feel it is indeed adequate enforcement, because a great concern is expressed from time to time about the cheaters. I think of the tractor-trailer transports at night on rural roads and that type of thing; very difficult, but they're out there, apparently.
The other concerns I note are with the easy access to our rivers, which are used for drinking supplies. I think of the St Clair River, where the frequency of chemical spills could hardly be tagged with the term "accidental," in my opinion. It's one thing I always wanted to speak to, because I've felt the urgency to take all those drains to the St Clair River and contain the thing. Of course, you're faced then with the possibility of soil contamination. In my own riding I'm thinking of the Grand River, where from time to time there are chemical spills, and they do affect drinking supplies.
The final item is, I noted the expansion and improvement of municipal sewage treatment facilities. That needs to be an ongoing program. It's my understanding there are many that are beyond capacity and certainly causing problems and needing attention.
Thank you for your presentation.
The Acting Chair: We will now turn to the Conservatives.
Mr Cousens: I'd like to congratulate the new deputy minister on his appointment. Mr Dicerni, I haven't met you before, and I wish you great success and much satisfaction as you do a most important job as a public servant in Ontario. I commend you on this appointment.
I also commend your staff and your ministry. I have always felt, especially since last estimates, when we worked out a few understandings, that your ministry has been most professional in the fulfilment of its responsibilities as a service, certainly in response to my questions and the things I needed. On behalf of the province of Ontario, I would like to go on record as saying you have excellent people and they're a credit to the system. I wish you'd somehow keep them motivated in doing those things that are right and good for the province of Ontario.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Can I have a clip of that for my householder, please?
Mr Cousens: If you give full credit to the Tory party and Don Cousens.
Mr Bisson: It's something unbelievable I just heard.
Mr Cousens: In reviewing the comments by the minister, the fact is that there are a number of things going on within the ministry that have our support and encouragement. I think as we continue down the road with the 3Rs, with very lofty targets by the year 2000, the commitment not only by the minister, ministry and government but certainly from our party to see us continue in that direction is something we give our fullest support to.
I'm just going to touch on some of the issues that were highlighted in the minister's statement, but not all of them, because I have some other remarks I wanted to put on record that will be the direction of a series of questions that we would like to present.
1650
It's too bad that not everybody agrees with the minister on the value of the environmental bill of rights. It's a step forward. I wish you'd change the name of it from being an environmental bill of rights to something that really reflects what it is. It's a new system of reporting. It has a number of benefits to it, but to call it a bill of rights I think builds it into a level of expectation in the public of what it's going to do. But this is not the place to argue that bill. I look forward to the minister tabling it in the House, when we will have a chance to discuss it more thoroughly. With the consultations ending this Friday you will have a chance to do it, certainly in your fullness of time. I didn't know what date you plan to table it in the House; you didn't really say.
We've really worked Bill 143 through, but it sure is a powerful instrument. We agree on that one. You have one instrument there that gives you a tremendous amount of power. We didn't have anything to do to stop it, either; had there been a minority government, I can assure you there would have been other ways of working that one through.
I'm encouraged by the Toronto waterfront regeneration trust and supported that as it was processed through the House. Wasn't it Bill 1? It was symbolically the first bill of this session. I am also pleased by the way in which you have Mr Crombie and others involved in that program.
I worry about PCBs and I'm surprised that you highlight it as one of the activities you're proud of. We still have well over 1,000 licensed sites in Ontario, including this building, where there are PCBs, and though Smithville is a horrible situation, there are indeed many other sites that need to be addressed. I haven't heard you indicate what your long-term plan is for PCBs. It would be interesting to hear that some time, maybe during estimates, if you feel you've got something to say.
When you talk about your enforcement procedures, I find it a little laughable when you indicate that there were 481 convictions in 1991.
How does that compare with the situation where, in Mount Hope, we had an incident. P&L Recycling is owned by the Musitano family, and they were charged with $2.4 million in fines for failing to comply with the Environmental Protection Act; the court finally came out with a fine of $5,000 because the Ministry of the Environment lawyer said that was consistent with others charged in the incident. There were two partners fined $5,000 each, and the mother I think was fined $1. The fines didn't come close to paying for the cleanup, and I understand that the $1.2-million cleanup was awarded to Ani-Mat in Quebec. Are they the only ones who can do such a cleanup? What happens to some of the Ontario-based corporations that could qualify, and how is it awarded? I understand that some eight companies bid on the proposal, and I'd be interested in how those bids were finally -- it doesn't have to be answered verbally. It would be interesting to receive a copy of those who were bidding and how your government settled on that company.
