Ministry of the
Environment
Mr Stien Lal, deputy minister
Mr Keith West, director, waste management policy branch
Mr Michael Williams, director, environmental assessment and
approvals branch
Mr John Lieou, manager, water and sewage infrastructure
section
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Chair /
Président
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les
îles L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh L)
Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh L)
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les
îles L)
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North / -Nord PC)
Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt ND)
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls PC)
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington
L)
Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Mr Erik Peters, Provincial Auditor
Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton L)
Clerk pro tem / Greffier par intérim
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Mr Ray McLellan, research officer,
Research and Information Services
The committee met at 1043 in committee room 1,
following a closed session.
1999 ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR: MINISTRY OF
THE ENVIRONMENT
Consideration of chapter
4(3.07), conservation and prevention division.
The Chair (Mr John
Gerretsen): I'd like to call into session this meeting
of the standing committee on public accounts to deal with chapter
4 of the 1999 Annual Report of the Provincial Auditor dealing
with the conservation and prevention division of the Ministry of
the Environment.
Welcome, gentlemen. You will
have 15 to 20 minutes for an opening presentation and then
afterwards we'll throw it open to the membership for any
questions they may have with respect to the report. Perhaps you
could identify yourselves before speaking so that Hansard can
pick up the various speakers who are here.
Mr Stien
Lal: My name is Stien Lal. I'm the deputy minister at
the Ministry of the Environment. With your permission, I would
like to introduce my colleagues. On my immediate left is Mr Carl
Griffith, who is the assistant deputy minister, operations
division, in the ministry; to my immediate right is Mr Michael
Williams, director, environmental assessment and approvals
branch; and to his right is Mr Keith West, director, waste
management policy branch. We also have with us, sitting just
behind me, John Lieou, who is the manager of the water and sewage
program in the ministry.
Thank you, Mr Chair and
honourable members, for this opportunity to discuss the
Provincial Auditor's 1999 annual report. The Ministry of the
Environment welcomes the work of the auditor as a valuable
process to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our
efforts. The result will be strengthened environmental protection
in Ontario.
As members will know, the
1999 report updates the recommendations made by the auditor in
his 1997 report. This morning, with your permission, I would like
to share with you how our ministry has responded to these
recommendations.
A key to our response is the
Waste Diversion Organization, or WDO, which we established with
partners from industry, municipalities and other groups. I will
describe some of the functions of the WDO as I outline our
efforts with respect to the auditor's recommendations. The Waste
Diversion Organization, established in November 1999, we believe
brings together a full range of stakeholders involved in waste
management, including industry, municipal and provincial
government, and a recycling advocacy organization to help fund
the municipal blue box and other waste diversion programs. The
key objective of the new organization is the development of a
long-term, sustainable funding plan for the blue box and other
waste diversion activities.
The Waste Diversion
Organization is based on a one-year voluntary memorandum of
understanding. WDO members have committed $14.5 million to
develop, implement and fund municipal waste diversion programs.
Under the agreement, the WDO will establish programs to:
First, fund blue box costs
related to wine and liquor glass containers to the tune of $8
million. This continues the $4 million given to the
municipalities in March 1999 by the Liquor Control Board of
Ontario;
Second, it will increase
diversion of organic wastes by as much as $2 million;
Third, it will establish
additional depots for municipal special household wastes, which
are sometimes referred to as household hazardous waste, to the
tune of $1 million;
Fourth, it will improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of blue box programs by as much as
$2 million;
And finally, it has a mandate
to inform the public about municipal waste management activities
and intends to spend $1 million towards it, with municipalities
receiving free advertising space in daily newspapers.
The Waste Diversion
Organization's partners are drawn from the following sectors and
organizations: Food and consumer products, represented by
Corporations Supporting Recycling; municipalities, represented by
the Association of Municipalities of Ontario; daily newspapers,
represented by the Canadian Newspaper Association; chemical
specialities and paint and coatings, represented by the Canadian
Paint and Coatings Association and the Canadian Manufacturers of
Chemical Specialties Association; the Liquor Control Board of
Ontario; the Recycling Council of Ontario; and finally, the
Ontario government, represented by the Ministry of the
Environment.
The Waste Diversion
Organization's review of longer-term issues will include the
development of options for a sustainable funding formula to provide up to 50%
of the net operating costs for municipal blue box programs, as
well as to continue the programs described above.
The MOU between the
government and WDO calls for the organization to design a special
household waste management program, including options for its
funding. The board is now up and running and I can assure you of
the ministry's continuing commitment to work with the WDO to
ensure the sustainability of waste diversion in the province.
I will now summarize the
current status of the ministry in implementing the
recommendations made by the auditor.
1050
On waste reduction grants
administration, the first section of the 1997 report deals with
the disbursement of grants to municipalities and industries to
support the blue box program and other waste reduction
initiatives. The auditor was satisfied, we believe, that we had
adequate procedures in place to ensure that grants comply with
the terms and conditions of our agreements with recipients.
The next section, dealing
with the effectiveness of waste reduction, contains two
recommendations. First, the auditor noted that the ministry
should incorporate the province's 50% waste reduction goal into
the waste management policy branch business plan. In fact, the
ministry's 1999-2000 public business plan includes the 50% per
capita waste reduction goal and targets continuous improvements
towards that goal from our base of 1987. The branch's draft
long-term business plan also includes this goal.
Ontario has already achieved
a waste reduction rate of 35%, and as we report on our final
progress for 1998, I expect we will be close to the 40% level.
While it is difficult to compare rates because of different
measurement approaches, we believe Ontario's will be among the
highest of any North American jurisdiction. The Waste Diversion
Organization will be looking for ways to improve waste reduction
performance in Ontario to achieve the 50% target.
With the second
recommendation, the auditor noted that the ministry should
measure and report on the effectiveness of its waste reduction
programs to permit the timely adjustment of strategies and the
development of action plans. The ministry continues to operate
and improve its system to monitor disposal of Ontario-generated
municipal waste. Data are gathered on an ongoing basis through
surveys, review of ministry records and directly from private
disposal site operators.
Since the 1997 audit, the
ministry has published an annual municipal 3Rs fact sheet which
reports on municipal waste reduction efforts. This information is
collected in a comprehensive survey of all municipalities,
conducted through a partnership between MOE, the Recycling
Council of Ontario, Corporations Supporting Recycling, the
Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators and the Municipal
Waste Information Network. I will be pleased to leave with you a
copy of the current fact sheet, which shows the substantial
progress achieved in waste reduction at the municipal level.
The system of ongoing
measurements of disposal and diversion activity is used to report
on the ministry's success in meeting the goals of its business
plan. It has enabled the ministry to fine-tune its actions as
necessary. The 1999 auditor's report noted that their earlier
recommendation concerning this issue was substantially
implemented.
Ontario's blue box system is
a very successful initiative, first started in the 1980s. Today
it serves over 3.8 million households, or more than 90% of all
households in Ontario. In 1998, over 650,000 tonnes of materials
were recycled. This is 42% more than was recycled in 1994 and
represents an average of 168 kilograms recycled for each
household. Since its inception, the blue box system has diverted
to recycling over five million tonnes of materials, most of which
would have otherwise been disposed of in Ontario's landfill
sites.
The blue box program: With
respect to the program the auditor noted that "to ensure the
program is sustainable, the ministry should work with
municipalities to cut the cost of collecting and processing
recycled materials." The sustainability of blue box is in fact
one of the key issues for our ministry. It was an important
motivation in our formation of the Waste Diversion Organization.
In the next year the WDO has been asked to develop for the
government's consideration a long-term funding formula to cover
up to 50% of the net operating costs incurred by municipalities
in the operation of blue box and other municipal waste diversion
programs. A target for this funding has been set at up to $27
million, as set out in the memorandum of understanding
implementing the WDO.
An important part of the
WDO's mandate is to give municipalities the tools they need to
make their programs more efficient and effective in all areas,
including collection and processing of recycled materials. Some
$2 million has been earmarked for a program to achieve this
purpose. The program will include, but is not limited to:
examining the number and location of material recovery facilities
in Ontario; planning future capital improvements in these
facilities, particularly shared-cost projects with demonstration
value; investigating innovative collection methods; and
increasing waste diversion from apartment recycling programs
using retrofits and other measures.
The WDO will also provide $4
million to municipalities to help cover the 1999 costs of
recycling wine and liquor glass containers. A further $4 million
will be provided for the same purpose for the year 2000.
Costs and benefits of
recycling: The auditor has noted that the ministry should work
with municipalities to encourage the use of full-cost accounting
for assessing the most cost-effective method for the disposal of
waste in their communities. Many municipalities, including
Toronto and London, are already developing plans which include
the use of full-cost accounting principles to determine the cost
and benefits of various composting, recycling and disposal
options.