There's also some concern about where the tires were being shipped. I heard that some 800,000 tires were going to be shipped to Indiana and there they'd be burned. I just don't know what's happened to it.
I'd be interested in how that one ranks against all your other enforcement ones. Is that what you'd call a good win for the ministry and a good win for the public of Ontario? Some explanations there could be interesting. The whole tire problem continues to be a terrible situation, and I don't think you have begun to look at that.
Ozone depletion: I'm glad you mentioned that and the refrigerants and some way of addressing it. The US Clean Air Act is going to require any company that uses CFCs, halons, tetrachlorides or other substances that are dangerous to the ozone layer to label their products as of April 15, 1993. It's all part of the implementation plan of the EPA out of Washington -- quite an impact. What is Ontario or Canada doing by comparison? I don't know. I'm interested in it, because I think we've got to start facing up to the problems of the ozone depletion.
Young families now don't let their kids out in the summertime without putting sunscreen on them. It really won't be long before those cartoons we've seen of people wearing shields right over their whole bodies will be a fact, if we continue to destroy ozone. It's not a small problem; it's a major crisis of huge proportions, and if there is anything I can do to help accelerate urgent action on that, I would be very pleased to do so. I have great fears of what will happen to our grandchildren with that one.
But how do we tie it in so that all of North America is somehow working towards the same end? Certainly the US is acting very decisively under the Clean Air Act. Problems are being created by the decisions: How is it going to be monitored? What are the alternative substances you can use instead of CFCs? It's a subject of discussion that interests me greatly.
The fact that you discuss sulphur dioxide and acid rain concerns post-1994, the fact that you have a consultant study looking at it now, is, I hope, at least in response to the resolution on acid rain emissions that was passed almost unanimously in this Legislature and that was tabled by myself. Again, air, water, land: the three major areas under which the environment acts. Then you've got your legislative role, but I have to say, tell us when that consultant study is going to be released and tell us what you plan to do.
Maybe it's not unlike some other decisions that have come out of the ministry, where you might be wise to hold off until you really make up your mind. When we had the standing committee on estimates on February 18, 1991, on page E-174, at that time the minister, when talking about Metropolitan Toronto and Kirkland Lake in response to a question from me, said: "No, the agreement that exists between Metropolitan Toronto and Kirkland Lake is still valid. What was discussed last week was a further study to look at how the rail haul of waste would work in cold weather, and Metro decided not to proceed with merely that aspect of the discussion." But then by around April 4, 1991, I guess, you'd reversed your position on it.
I can see how in some of these discussions, if we are able to get you to put something on the record, we're going to be able to come back to Hansard and show how you've changed your mind in between. That was an example. At that time, you were in favour of the Kirkland Lake proposal --
Hon Mrs Grier: I'd ask you to read it again very carefully, Mr Cousens; I'm not sure you can draw that conclusion.
Mr Cousens: Well, I'll read it out loud:
"Mr Cousens: That would be very helpful. So Kirkland Lake is not excluded, then, from the plan and you see it as a temporary withdrawal from the city of Toronto, Metro Toronto, so that you have not excluded that at all by any of the action that you --
"Mrs Grier: No, the agreement that exists between Metropolitan Toronto and Kirkland Lake is still valid."
You were really confirming that the situation with Kirkland Lake --
Interjection.
Mr Cousens: You'll have a chance. I've referred to it: E-174. It would indicate to me -- get your legal counsel to check it if you want -- that at the time you were in favour still of Kirkland Lake as a rail haul option, and certainly by April 4 you'd reversed that decision. My point is that I can understand why someone in your position doesn't want to put too much on the record, because it's going to come back to haunt you because we certainly read old records.
I'd be interested in the consultant study for acid gas and when you expect it to be released and when it will be public. If there are any interim reports on it now, I would appreciate seeing them. There is a tremendous amount there that is of interest to us.
I know our time is very, very limited when it's split up among the three parties, but there are a number of areas where I would appreciate clarification and updates. One of the issues I'd like to spend some time on, if we can schedule it, would be the Ontario Waste Management Corp, and there are a number of areas within the votes, 1504/3, where it describes the activity of the OWMC providing for "the design, construction and operation of a provincial facility for the management of liquid industrial and hazardous waste." I'm very interested in knowing how close this description is to the present activities of the OWMC. I note there's a need for such a body to perform the duties outlined, but wonder how close those activities are to the stated intention of constructing a hazardous waste facility.
I notice the size of the administrative structure of the OWMC and the number of people employed in areas of communications, public affairs and marketing. I want to know, if I can, the function that these people have in relation to the objective of the corporation.
1700
The OWMC received $12.6 million in government funding. Is it possible to receive a further breakdown of this spending? I'd like to know what the priority areas are. Over the past 10 years, the OWMC has spent $110 million or so, and I'd like to know what's been accomplished for that $100-million-plus and what the long-term plans are for that organization.
The environmental assessment hearings are about to wrap up by the end of this year. Is that still a hoped-for date?
I know I can't raise too much on the Waste Management Act because that falls under your other portfolio, as minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, but I'd be interested in knowing how you are able to split your time between the two jobs and if there is any conflict in the kinds of responsibilities you have between the two areas.
On page E-174, we look at the environmental criteria for site selection purposes. I'm most interested in how you can have that and then have class 1 to 3 agricultural land, and yet come along -- and some of those areas are certainly among those being considered by the Interim Waste Authority in the 57 proposed sites within the greater Toronto area.
Some of the waste management discussion papers -- I hope we have a chance to get into some of them. Was there not a financing paper that's supposed to come out and when is it coming out? I'm interested in knowing what its status is. I have a number of questions that tie in to that.
The round table on the -- my watch has stopped, believe it or not, so I've got to be careful. How much longer do I have?
Interjection: A long time.
Mr Cousens: No, it hasn't. I guess it's just -- the ball game's going on. It seems like it's stopped. I know I'm looking forward to it. Mr McClelland: The sun is still.
Mr Cousens: They're moving in there. At this point, I think the Blue Jays are far more interesting than --
Interjections: No, no.
Mr Cousens: Is there total agreement in the committee about Cousens and the Blue Jays?
Mr Bisson: We feel like that all the time, whenever you speak.
Mr Cousens: I know. I just --
Mr Bisson: For posterity.
The Acting Chair: Mr Cousens, Mr McClelland had a point of order.
Mr McClelland: I think this is an historic moment, Mr Chairman. It's probably the only time that my friend, Mr Cousens, would have complete unanimity in terms of all his colleagues agreeing with him. I'll leave it at that. I just think that we should pause and note this, because I would dare say that in the records of this House this has probably never happened.
The Acting Chair: It's not a point of order. Mr Cousens.
Mr Cousens: I think it's a rare time. I will take it as a moment that I will try to forget. Don't we all try to forget estimates once we've done it?
Anyway, on those discussion papers, I have a number of issues, so that if we can schedule something in there I'll be quite happy to raise the questions at that time.
I'm glad the minister touched on the round table on the environment. I really wonder what they're going to be doing in the future, but I don't think we'll have the time to get into it here.
Chlorine ban: I wonder what the ministry plans to do with regard to chlorine under the new MISA regulations. The forest products industry is quite concerned about the proposed changes, and I'd like to know what the minister plans to do and if we could be provided with the official status of MISA changes, if possible. I wonder also what studies have been undertaken by the Ministry of the Environment on the proposals with regard to chlorine and whether or not the minister has done anything to do an assessment of what's going to happen, the impact of those changes on the pulp and paper industry. I wonder whether or not the Ministry of the Environment or Natural Resources is having any meetings with the forest products industry and what is happening on it?
We've had many discussions in the past on the 30% refillable bottle quota, and then even this summer people had a chance to come to Queen's Park and talk about your environmental tax on beer cans. I'd be interested in knowing how you plan to deal with this industry and whether or not the 30% refillable quota on soft drinks has been enforced. What would be the effect on that industry if it's been enforced? Does the ministry have any understanding of what's happening with that, and if it did pursue it with vigour, how many job losses would take place, or just how can we deal with the issue?
I'm interested in the ministry's position on refilling alcohol beverage bottles. This is the question Mr McClelland should have asked, as one who would be more interested in those bottles, but there might be unanimous consideration on that as well.