The ministry strongly supports this practice and
continues to work with its partners to develop the tools
municipalities can use to make informed decisions. Several
relevant initiatives include: As part of the long-term funding
formula, the WDO will also develop a standardized accounting
system for all municipal blue box and recycling programs; and our
partnership with the Environment and Plastics Industry Council
designed computer models for recycling collection systems and
facility processing costs. This work contributed to the
development of integrated waste management system models by our
industry partners. The use of computer models is growing. For
example, a model was used by the city of London for its waste
management decision-making. Others are being used by
Hamilton-Wentworth and Markham.
The auditor also noted that
the ministry should expedite its review of the legislation
regarding refillable soft drink containers and at the same time
work with industry to develop a practical solution that addresses
municipal concerns.
One of the key municipal
concerns outlined by the auditor was that the cost of disposing
of containers was being unfairly shifted from industry and
consumers to the taxpayer, and we agree with that statement. The
container regulations have been out of step with consumer
preference for many years and have not been enforced since 1991.
As everyone will know, these regulations have been under review
for some time. The review and future decision are contingent on
the work being carried out by the WDO. We expect the review to be
completed after September 2000, when the WDO submits options and
its recommendations on a sustainable funding plan for the blue
box program and other waste diversion initiatives.
Moving on to environmental
assessment, the auditor noted that the ministry should establish
indicators to measure and report on the effectiveness of the
environmental assessment process and monitor compliance with the
terms and conditions of approval for approved projects.
1100
The ministry has a number of
initiatives underway that we believe will address the auditor's
recommendations to establish indicators to measure program
effectiveness and monitor compliance with conditions of approved
environmental assessment projects. Performance indicators have
been developed that focus on time, cost and certainty of the
process. To fulfill this requirement, a timeline regulation was
passed under the Environmental Assessment Act that sets timelines
for key steps in the government decision-making process, in
addition to ministry business plan indicators relating to time
frames for board decision-making.
The ministry has launched a
database for all EA projects to track and report on compliance
with the conditions of approval. With the completion of the
integration of our approvals and environmental assessment
branches, we are now developing a number of additional indicators
to measure effectiveness. The integration of the branches to
provide one window for the ministry environmental approvals
allows the ministry to take a comprehensive approach to
developing performance measures and monitoring compliance for all
environmental approvals.
Funding for water and sewage
projects: In 1997, the auditor noted that the ministry should
require municipalities not only to review water conservation and
system optimization measures, but also to implement any
applicable cost-effective measures before expansion projects are
eligible for provincial funding.
As well, the auditor called
for the ministry to ensure that appropriate documentation is
received to substantiate critical information on the application
that may have a direct impact in determining eligibility and the
amount of provincial funding for water and sewage projects.
The ministry has incorporated
the auditor's recommendations into the design of the provincial
water protection fund, or PWPF, including the requirement that
municipalities must first implement applicable, cost-effective
measures such as water conservation and system optimization
before expansion projects are eligible for funding assistance;
careful assessment of all documentation provided as part of PWPF
applications to determine eligibility and calculate the
appropriate amount of funding assistance; and continued close
monitoring of municipal cash flow requirements and scrutiny of
expenditure claims to minimize or quickly recover grant
overpayments.
In 1999, the auditor
recognized that the ministry has responded in a completely
satisfactory manner to these recommendations.
In conclusion, I want to once
again thank you, Mr Chair and honourable members, for the
opportunity to discuss actions taken by the Ministry of the
Environment to address the recommendations of the 1997 Provincial
Auditor's report, as well as issues raised in the 1999 auditor's
report. The ministry views these reports as an excellent way to
improve our efforts to strengthen the protection of Ontario's
environment.
At this moment, we will
attempt to answer any questions that you or your committee
members may have.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. We have 17 minutes for each caucus in this
first go-around, and we're starting today with the Liberal
caucus.
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky
(Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My question
is on the statement you made with regard to the auditor's
recommendation on reusable containers. You indicated in your
presentation that while there is-is it a regulation or a policy
on the books? I believe it's been there since 1985. In your
presentation, you indicate that it has not been enforced since
1991. First of all, I would like to ask why that would not have
been enforced.
Mr Lal: The
ministry, going back to 1991, has indicated that these
regulations were the subject of revision and scrutiny and that
there was really no support for these regulations generally as
far as preference of Ontario citizens was concerned. The
government has made a commitment that it is going to review these
regulations, and in fact has made that public and has invited
comments in respect of it.
The WDO, which we think is
the answer, is mandated to ensure the long-term sustainability of
this program, and using the blue box, which collects not only
refillable soft drink containers but also other recyclable
material, is in our view a much more comprehensive approach than
creating a parallel system that would deal only with refillable
containers.
You may also wish to know
that of all the provinces that have a system in place for
refillable containers, only the province of Prince Edward Island,
which has a population of close to 150,000 people, actually uses
those containers for the purpose of refilling. All of the other
provinces use the containers merely for recycling.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: If I could continue, you indicate that your
reason for not enforcing it is that consumers don't prefer to
use-
Mr Lal: I'm
sorry. If I could elaborate on that as well, in 1994 we sought
legal advice on the enforcement of the regulation, whether it
would be appropriate for us to continue to enforce it. Our advice
was that the regulations would be inappropriate while efforts
were underway to improve the refillable ratio while in
negotiations with the industry. Our legal counsel believes that
prosecutions under the regulations would amount to an abuse of
process on the part of the ministry, given the broad
understanding that the ministry would not enforce the regulations
until a new approach was accepted. That is another reason why
we're not enforcing the regulations.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: In my community, the constituents in the
part of Ontario that I represent have had reason to focus their
attention on the way that waste is disposed of and would come to
my office to indicate that there needs to be more initiative on
the part of the government with regard to waste diversion. People
within my riding have indicated very clearly that they are aware
there are other provincial jurisdictions in Canada where soft
drink containers are reused. The sense is that, given the
opportunity to reuse soft drink containers and encouraged by
municipalities to do so, it would contribute significantly to
reducing the amount of waste that is now either recycled or
directed toward a landfill.
I am concerned that there
might be a move on the part of the ministry to move away from
this sort of initiative when in other jurisdictions it has been
successful, and, at least from what we have been told earlier
this morning, that while some soft drink manufacturers would
indicate that the initiative is not successful, that may not be
quite the case. So this part of the report is one that is of
particular interest to me, and I do appreciate the answers that
the deputy minister has provided to me this morning.
The Chair:
Is there anything you wish to add?
Mr Lal: For
the benefit of the committee, I was just going to give some
numbers in respect of other jurisdictions which the honourable
member may find helpful.
According to our information,
eight of the 10 Canadian provinces and 10 of the 52 American
states have a deposit-return system for beverage containers.
There is, however, as I indicated, only one jurisdiction, PEI,
which actually refills beverage containers to any measure. The
only other system, which I'm sure we're all familiar with, is the
refillable beer containers which are handled through a private
deposit-return system, some for refill and others for recycling.
But to the best of our knowledge, no wine and liquor containers
are refilled anywhere in Canada or in the US, nor are soft drinks
or other beverages in any measurable way. In the US there are
neither mandatory requirements nor any refilling of beverage
containers. I hope that helps.
1110
Mr John C. Cleary
(Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question has been
partially answered. In our part of Ontario it seems to be a big
issue that disposable beer cans and soft drink cans are picked up
and taken, in my understanding, to the province of Quebec for
recycling. I was wondering whether that was a provincial
government initiative or a private enterprise initiative, because
it's my understanding that they get at least five cents a can
when they put them in the machines in Quebec, and whether Ontario
ever looked at that type of initiative. I would just like your
comments.
Mr Lal: I
will ask Keith West, director of our waste management policy
branch, to respond to that particular question.
Mr Keith
West: When you get close to borders of that nature,
sometimes some of our containers do end up-I would suggest that
that's fairly minimal in terms of the overall waste stream. We've
looked at all systems across Canada as to which best suits
Ontario and still come to the conclusion that it's the blue box
system that gives us the most capture of the most materials, more
than any other system in North America, and all of Canada as
well.
Mr Cleary:
But is this private enterprise that has these machines that they
go in, or is that subsidized by the Quebec government? How does
that work?
Mr West: The
Quebec government is moving on a number of initiatives that are
still in the draft stages of implementation. I believe that it is
a government system in place, that they have working in Quebec.
It could be contracted out to the private sector. I don't know
enough of the details to know whether it's a private sector depot
or contracted out by the Quebec government or a local
municipality.
Mr Cleary:
My next question is on the glass bottles. You had mentioned
earlier that they're not reused. That was my understanding. Where
does this glass go then?
Mr West: The
majority of glass is recycled here in Ontario. We have a very
strong glass market. There are some issues around northern
Ontario related to travel costs in terms of getting the product
to our markets, but the majority of glass is recycled. We do a
survey with municipalities every year because we have a funding
program now in place with them. Substantive tonnages are being
recycled and they are being put into other product.
Mr Cleary: We hear that Ontario is
a dumping ground for other jurisdictions. I would like your
comments on that. Is that increasing or decreasing? Or are the
facts that we're hearing not proper?