Mr McClelland: I won't touch that.
Mr Cousens: You don't touch it. No, Mr Chairman, you'll behave yourself.
What discussions are you carrying on with the LCBO and my old friend Mr Brant? Is a deposit-refill system a viable alternative? Are there any comments you'd have on the Proctor and Redfern study? I'd just like to know what you see in the future there.
I want to know, if possible, something about the sewer and watermain corporation. Is that what you call it? I forget what it was going to be called, but Len Pitura's old job, what was that section called? The water secretariat?
Interjection: The water services corporation.
Mr Cousens: Okay, the water services corporation. I'd be interested in knowing how that one's proceeding, what plans you have and who's doing what, when, where, how, why, how much.
Biomedical waste: There's a 60-day consultation period following a discussion paper that was released by your ministry and the Ministry of Health on the management of biomedical waste. What's happened since the completion of that consultation period?
Illegal waste transfer stations: There are a number of operators of legal transfer stations complaining to the ministry's inactivity in dealing with illegal waste transfer operations. We talked earlier about enforcement. I want to get a sense from the minister or staff of how big a problem illegal waste management stations are and what you're doing to deal with the problem.
I'm interested in the environmental assessment reform process. What has developed since your announcement last May that major reforms on the environmental assessment process are being studied? Specifically, as you referred to in your presentation today, can you tell us what specific changes you've made? The fact that you're cutting down on the time from 120 days to 65 days, on average, is good and commendable, and maybe we can just see what it is you've done to do that.
Vote 1502: The transfer of payments to municipalities has to do with the $25 million allocated to municipal recycling support grants. In a recent press release from the ministry dated October 1, it notes that the total grants to municipalities for the 3Rs is currently $20 million. Will that figure grow to $25 million by the end of this fiscal year?
I understand as well that $4.1 million has been directed to industrial 3Rs activities. I'd be interested in knowing how the ministry intends that allocation to be used, where the funds are being directed. What is the total amount being spent on the 3Rs activities for 1992-93? Is there any thought on that? I'd just be interested in the dollar value and how much is being allocated.
I hope the blue box system survives. I have a worry, though, and I hear more concerns that it may not be surviving, that there may be some problems to it. If it does continue to thrive and carry on, that's good news, but I have a sense that it hasn't been thriving. It's also good that you say that all the products that are being collected in the blue box have markets and are being used. That is good. I had some worries about that one as well, and that is one of the concerns that people have out there. They think there are great big holes in the ground where you're just putting some of this stuff away. If you know that's all happening as it should, that will satisfy a concern that I think the public at large has.
I can't really pronounce this one as well as I should, but the Chinguacousy landfill site --
1710
Hon Mrs Grier: Chinguacousy.
Mr Cousens: I'd like to know a little bit more about that. I understand that a large percentage of the waste from the Mississauga train derailment in 1979 was disposed of at this site, and residents near there are worried about hazardous material that has been dumped there over a period of time. I'm just wondering what the activity of the ministry has been with respect to the closure of landfill sites such as that. It was closed in the early 1980s. Apparently, the regulations for closing sites at that time were not as rigid as they are now. I'd be most interested in knowing if people have some reason for concern, and if so, how we can alleviate that or address it.
I'd like to have a specific question answered -- and again, this doesn't have to be done through estimates -- the question, first of all, of grants to lobby groups which I raised earlier at previous estimates with this minister. I'd like to know why grants are provided to lobby groups. I'd like to have a list of all those groups that are receiving -- I guess I could do this in an Orders and Notices question -- grants, to Pollution Probe, the Ontario Environment Network, the Canadian Environmental Law Association and other lobby groups, if I could get a sense of that.
One of the people I hope the minister can arrange to have come to these estimates would be the head or representatives of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Mr Murdoch, one of the colleagues in our caucus, is interested in that. It has to do with the five-year review. He has a number of questions that might be worthwhile, if it's possible, for Terk Bayly. Is he the chairman?
Hon Mrs Grier: If I might, Mr Chair, certainly we can have representatives talk about the escarpment commission, but the five-year review is not something I can talk about. It has not yet been completed. The report has not yet been received by me, and it is inappropriate for me to make any comment on it until after it's been through that process. Certainly, we can answer questions about the operation and the escarpment, but not specifically on the five-year review.