Mr Lal: We
certainly do not believe that Ontario is the dumping ground for
all waste. The reality is that waste is two-way traffic. We
dispose of a lot of our waste in the states of Michigan and Ohio
and other US jurisdictions. Under the terms of the free trade
agreement, the transfer of waste from one jurisdiction to another
is considered a trade matter, so we're not able to impose the
kinds of restrictions that we would like to impose in terms of
importation of some of this waste.
In addition to that, the
importation jurisdiction rests with the federal government more
than it does with the province, so we are doing everything we can
to discourage and to minimize the importation of waste into
Ontario. I would not say that, by any stretch of the imagination,
Ontario is the dumping ground for US waste or other imported
waste.
Mr Cleary:
In my part of Ontario MRR, Material Resources Recovery, just got
a certificate of approval to expand their operations of hazardous
waste. I want to ask you where all this material would be coming
from. Would it only be within the boundaries of Ontario, or is
some of it coming from the States and other jurisdictions?
Mr Lal: I'll
ask my colleague, Mr Williams, to answer that question.
Mr Michael
Williams: The hazardous waste to be processed at that
facility under the terms and conditions of the certificate of
approval would be from Canada only; it would not be allowed to be
imported.
Mr Cleary:
So it's only Canadian waste?
Mr Williams:
That's correct, sir.
Mr Cleary:
Coming from anywhere in Canada?
Mr Williams:
Yes, sir, that's correct.
Mr Cleary:
How much time do we have left?
The Chair:
You have another five minutes.
Mr Cleary:
Okay. I've just wondered about another thing we hear a lot about.
I'd like to know what role your ministry is playing in dead
livestock removal. In our part of Ontario, there's no market for
dead animals. I was just wondering if you people were working
with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and whomever else, to
try to have a market or to solve this problem. Meeting with
conservation authorities and other individuals-and I have a lot
of figures here-they are very concerned. They know that some of
these dead or crippled animals will not get to a recycling plant
and will be left or buried someplace where they may cause
problems in the environment. I was just wondering what, if
anything, your ministry is doing about that.
Mr Lal: It
appears to me that the question raised by the honourable member
refers more appropriately to OMAFRA, the Ministry of Agriculture.
We would certainly be more than happy to raise this issue with
that ministry and provide you with an answer as quickly as we
can.
The Chair:
So you're not involved in that kind of issue at all?
Mr Lal: No,
we're not directly involved in that issue.
Mr Cleary:
Well, I'll just tell you that we have been working with the
Minister of Agriculture on this issue. It's a big concern in our
part of Ontario, and we don't seem to be getting anywhere. As I
said, the Ministry of Natural Resources and others think it could
be a big environmental problem.
Mr Lal: We
will take those comments under advisement, Mr Chair, and attempt
to respond to the honourable member.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Going back to the bottles, we understand
that beer bottles are reused. Would that be correct?
Mr Lal: That
is so.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Would the ministry have any understanding
why it is a worthy, worthwhile initiative for that industry and
not for the soft drink industry?
Mr Lal: Mr
Chair, I'll attempt to answer that very important question. There
are several reasons why the beer bottle refilling process is
successful. For starters, the beer companies in Ontario see the
system of refilling beer bottles as a discouragement to their
American competitors to come and sell beer products in Ontario.
Therefore, there is an incentive to encourage the development of
that process.
Secondly, the system has been
in place for a very long time, and is privately run by breweries
that are in this particular business.
Thirdly, it already has
specific locations, namely the beer stores, where the empty
bottles could be returned. They have a very sophisticated and
well-established practice to reclaim and reuse these bottles.
Finally, of course, the cost
to the beer companies is reduced if they are able to reuse these
bottles as opposed to having to buy new bottles every time they
put the product in.
For all those reasons, I
respectfully suggest that the beer situation is quite unique and
quite different from what it would be in respect of any other
refillable container.
1120
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Just a comment. I would agree that the first
point, with regard to the advantage over their competitors, is
valid. Certainly the returning of beer bottles is a long-standing
arrangement in this province, and I suggest that if soft drink
companies implemented such a policy or program, in time it would
be a long-standing arrangement as well. I would hope and think
that if there are efficiencies in beer companies' reusing
bottles, those same efficiencies and cost savings would be
enjoyed by soft drink manufacturers as well. So it would
certainly be an area that I believe would be worthy and
worthwhile for this government to support; that is, to encourage
soft drink manufacturers to implement the reuse of their
bottles.
Mr Lal:
Thank you very much for that comment.
Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt):
Thank you for coming here today. I want to start my questions
with respect to the blue box program. In 1989 the Ministry of the
Environment made two statements with respect to waste reduction:
(1) there would be a reduction in solid waste disposal by 25% by
1992 and (2) there would be a further reduction to 50% by the
year 2000.
In his 1997 report the
auditor said, as you pointed out, Deputy, that the ministry
should incorporate the provincial goal in the waste reduction
branch business plan to guide all waste reduction activities. I
heard you say that had been implemented and appeared in the waste
reduction branch manual and also in the business plan. But I look
at the business plan and on page 11, under "Resource
conservation," I see, "continuous improvement toward 50%
reduction from the base year of 1987," and the target year of
2000 has dropped off altogether.
The first question I want
to ask is, has Ontario abandoned its 50% reduction target for the
year 2000?
Mr Lal:
The straight answer to that, Ms Martel, is that we certainly
haven't abandoned the goal. We intend to work towards achieving
that objective, but that is still very much an objective and a
commitment that Ontario has made.
Ms Martel:
If that is the goal, and given that the auditor said it should be
incorporated, why does it not appear in the business plan, which,
for the whole world, would be the minister's and ministry's
intentions in terms of accomplishments?
Mr Lal:
Perhaps I do not appreciate the nuance you are referring to. Our
intention in the business plan is to work towards achieving that
goal, as opposed to it having been categorically stated that we
will achieve it. There are some reasons for that, if I may share
them with you.
The waste is generated by
the private sector and other companies and by individuals, not by
the ministry. We have to use every persuasive method and every
regulatory power we have to encourage these organizations or
waste generators to achieve the 50% target. Our commitment is to
work towards persuading them to get to that objective. It is not
for us to set the goal unilaterally but to work towards that
goal. Having said that, I want to assure you it does not for a
moment mean that our commitment is in any way diminished.
Ms Martel:
Deputy, the goal was for the year 2000, and it's a very important
nuance. The target in 1992 was achieved. For all intents and
purposes, we're not going to achieve a target of 50% in 2000
unless the ministry has some very specific plans that we are
unaware of. So perhaps I should ask that question. If you were to
reach the goal in the year 2000, what specific actions would the
ministry have to take now in order to do that?
Mr Lal:
First, I'd like to say that we are very close to that goal. Our
estimates are that we are somewhere between 39% and 40%. But in
terms of what actions would be necessary if we were to
unilaterally achieve that goal, I'm going to pass it on to my
friend, who is an expert in the field, and he will probably share
his views with you.
Mr West:
I'd like to add that the number we're at currently is based on
the 1998 figures, so we still have two years to report on. I
can't conclude where it's going to fall out in terms of when we
report on the actual 2000 numbers, but that will be a couple of
years out.
The Waste Diversion
Organization clearly has a mandate to drive waste diversion here
in Ontario and to achieve that target as quickly as possible.
Whether that's 2000 or shortly thereafter, I'm not sure what the
time frame will be, but clearly one of the objectives of the
Waste Diversion Organization and one of the reasons why the money
is being allocated to organics is that one of the areas we really
need to pay attention to and stress even further in Ontario is
the whole wet stream, the whole composting issue, which comprises
about 30% of our waste stream. We think that's probably the area
where we will reach and achieve and go beyond that particular 50%
target if we, through the Waste Diversion Organization, give
municipalities the kinds of tools and the kinds of efficiencies
they need to get at that waste, which is part of the waste stream
as well. That's one area where we see clearly movement toward
achieving the goal and going beyond the goal as well.
Ms Martel:
I really don't see how establishing WDO is going to get you
there. It's a voluntary organization. In terms of the funding
that has been contributed, it's probably not even one third of
the cost that municipalities now have to bear for the blue box
program, as they have been given a year, and you have said
September, to come back with some recommendations.
What do you do if and when
they fall apart or come back with a target that's far less than
50%, or refuse to really ante up in terms of the funding the
industry is going to put in to support the blue box program?
Mr Lal: I
will attempt to answer that question and then I'll call on my
friend to add to it if he so wishes.
Our minister is on record
as saying that the establishment of the WDO at this stage may be
voluntary but that he would be very open to regulating in this
area should regulation become necessary.
We have given a mandate to
WDO to look at the blue box program to develop recommendations
relating to enhancing efficiencies and effectiveness of that
program and to look at appropriate funding that would be needed
for an efficient and effective blue box program to function. One
of the issues they would have to deal with is equity in terms of
the generator of the waste versus the cost that that particular
generator has to bear to ensure there is equity in terms of who
pays for what. We anticipate that by September we will have a
comprehensive set of recommendations which will deal with these
issues. I do not believe they have the mandate or the authority
to diminish the 50% target that Ontario is committed to.
Therefore, we do not see that there would be any risk of having
that target in any way reduced simply because it's WDO that is
now dealing with it.
Keith, do you wish to add
to that?
Ms Martel:
Deputy, before you get further, then, what is the ministry's
position with respect to what kind of cost the industry should carry with respect to
blue box? Should the industry carry the majority of the cost,
since it's their materials in the blue box?
1130
Mr Lal:
The answer is yes.
Mr West:
The funding formula that is being looked at is up to 50%, of
which the industry contribution would pay for that 50%
funding.
Ms Martel:
If I look at 50%, I'd be hard pressed to argue that the industry
would be covering the majority of the costs on the blue box.
Fifty per cent is half; it's not the majority. Yet we're talking
about articles in the blue box that are coming directly from
newspapers, the soft drink industry etc. I'm assuming you gave
them this direction. Why would the ministry tell them to look at
a strategy that would cover up to 50% if you believe they should
carry the majority of the cost? It should be much higher.
Mr West: I
think there's another part to the equation, and that's the
equation that goes beyond the blue box and looks at other
opportunities for funding on the whole composting side, on the
household hazardous waste side. That very much puts us into a
situation where industry is paying the majority of costs
associated to the programs that the WDO is implementing.
Ms Martel:
What is the cost that municipalities bear now on the composting
side versus the cost they bear for blue box?
Mr West:
At this present time, the municipalities pay for the lion's share
of composting costs unless they have an arrangement with industry
whereby they have a build-operate contract situation.
Ms Martel:
Can you tell the committee what those costs are?
Mr West:
No, I can't.
Ms Martel:
Is that data that would be available? You said you were surveying
municipalities on an annual basis now. Do you gather that
data?
Mr West:
We survey municipalities on how much they are composting. We have
not surveyed them on what their composting programs are costing
them at this point in time.
Ms Martel:
I would think that would be an important piece of information for
the ministry to have. You're saying to me, "Well, 50% is only one
part of the equation; that's just the blue box side," but you
can't give me an idea of how much composting is costing
municipalities so I can't make a realistic judgment as to whether
or not, if the WDO does its work, they are actually going to be
assuming a substantial portion of the costs. If the composting
costs for municipalities are far less than for blue box, they are
still not going to benefit significantly if all you are asking
industry to do is cover up to 50% of blue box costs.
Mr West: I
accept your observation, but I do think one of the things the WDO
has been mandated to do-first of all, its first principle is to
look into sustaining the blue box program. Then it also, as part
of the MOU, looks at making sure the other programs around
composting, around household hazardous waste, are sustainable. So
that's the second part of the mandate that the ministry is
looking for out of the WDO. But the first principle is, let's get
the blue box sustained and get it up to 50% funding of operating
costs.
Ms Martel:
Do you have any idea about the costs on the hazardous waste side
for municipalities?
Mr West:
No, I don't, but I expect that to be part of the report that will
come in to the minister. There is a report that is also required
to the minister, and there has been a very extensive committee
put together with broad representation to look at the whole issue
of funding of the household hazardous waste depot program at
municipalities. We expect that to be part of their report.
Ms Martel:
How solid is the commitment that the ministry made to the
industry, then, that they would carry 50% of the operating costs?
I ask that question because it sounds to me like you have some
costs which should have been factored in before a decision like
that was made: some costs around composting, some costs around
hazardous waste. Is that a very solid commitment that you've
already given the industry to say they will pay no more than 50%
of the net operating costs?
Mr West:
No. On the blue box, we've said up to 50% to them. There is no
magic in that, in that if a different formula comes in the
recommendation, the minister and the government will certainly
consider that. There has been no commitment made whatsoever in
terms of the proportion of costs around household hazardous
waste. In fact, I would suggest to you that on the management
side, the expectation will be that 100% of the costs will be paid
on the managing of the waste that comes into those depots on the
industry side.
Ms Martel:
And they have been advised of that?
Mr West:
The process is such that the ministry is asking a number of
stakeholders, a number of partners, to work out what is the best
approach to dealing with some of these issues and bring back a
funding formula related to that. It's a model that suggests that
there are those out there who have a real interest and have that
kind of expertise-and the ministry is certainly participating in
that-that suggests that they are looking for an approach whereby
a committee structure will look at those issues and look at what
is the best model, what is the best way to fund that. I think
that's a very good approach in terms of getting the best advice
from those who are experts in this field.
Ms Martel:
Can you tell the committee what specific commitments you gave to
WDO as it started its work? We have what I feel is a commitment
with respect to operating costs. Were there other commitments
made, and can you tell the committee what they were?
Mr West:
All of the commitments, all of the requirements of the WDO are
very clearly set out in a memorandum of understanding. It's all
in the public domain. Everything in the MOU is the expectation
the ministry has with the WDO, and there is nothing around
commitments to industry beyond what is in the MOU. That's the
same for commitments to municipalities as well.
Ms Martel: I understand that. I
think they've been dealing with their commitments for a while,
because they have essentially been the ones carrying the blue box
program all of this time, right? They are very clear about their
commitments; they've been funding the program.
Mr West:
Yes. There's nothing beyond what is in the MOU as to what is
being asked for. There is a very clear process. We are asking
them to report back in to the ministry on program development and
funding of those programs.
Ms Martel:
Deputy, you said earlier that if for some reason this process
doesn't work, the minister has said publicly he would regulate
this area. Can you tell the committee what that means?
Mr Lal:
What it means is that the minister is looking forward to
receiving the report from WDO in September, and if the report
indicates that it is appropriate to regulate the functioning of
WDO through a regulation as opposed to it being a voluntary
organization, he would then take that recommendation to his
cabinet colleagues for approval and, if that approval is
forthcoming, he would regulate that area.
Ms Martel:
He would regulate the committee itself and the funding formula
itself.
Mr Lal:
That's right.
Ms Martel:
And if the committee doesn't come back in September? Have you
also given the committee a strict timeline with respect to
recommendations expected back by September?
Mr Lal:
That is so, and all those commitments are contained in the
memorandum of understanding. The timelines that have been set by
WDO are in contemplation of a report by September of this year,
so we fully anticipate that they will be filing a report with the
minister by September.
Ms Martel:
Does the $9 million that was contributed by the LCBO over the two
years cover the cost that municipalities bear with respect to
what's in the blue box in terms of alcoholic beverage
containers?
Mr Lal:
I'm not sure that I can say definitively whether it covers the
cost or not. I don't believe we have detailed figures of what
that cost is. But it certainly goes a very substantial way toward
covering those costs. Keith, you may have-
Mr West:
That's very correct.
Ms Martel:
So I can understand clearly, when you survey municipalities about
what is happening with their blue box program, what information
do you ask them for?
Mr West:
We ask them for information around the households they are
covering, tonnages of all the materials that are within their
programs and what they are capturing; that's the survey. So at a
minimum, every municipality reports in on seven materials, as
required under the regulation, and they give us the total
tonnages they are capturing within the blue box program.
They also report on their
other waste reduction programs, such as composting, what
materials they are accessing there and the tonnage of rejections
out of that program as well.
Ms Martel:
Of the seven materials they are reporting on, I'm going to assume
that wine and liquor bottles are part of that.
Mr West:
Yes, they are, in that glass containers are a required material
to be collected in the blue box.
Ms Martel:
Is a distinction made between wine and liquor bottles and other
glass?
Mr West:
No, there is not.
Ms Martel:
So it would be hard for you to determine, in terms of the LCBO,
for example, what that portion is for municipalities. What I'm
getting at is that the $9 million doesn't cover it. It is one
item that the government has direct control over, because we're
talking about revenues that the LCBO would otherwise give the
government for health care, education etc. Is it a cost that the
government could match if they had some clear idea of what the
cost was to municipalities?
1140
Mr West:
We have other indicators in terms of liquor and wine sales in
Ontario that help us come to decisions around how many containers
are actually in the system versus how much is being reported on
and things of that nature. So we do have some comparative numbers
we can use.
Ms Martel:
So you believe the $9 million over two years adequately, or close
to it, covers what the municipalities' costs would be for the
blue box.
Mr West:
This is not something I can say to you definitively, but yes,
we're comfortable that this is paying the lion's share of the
costs that municipalities have for wine and liquor
containers.
Ms Martel:
Why would the newspaper industry not be making a monetary
contribution to offset some of the municipalities' costs?
Mr Lal:
The newspaper industry has made a commitment for $2 million in
advertising space.
Mr West:
One million per year.
Mr Lal:
One million dollars per year. We hope very much that WDO can
actually persuade them to make a cash contribution. This would be
one of the issues that WDO would be dealing with in its September
report in terms of fairness of the partners. We will await
getting their recommendation, but at this stage we have been able
to persuade them to give us advertising space which, by the way,
is extremely important if the WDO programs are to get the profile
they need. We hope that in due course there will be a cash
contribution coming from the newspaper association.
The Chair:
From the government side, Mr Barrett.