Mr Cousens: I'm glad you confirmed that. I guess it will be helpful, then, for you to let us know when the five-year review will be complete.
Hon Mrs Grier: Certainly.
Mr Cousens: If, during the estimates, we have an opportunity, certainly Mr Murdoch would like to have a chance to raise a few questions at that time.
I happen to believe that the subject we're talking about is one of the most critical any of us can be involved with. If I have a worry, it is that it's too bad the government has not shown, at least to my satisfaction -- the perception in my community and in the larger group is that the way Bill 143 was pushed through the House and the way in which the government has failed to look at other options of disposing waste has embittered a tremendous number of people on government processes.
The minister has taken upon herself or on that office certain powers of decision-making that take it out of the realm of an environmental assessment process or of other ways of developing decisions. The whole methodology that has been presented, rail haul or even incineration -- I know the minister always says I want it, but I put it down as an option that at least could be looked at. There isn't even consensus in my own caucus on it. At least I think there are other methods that can be looked at, and the ministry has taken it upon itself to make those decisions. I'm convinced that if we had a minority government -- we don't, so I can't dream in that world; it's Technicolor and it's too pretty. There is not much we can do about it. I have to say that it creates tremendous bad will between the ministry and certain parts of the public.
What I hope can somehow come out of it are some of Mr McClelland's hopes, and I'd like to echo them. There has to be a way in which we can work better together. I have a great sense of the fact that we are not working together at all, certainly between the opposition, myself and your ministry. It disappoints me greatly that there is such a total breakdown between myself, this minister and this ministry, which to me doesn't lead to anything that can be positive in the sense that we are working together. If there is any way in which we can build those bridges again, I'd be glad to try to do it.
In the meantime, I look at the great number of issues. The seeming lack of willingness on the part of this minister to consult or work with this member of the opposition and my party is extremely frustrating. Bill 143, I think, epitomizes the extreme sense of disappointment I have in this ministry and this minister. I have to say that as I table these concerns, they're tabled with a great sense of concern about environmental matters. We will keep the emotions out of it.
If the minister is able to provide answers that address these concerns, I'll be satisfied that we've made progress. If we're able to make progress in other areas, then I'm certainly open to see an opportunity where there can be a better working together. My remarks at the end of this presentation are not a reflection on the public servants within the Ministry of the Environment or within the branch of the greater Toronto area but on the minister and her staff.
Politics sometimes has a way of driving huge wedges, and there was a chance that we could see something where there would be some dialogue. The example that took place this year, the grey water, was an issue in which this minister, after considerable presentations by just about everybody who has a vote, was able to back off on, back off in a way that she still made a good point; that is, that with the construction of new water vessels, there will be standards imposed and a realistic time frame in which those standards can be implemented. That again shows that there can be some working together of the ministry and opposition.
It's an example of where I think you made a point. A lot of people got educated, and awful fast. In the final analysis, it was up in Markham that the minister was able to make the announcement that she would not proceed with the grey water proposals as originally presented.
That's where dialogue and discussion on these issues can go an awful long way towards the establishment of a consensus and a direction people buy into, not unlike what the petroleum companies have done in the recycling of oil. That is an excellent way in which we can advance environmental agendas: Rather than doing it through legislation or regulation, those who are involved in any way within society accept responsibility and help fulfil society's mandate to improve this world in which we live, work and want to prepare for the next generation. There's a heavy agenda before all of us, and I hope that somehow or other the efforts we make here in estimates can lead towards a better world. I have never before sensed within my own caucus a deeper commitment towards environmental matters and a sense of wanting to do it right and for the right reasons.
I also would like to say that the sense I have from my caucus is that when you and your ministry are able to bring forward such initiatives we can support, I can assure you that we will be very vocal in our support, as we have been vocal in our opposition on those things we disagree with.
That is a bit of a start. I don't want to take any more time. If there is any, we can put it into something else, Mr Chairman.
Hon Mrs Grier: I'd just say thank you to both my critics for the constructive approach we've begun this discussion of estimates with. I've certainly taken note, as have some of the staff, of the points that have been raised and will be prepared to respond to as many of them as we can when I come back again, I think on Tuesday.
The Acting Chair: That's correct. The standing committee on estimates will now adjourn until next Tuesday.
The committee adjourned at 1721.