Mr Toby Barrett
(Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Deputy Minister, I have
several questions, again continuing with the Waste Diversion
Organization. We see it as a partnership or a working together of
industry, municipalities and some other organizations to come up
with something ideally very practical and cost-effective to
continue to divert waste out of landfill. I understand there is a
one-year memorandum of understanding. I was wondering what strategies are in place to
ensure that the work of this organization would continue beyond
one year.
Mr Lal: As
I indicated, the minister, through the MOU, has given to WDO the
mandate to look at not only the blue box area but at waste
diversion generally. We hope and we expect that between now and
September the board of directors of WDO will carry out a full
analysis of the issues involved in waste diversion and that they
will be filing a report with the minister by September. We think
the report will be very useful to the ministry and to Ontarians
generally in terms of determining what future course of action to
adopt. On receipt of this report, I would assume that the
government would act in accordance with its recommendations.
Mr
Barrett: We've certainly been hearing a bit about the
costs of recycling, a concern that these costs are in some cases
unfairly transferred to the taxpayer or to the municipal
taxpayer. The Waste Diversion Organization has a funding target
of $27 million. I wonder how this $27-million target was
determined. Where does the money come from or how is this to be
achieved? Can you tell us a bit more about that?
Mr Lal:
Certainly. The funding target of up to $27 million was set in the
MOU as a long-term sustainable funding formula, of which the
LCBO, we hope, will contribute $5 million. This target was based
on an extensive multi-stakeholder consultation process that took
place in 1998. The Recycling Council of Ontario roles and
responsibility process was involved. The WDO initiative emerged
in part through this process. Through the RCO process it was also
determined that the net cost of operating the blue box program is
approximately $46 million annually. We thought industry
would be asked to raise up to $22 million, with the LCBO
contributing $5 million. The WDO, as I've indicated, has been
asked to make recommendations by September as to how the funding
formula can be achieved.
Mr
Barrett: OK. We also heard earlier that Prince Edward
Island, with a very small population, apparently is the only
jurisdiction that actually refills soft drink containers.
Recycling makes sense, but to get consumers to use the kind of
product that can actually be refilled again-going back to those
original regulations, to what extent were those regulations out
of step with where the consumer was coming from? I just want some
more information on that. Are there any other success stories
beyond Prince Edward Island or are there not?
Mr Lal: As
I indicated, our information is that out of all the provinces and
10 states in the United States that have a system of collecting
soft drink containers, Prince Edward Island is the only
jurisdiction that actually uses those containers for refilling
purposes. All the rest of the jurisdictions in fact put those
glass containers into their recycling system.
Mr
Barrett: In so much of this business, whether it's waste
diversion or cleaning up water or cleaning up air, many of us put
a great deal of faith in technological advancements and
innovations. As a society we have an ever-increasing ability, and
we certainly have the prosperity in a booming economy, to foot
more research and put more emphasis on some of the technological
answers. In this business, as far as diverting waste is
concerned-of course, there's work being done on composting-what
kinds of innovations are out there? What kinds of answers can we
look forward to?
Mr Lal:
The Ontario industry is really a leader when it comes to
technologies relating to environmental areas, and the waste
diversion area is no exception. Technologies designed to for
instance process mixed waste are an area where recent
developments have occurred. This technology has the potential to
divert much more material from the waste stream than can be done
at present. It also is a way to recover the energy value in some
non-recyclable materials.
Another development is the
collection of waste and recyclables in a single pass, what is
referred to as co-collection. This uses specialized equipment to
collect waste and recyclables in one pass and thereby save
substantial operating and capital costs. So there are a lot of
new technologies which could be very helpful.
1150
Mrs Julia Munro
(York North): I too have an interest in this question of
waste diversion. In your comments, when you mentioned the program
looking at the number and location of material recovery
facilities, which is I guess where you just ended in terms of
your comments with regard to Mr Barrett, I think it's important
for people to understand the kind of leadership that you have
suggested here. I guess one of the kinds of things that people
need to understand is the opportunity to treat things differently
according to what they are and the question of what is the most
effective way.
I would like to come back
to this issue. One of the things that there's been much
discussion about is the question of the 50% waste reduction. In
the range of options that are open for discussion and study, do
you have information that would give us a sense of where in those
municipalities there has been a fee per bag and what kind of
results that has had in terms of waste diversion?
Mr West:
Yes, we've had some considerable experience now in Ontario and as
a ministry we do monitor those municipalities that have
implemented what is called the user-pay system. The user-pay
system is usually user-pay for garbage. Each municipality does it
a little differently, so you're not always comparing straight
apples to apples. But most municipalities allow you two or three
bags of garbage and then for any additional you pay a charge,
usually around a dollar. But they all differ. We how have 100 in
place in Ontario. There's been substantial growth over the last
three or four years, and that will increase. We know of other
municipalities that are seriously looking at this issue. The
impact, depending on the program, can be substantial from a
recycling perspective, anywhere from a 25% to 50% increase in the
amount of recycling tonnage that is associated with the program.
It is very much dependent on what the program is that the municipality rolls
out, but it has a substantial impact if they do it aggressively.
Most householders respond very positively in terms of the amount
of waste they are putting into the recycling side rather than
into the waste side.
Mrs Munro:
If I could just follow up on that, does this mean that the Waste
Diversion Organization has in its mandate an opportunity to point
to best practices or things like that that would give other
municipalities that might be considering such undertakings a
sense of what's out there and what they might expect or, frankly,
pitfalls they might want to avoid?
Mr West:
Absolutely. One of the mandates of the WDO is to share
information. There is a communications committee that has been
set up under that and they will be reporting regularly. They have
monies available and already some programs in place that target
municipalities on best practices and improving their systems, and
that is expected to be reported upon. At the end of the day, a
report is expected as to how effective the programs that were put
in place by the WDO have been. So there is very much an
opportunity to do that.
Mr Lal: If
I could just elaborate on that, there are two other factors as
well that I think are important to keep in mind.
The WDO board consists of
industry, municipalities, MOE and anybody else who's
substantially involved in the waste diversion business.
Therefore, it is a board of directors that has a collection of
people who have a great deal of expertise in this area. With the
substantial representation of the municipalities there, through
the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, there will be a
very good opportunity to relay best practices that municipalities
discover to other municipalities.
In addition to that, we see
the WDO taking very much a leadership role in terms of finding
solutions to these very complex issues. Part of their mandate
will be to look for best practices and for efficiencies and for
cost savings. We really do believe that if it is given the
appropriate support it has the potential for providing great
leadership in this area.
Mrs Munro:
Perhaps my next question is a bit premature given the fact that
they do have a timeline in which to report, but I want to go back
to the issue of the material recovery. Is there a bright future
for that? Is it something that you see an expanded role for
within the province?
Mr West:
In terms of the cost or in terms of the amount of product going
into-
Mrs Munro:
I guess that one is equally important, but I was thinking from
the standpoint of the amount of material that would go there and
I am assuming that with that would go some efficiencies.
Mr West:
We are seeing an increase every year in the amount of tonnage
collected in the blue box program, so very clearly we are putting
more tonnage into the system and that is being recovered and
being reused for other purposes, from a recycling
perspective.
The markets that are
available are also maturing. They are markets that are
internationally based, for the most part, and they are reported
upon and given to municipalities so that they know what the
market conditions are going to be when their material ends up at
their facility and they subsequently market. They know fairly
carefully what the spot price is going to be. That's monitored
and shared with municipalities. It will continue to be shared to
municipalities under the WDO as well.
Mrs Munro:
I don't know how much time-
The Chair:
You've got three minutes left. I assume that we're going for
another round this afternoon anyway, right? Yes. Go ahead.
Mrs Munro:
I wanted to ask a final question with regard to the mandate of
the WDO, and that is in the area of research and technology in
the area of the business of garbage. Does it have a role there?
Is there a direct liaison with any kind of research that's being
done in this area?
Mr West:
The closest that you'll see within the program at this point in
time is clearly a real role for technology to play in the
efficiencies and effectiveness. A lot of the solutions that will
come out in terms of how best should a material recovery facility
operate will be technology-based, so there are monies set aside
for that.
In terms of research, at
this point in time there is no particular fund that goes towards
that, but again, a lot of the research and a lot of the
technology will come out of how we improve the system. As we put
moneys towards that, a lot of that will come out into play.
That doesn't mean that when
they report back in the future they report back on the need for
research to take place and that there be some funding made
available to that. That's certainly open as part of the future
mandate of the WDO.
Mrs Munro:
Thank you. Do you have a quick question? We only have a couple of
minutes.
Ms Marilyn
Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): No, I can wait until
this afternoon to ask it.
Mrs Munro:
OK, thank you.
The Chair:
You actually have one minute left. No?
Mr Maves:
I gave her a minute, if she wants it.
Mrs Munro:
I'm going to waive my minute.
The Chair:
You've just waived it then. Thank you very much. Thank you for
attending and we will resume again at 1:30 this afternoon.
The committee recessed
from 1158 to 1332.
The Vice-Chair (Mr
John Cleary): Committee members, we'll call to order the
afternoon session on the auditor's report. It's my understanding
that we're going to go another round of each caucus of 20
minutes. Is that correct? If that's the case, we'll ask Mr
Gerretsen. He wants to make a presentation.
Mr John Gerretsen
(Kingston and the Islands): Thank you very much for
taking the chair this afternoon, Mr Vice-Chair.
I've got a number of
questions relating to the whole recycling program. They relate to
the fact that it's my understanding that 96% of all the beer
bottles that go out into the system come back at some stage,
which is a highly
laudable goal. It's quite a successful program, obviously.
Why can't this be done with
soft drink bottles as well? It was at one time when we had a
deposit system, I don't know how many years ago; maybe 25, 30
years ago. Could you just give us an explanation on that?
Mr Lal: I
will certainly attempt to do that, but then I will also call on
my colleague Mr West to give us some more details.
As I said in the morning,
there are some very real differences between the beer industry's
rebottling system and what is proposed for soft drink containers
generally. They have a very well-established system that has been
running fairly effectively for a very long time. They have the
advantage of the consumer going to buy the product at a specific
location where he or she can also return the empty bottles. They
also use-
Mr
Gerretsen: But with all due respect, that also applies
with respect to soft drink bottles. They could be returned to the
same place. There may be many more places because of convenience
stores etc, but if a system were initiated whereby there was,
let's say, a deposit system on soft drink bottles, whether
they're plastic or glass, the likelihood is that most of those
bottles would be returned at some retail outlets.
Mr Lal:
We're not saying that a system could not be developed. We're just
saying that it would be more complex because there is a variety
of shapes and sizes of containers, whereas the beer industry has
standardized the container so it can be used by a sister company
or by a competitor.
Mr
Gerretsen: With all due respect, that used to be the
case, but there are an awful lot of different bottles out there
now. At one time they were all the same, but there are a fair
number of different bottles out there.
Mr Lal: To
the best of my knowledge, well over 80% of the bottles are
standardized. There are some small microbreweries that have
different-looking bottles, but for the larger two companies,
which use most of these bottles, they are standardized and they
are of the same shape.
The point that we would
like to make is that the blue box system encompasses not just one
kind of container but takes in all kinds of other recyclable
material. When you look at the evidence that only one province
actually uses those soft drink bottles for refilling purposes,
they're essentially all going into recycling. So we think it is
far more efficient and far more convenient for the consumer to
have a system like blue box, which gives them the option of
putting in recyclable materials of various types, as opposed to
requiring them to put their newspapers in the blue box and then,
for their weekend shopping to the supermarket, to take their
empty bottles and their plastic containers. If like the beer
industry these containers were going to be reused, there might
have been incentive to do that, but since most jurisdictions, as
I indicated in the morning-in fact, except for one jurisdiction,
every other jurisdiction does not use those bottles for refilling
purposes but for recycling purposes.
Mr
Gerretsen: I see the point you're trying to make. It's
probably more a policy issue, that if the government were to
initiative a deposit system and make it mandatory throughout the
province of Ontario, then I'm sure the bottling companies would
be refilling them like they used to at one point in time. But
that deals more with government policy than the program we're
talking about.
The other question I have
is with respect to regulation 340. You stated this morning that
basically you had a legal opinion that indicated that 340 was
unenforceable in the courts. Would you be prepared to table that
legal opinion with the committee?
Mr Lal:
The opinion was done in 1994 and it did not say that the
regulations were unenforceable. What the opinion indicated-and
I'm afraid I don't have the opinion with me right now-was that we
could not, while we were in the process of revising the
regulations, charge individuals under that regulation because it
would be presumed to be done in bad faith. Therefore, the opinion
was that if the ministry was considering revising those
regulations, it would be inappropriate to be charging people
under that regulation when the government did not have the
intention of continuing with the enforcement of those
regulations.
Mr
Gerretsen: Are you saying then that the blue box program
is a totally voluntary operation as far as the taxpayers, the
residents are concerned? That it's the force of public opinion,
peer pressure-call it what you like-that encourages people to use
the blue boxes, but that individuals have not, in effect, been
charged for not using a blue box for recyclable materials? Is
that what you're saying?
Mr Lal:
The blue box arrangement is set up under a series of agreements
between the provincial government and municipalities. As you are
undoubtedly aware, funding was attached to that as well. There is
an educational component to the blue box program as well, and
there is experience which has shown people that this is a good
way to deal with recyclable materials. But I will pass it on to
Mr West for more details.
1340
Mr West: I
could add, on the regulatory side, the specific regulation that
we have under the Environmental Protection Act. It's regulation
101, which requires municipalities-from a certain size of
municipality-to provide curbside recycling, which is the blue box
program.
Mr
Gerretsen: But does it also require people to use the
blue box program?
Mr West:
It requires municipalities to pick up curbside and to make it
available for the public to access. Obviously, by making that
provision, and through education and other factors, the public
has picked it up and it is a very popular program with the public
in Ontario.
Mr
Gerretsen: But can a municipality, in effect, refuse to
pick up something contained in the garbage, which to the garbage
collector is obviously recyclable material that should be
contained in a blue box?
Mr West:
That might be a little difficult, in that most garbage stream is
put in green garbage bags, and it would be difficult to assess, as the person was
collecting on the street, what was actually in that garbage bag.
That would be somewhat difficult.
Mr
Gerretsen: Of course, if it's covered, it's difficult. I
realize that. So you're basically saying that you are not aware
of any prosecutions that have taken place anywhere in Ontario
where people have been charged for not using the blue box when
they should have? I'm just trying to find some information
here.
Mr Lal:
No, I don't believe there is any such instance. The obligation is
on the municipality. Depending on the size of the municipality,
it is required to have a curbside program. It is required to pick
up and dispose of the material in accordance with the standards
that have been set, but there is no obligation per se on the
consumer to use the blue box.
Mr
Gerretsen: Okay. Just one other question in a different
area before I turn it over to my colleague here, and that deals
with the whole waste management and waste disposal area, I guess,
the new water facilities that municipalities or private
entrepreneurs may want to construct from time to time.
The suggestion was made
this morning that other alternatives be looked into as well
before the ministry funds water treatment or purification
projects. Is that not, in effect, being done through the
budgeting process anyway? In other words, is the ministry likely
to fund a major capital outlay like that if other alternatives
are available in municipalities; for example, if the capacity
hasn't been totally used up? I just give that as one example.
Mr Lal:
The ministry would look not only at the issue of capacity but at
how much homework the municipality had done in determining what
other options were available to them, and whether they had
explored those fully. The ministry used to take those into
account in any case. What has happened is that it is now
incorporated into the process as one of the specific terms of any
arrangement being arrived at with the municipality.
Mr
Gerretsen: Are you prepared to table the written legal
opinion that the ministry got in 1994?
Mr Lal:
Not having seen the legal opinion myself, and not being the
recipient of the legal opinion, I don't think it would be
appropriate for me to table the legal opinion at this stage.
Mr
Gerretsen: Do you know why it was obtained at that time?
Was there any concern-
Mr Lal: It
was well before my time, so I'm afraid I can't help you.
Mr
Gerretsen: Thank you.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: How much time do I have, Mr Chair?
The Chair:
You have about eight minutes.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: The point I would like to raise first of all
relates to the recommendation and the ministry response that is
found on page 116 of the ministry response to the report of the
auditor. The recommendation from the auditor is: "To be more
effective in meeting the provincial waste reduction goal, the
ministry should ... measure and report on the effectiveness of
its waste reduction programs to permit the timely adjustment of
strategies and the development of action plans." The response to
that, I believe, is: "The ministry will monitor and report on the
effectiveness of its waste reduction programs."
From my perspective, Mr
Chair, I believe the auditor would direct some more concrete
action, in that a municipality would be required to measure and
report on its effectiveness. I think that puts the responsibility
on a municipality to demonstrate that they are doing all they can
to reduce the amount that would be directed toward a landfill.
However, the response from the ministry is that it will "monitor
and report." I don't see anything incorporated in that response
that the ministry intends to hold municipalities accountable
should there not be a demonstration that they are actively
looking toward redirection and reduction of waste.
I raise this because I have
had conversations with municipal representatives in my riding
where they very quickly remind me that it continues to be cheaper
for the municipality to direct waste to a landfill than to
recycle it. That's a great concern for me when I understand the
pressures under which municipalities are put in these times with
the additional responsibilities that have come to them from the
government. While I appreciate that the ministry would have
introduced some initiatives that may assist in offsetting costs
to support recycling, I have not been able to see in this
document an expectation that a municipality would demonstrate is
putting forward a serious effort to reduce the amount of waste
that is going to a landfill and to support recycling initiatives
within the municipality. That is an area of great concern to me,
Mr Chair, and I suggest that the ministry has a leadership role
to play in directing municipalities and placing reasonable
expectations that are supported by this government. I know that
our environment is a very valuable resource and worth preserving,
and I think the government needs to clearly state its
expectations in terms of what a municipality should focus on in
terms of redirection and reduction of waste within its
community.
Mr West: I
think your observations are very well taken. First, a point of
clarification in terms of the cost of landfilling versus
recycling: While it very much differs from municipality to
municipality depending on their landfill situation and who does
or doesn't own it, I think the majority of municipalities today
still find it more cost-effective to recycle than to landfill. I
think that is a very clear majority to this date.
In putting together the
formula for the up to 50% funding to sustain the blue box
program, the memorandum of understanding also asks the Waste
Diversion Organization to come up with a plan as to how they see
it being disbursed and what criteria they see being in place in
order for that funding to flow. One of the clear criteria we will
be looking to see advice from the WDO on relates to effective and
efficient systems and putting benchmarks in place as to what
constitutes an effective and efficient system, and also that very
clear diversion targets
be set related to the funding that is being disbursed. I think
you'll see those as part of the criteria and as part of the
funding formula that comes in as part of the WDO recommendations.
So, clearly, your observations are well taken, and I think the
WDO has been asked to look at that very issue and to come in with
criteria as to how we might effect that.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I do know that in my riding it is cheaper to
put waste in the landfill, perhaps because there is a landfill
site located in the riding.
Also, with regard to a
point made by my colleague with regard to municipalities
requiring residents to comply with recycling initiatives, I
believe I have had information in the past that some
municipalities require residents to place their garbage in clear
bags so that if the person collecting the garbage determined that
there were recyclables in the bag, they would not pick it up. Is
that something in Ontario, or is it something that takes place in
another jurisdiction?
1350
Mr West:
There have been some very tenuous pilot programs where that was
actually looked at in conjunction with a company that provided
the clear bags. I am not aware that those pilots are still
running. But it's very rare. Most people use the green garbage
bag and it would be difficult to see into that garbage bag.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Thank you.
The
Vice-Chair: You have another minute.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I have a another minute? I thought I was out
of time. I'll pass to Ms Martel.
Ms Martel:
I'd like to pick up where I left off earlier this morning, and
that's to determine the contribution versus the cost for those
members who participate in the Waste Diversion Organization. I'm
looking at the $4-million contribution to this effort by
Corporations Supporting Recycling. I'd like to know, Deputy, what
is the cost, though, of those products to the blue box system.
I'm going to assume that those costs from that waste make up the
bulk of the cost to the blue box system.
Mr West: I
can say to you that there is no direct connection between the $4
million and direct costs to those industries. That's one of the
things we have asked the Waste Diversion Organization to look at
as part of their funding formula.
I can say, from an
aggregate cost perspective, that the Recycling Council of Ontario
held a very extensive consultation process and submitted reports
to the minister looking at the very issue of how much it costs
municipalities, from an operating cost perspective, to run their
blue box program. They came to the number of $46 million net for
the cost of selling the materials that come in under the blue box
program. So we have a very good estimate of what the total costs
are. We've asked the WDO now to start breaking that down so that
we can take a look at what is the share of each of the industries
involved in the blue box whose products end up in the blue box so
that the funding formula can be allocated and assessed against
those costs.
Ms Martel:
I appreciate that. But in order to arrive at a total cost, there
must have been some idea of the input of the different items. I
mean, how would you arrive at $46 million if you didn't have an
idea of how much newsprint was in the blue box program?
Mr West:
It was done based on a survey of municipalities at the RCO. There
was a very extensive committee structure set up. Surveys were
sent out to municipalities in terms of determining what the costs
of their actual programs were, and then taking those and adding
them up in terms of an aggregate cost of the program. So there
was no work done in terms of how much does X material cost, how
much does Y material cost; it was the total cost to
municipalities as they operate their programs.
Ms Martel:
So the ministry at present has no idea what that breakdown would
be. If I asked you, for example, what would be the cost
contributed to blue box via newsprint, you couldn't give me how
many millions of dollars a year that might run the program.
Mr West:
That would probably be a difficult calculation to make. We will
be inputting all the information that we have into the WDO
process. We know how much material is in the blue box and we can
have some general assumptions as to cost, but it's a partnership
that I think a lot of people have to input into, not just the
Ministry of the Environment. So actual costs, no. We have
information that would lead us to how you could generally
determine what the cost would be for each material, and I hope
we'll get that and see that out of the Waste Diversion
Organization as they put their funding formula together.
Ms Martel:
If so much of that is unknown, I worry about a decision which
appears to have been made-and if I'm wrong you can correct
me-whereby you would assess industry with 50% of the operating
cost to blue box. If the work comes back from WDO and you find
that in fact some of these input costs are much higher, the
municipalities will, at the end of the day, end up carrying the
can for at least 50% of all these costs.
Mr West: I
think the general consensus of the WDO at this time-they will
clearly be looking at this issue-is that the whole perspective is
that costs are either staying normal from what they were assessed
at when we did the RCO report or have been reduced in terms of
overall cost. The whole goal of the Waste Diversion Organization
is to input efficiencies and effectiveness into the system, so
the long-term projection is that we decrease costs around the
blue box rather than increase them.
Ms Martel:
And decrease the cost to municipalities.
Mr West:
Absolutely.
Ms Martel:
Put the share back on the producers.
Mr West:
It's just as relevant for municipalities as it is for the
industry share.
Ms Martel:
This RCO report that you refer to, is that a public document?
Mr West:
Absolutely, yes. There's a draft report and there's a final
public report that was submitted to the minister, and that is
available. They looked at various options in Ontario as to what
might be the best system for Ontario and made recommendations and provided
options to the minister.
Ms Martel:
Could you table that with the committee?
Mr West:
Absolutely.
Ms Martel:
That would be great, thanks.
Let me follow down the road
where Mr Gerretsen was going with respect to refillables. Deputy,
a couple of times when the committee members have asked about
this, you've made a point to say that only one jurisdiction, PEI,
uses the bottles and refills them.
Mr West:
Right.
Ms Martel:
And the costs of recycling are being picked up, I'm assuming, by
the manufacturers. Is that correct?
Mr Lal:
The container is going to the blue box system, and under the WDO
arrangement it will be determined what the cost is in terms of an
appropriate contribution from the food and beverage industry
toward that.
Ms Martel:
Deputy, I apologize. In terms of other jurisdictions which have a
deposit system, who assumes the cost of recycling in those
instances where there is a deposit system in place?
Mr West:
They all do it a little differently, but you can pretty much
determine that it is the consumer who is paying at the end of the
day, despite whether they have what is called a half-back system
or a full-deposit system. They all differ a little bit, but there
is usually a deposit made, and if you bring your container back,
you get some of the money back. I say some of it because usually
it's about half, so therefore there is the cost of running that
system being applied to the purchase of that product right at the
start.
Ms Martel:
Let me back up. I don't know if this is the case or not, but if
in Alberta they have a deposit system-
Mr West:
They do have that.
Ms Martel:
-and Coca-Cola does the work to pick up the bottles from the
retail outlets, then that's a cost that is borne by Coca-Cola and
not the municipality through a blue box system. Correct?
Mr West:
In fact, in Alberta they do have a deposit-return system. It is
municipally based and they have municipally run depots that the
public sends their products back to. It is not into the retail
per se. It's back to specific depots that the public take their
bottles. They journey to that particular depot in the
municipality and return that to get their deposit back.
Ms Martel:
And the municipality itself deals with the recycling and gets the
revenue?
Mr West:
Depending on the system, there is a cash flow back. There is
usually a board structure that is put in place that runs that on
behalf of the province, even though they are a municipal depot
system.
Excuse me. Is it a
municipal depot system in Alberta or is it a provincial depot
system?
Interjection.
Mr West: I
apologize. The cost to industry in that one would be given back
to the industry that runs that, and there is a cost associated
with that.
Ms Martel:
Here's the point I am trying to get at, though. In the case of
Alberta, the industry does the collection of the bottles?
Mr West:
No.
Ms Martel:
From the depot.
Mr West:
In fact, it's the consumer who takes it back to the depot.
Ms Martel:
And the industry picks it up from there and uses the glass itself
for recycling purposes and makes new bottles?
Mr West:
John?
Mr John
Lieou: My name is John Lieou, Mr Chair. In answer to
that question, as far as I know, yes, the glass is used for
recycling purposes.
Ms Martel:
By the producers themselves, such as Coca- Cola or Pepsi? It's
returned back to the producer?
Mr Lieou:
No. It's for recycling purposes, just as we do in Ontario.
Ms Martel:
Let me be clear. What cost is the private sector picking up under
that scenario? Because in response to an earlier question, you
said it was-
Mr Lieou:
The depot system is operated and funded through the deposit
system.
Ms Martel:
Who pays for picking up after the depot? After I go and drop my
stuff off at the depot, who collects and who is paying?
Mr Lieou:
Industry basically supports the system.
Ms Martel:
All right. So in fact under that scenario industry is assuming
part of its responsibility for the products it's producing and
for the waste it's producing, right? It's not being picked up by
the municipality 100% and by Joe Q. Taxpayer.
Mr Lieou:
Yes. Individual consumers play a role by taking the products back
to the depot.
1400
Ms Martel:
Even though you have told the committee a couple of times that a
lot of these jurisdictions aren't refilling, the fact is that in
some of these jurisdictions-we just chose Alberta; there may be
others-some of the cost is actually being borne by the industry
for recycling. What we have happening in Ontario now, because we
have no deposit system, is that the blue box is picking up 100%
of the cost, correct?
Mr Lal:
That is correct as the situation stands today, but under the WDO
arrangement, the soft drink industry is going to be very much a
partner. The soft drink industry has already contributed in cash
and will contribute its appropriate share, whatever that is,
determined by the board of WDO.
Ms Martel:
I understand they are going to be a partner. Here's the problem I
have: I think they should be more than a partner. We are the only
jurisdiction, I think, except for Manitoba, that doesn't have a
deposit system now. Clearly in the Alberta example, we've just
seen that the industry is bearing that cost, not taxpayers
through the blue box, or not the province through the blue box,
but in this case, municipalities through the blue box. So it
seems to me that rather than just being a partner, we should be
seriously looking at having a deposit system implemented in the province, because then we
can shift the burden and the cost back to those manufacturers who
are producing the product in the first place and shift the
financial burden away from municipalities, which are seeing the
bottles end up in the blue box. Right?
Mr Lal:
You may be right, but let me elaborate on that. I think if the
WDO system works as it is supposed to work, each partner is going
to pay their appropriate and equitable share. In other words,
they would pay 100% as opposed to the current situation where,
yes, they're getting a free ride today.
Ms Martel:
You're saying they'd pay their appropriate share, but you've
already told the committee, if I understood you correctly, that
they're not going to pay any more than 50% of the net operating
costs of the blue box. Right? So they're not paying their fair
share. On the one hand, you told this committee that the
companies that create the waste should be paying for a majority
of the share. It turns out that it will probably be about 50% of
the operating costs.
My argument is that instead
of this province saying to the soft drink industry, "You can be a
partner and give us some money," which isn't going to cover the
majority of the cost of the blue box, we should be saying clearly
to them, "We are going to implement a deposit system in the
province," because under that system, in other provinces, then
the manufacturers really do pay their share. Do you see what I'm
getting at?
Mr West: I
think when you look at the issue of deposit return, it's a single
material that you're looking at. Ontario's approach has always
been a multi-material approach, and I think that has to be taken
into account. Other jurisdictions take the approach of assessing
single materials and then running a program against that. If you
look at the deposit return system in other jurisdictions, their
capture rate is higher than Ontario's capture rate, that is a
given, but we capture about 55% to 60% of containers in the blue
box program at this point in time.
The RCO program did an
assessment of deposit return for Ontario and its impact on the
blue box program. What you're doing is setting up a duplicate
system to the blue box. It only captures one material. That
duplicate system, estimated by the RCO, would cost $80 million to
implement. I think that has to be taken into account when you're
only capturing less than 1% of the total waste stream, because
you're only capturing an extra 25%. Our approach is, let's
improve the blue box, let's make it more efficient, let's make it
more effective, let's capture that additional rate of material
into the blue box system.
I think the other point
that needs to be said here is that you would not reduce
substantially the cost to municipalities. They would still have
to run their truck for the other blue box materials. You're not
going to reduce the costs to any great degree at all, but you are
going to add considerable dollars to the entire system, and you
are introducing two systems that the public will have to get to
know and to understand as well. So I think that all has to be
taken into account as you look at the system and what's best for
which jurisdiction.
Ms Martel:
I'm at a disadvantage with respect to the $80 million because
I've never seen the report, so I can't know what they based those
figures on. But interestingly, I took a copy of Eva Ligeti's last
report as Environmental Commissioner, where she looked at a
comparison of the provincial beverage container stewardship
programs in Canada. It was very interesting, because not only
under a deposit system would we place the financial burden where
it should be, which is on to the manufacturers, but through that
system I think we'd also be able to divert much more out of what
might now go to landfill sites.
If I read what Ontario has
done, the diversion rate for Ontario for soft drinks, which she
noted, was only 35%; beer was 98%. So clearly we all know that
system is working. The diversion rate that she noted for Ontario
was only 35%, a third, which means, if I'm reading this
correctly, that a whole bunch of stuff is ending up in a landfill
site that might not if we had a deposit system.
She went through all of the
other jurisdictions, and Manitoba and Ontario were the only two
that didn't have a deposit system. Everywhere the diversion rates
were much higher than Ontario, and she looked at beer, wine and
spirits, soft drinks, waters and juices. In British Columbia, the
diversion rate for beer was 93%; soft drinks was 83%. In Alberta
overall-they've got a deposit system on all of those things-80%.
Saskatchewan overall was 94%. Overall Manitoba was 35%. They've
got a levy; they don't have a deposit system. In Ontario, beer
was 98% but soft drinks only 35%. As you run through it, Quebec
was 77%, New Brunswick was 75%, Nova Scotia was 75%, Prince
Edward Island was 90%, and in Newfoundland it was 80%.
In terms of potential
benefits, I'm quite concerned that the ministry is heading down
the wrong road. Sure, we're going to have the soft drink industry
participate as a partner and put some money on the table. But
it's not clear to me, as I look at what's happening in other
jurisdictions, that we are going to, through that mechanism,
really make sure that they assume the significant share of the
costs. Secondly, how do we deal with that diversion issue, which
still in Ontario is only at 35%?
Mr West:
We too have read that report, and I can say to you that our
estimates are far higher than those estimates. Again, you're
looking at a single material. I think you have to take into
context here that containers in most waste streams, especially in
Ontario, make up about 3% of your total waste stream. Getting at
that other 25% of those containers, at a cost that the RCO
calculated to be $80 million, is a substantial price to pay for
accessing probably less than 1% of your waste stream.
Our approach would be that
we'd rather take a more serious look at getting at organics,
making sure our blue box system captures those additional
containers. I think the other point that needs to be made here is
that not only do you have two systems in place and not only do
you have those materials within those two systems being
recycled-so they're both being recycled, they're both ending up
in the same situation-but municipalities also lose a significant
component of the money they access out of selling soft drink containers, especially
aluminium containers. It is very much a part of the process in
terms of the economics for municipalities. So you would lose
those costs to municipalities and up the cost of the blue box
program. You really have to watch the dynamics of the economics
and the waste stream that's at play when you're talking about the
total performance of your waste management system, especially
your recycling system.
Ms Martel:
Do municipalities make money on glass?
Mr West:
There is a very consistent market for glass right now, and it has
remained constant for some time. I would suggest that glass is
probably one of those materials that is either paying its own way
or below; it's not a money-maker for municipalities.
Ms Martel:
You said aluminium is a money-maker?
Mr West:
Very much so.
Ms Martel:
What about plastic?
Mr West:
It depends on the type of plastic that you're drawing out of the
system. They all have different market rates associated with
them, but they are also very much a commodity that does go up and
down in price depending on the markets, and sometimes you can
break even on it and sometimes the municipality doesn't break
even on it.
1410
Ms Martel:
Let me ask about an initiative that the city of Toronto tried in
July, if I understand this correctly. In July 1998, the city of
Toronto passed a bylaw to require the LCBO outlets in the city to
implement a deposit-return system for wine and spirits
containers, and that was a condition of their license renewal.
Are you aware of that?
Mr West:
Yes.
Ms Martel:
As I understand it, and correct me if I am wrong, the province
ended up making an amendment, I was told, to the Municipal Act-I
could be wrong-that removed Toronto's power to impose that
requirement. Is that correct?
Mr West:
That was done through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, yes.
Ms Martel:
I'm going to assume that because it was an environmental issue
there was some discussion with your ministry before that was
done. Can you give this committee some understanding of why the
province would have moved to forbid the city of Toronto to try
that as a pilot to see if it was going to work?
Mr West: I
think you have to take into account that we have a system in
Ontario that the public understands and we have a system that
works, from our perspective. It's a system that's drawing out
considerable tonnage in terms of volumes of materials. When you
get into a situation where you put a program in place that makes
an industry such as the LCBO change up the process in which they
sell, in which they would have to return back into their system,
that adds costs into the systems. I think that has to be taken
into account as to the total cost to your system.
Ms Martel:
Do you know what the costs were?
Mr West:
No, I don't.
Ms Martel:
Did the Ministry of Municipal Affairs know what the costs
were?
Mr West:
I'm not sure if they did or they didn't.
Ms Martel:
Why would they make a decision like that, which essentially
forbade Toronto to try to see if they could shift some of the
financial burden back to the LCBO? Do you have any explanation as
to why this was done?
Mr West: I
think the other part is that you introduce a system that will
obviously require the LCBO to change their stores in order to
receive these materials back into their stores, and you may have
noticed that the LCBO has been changing their dynamics in terms
of their retail presentation. So there are those things that have
to be considered.
The other thing is that
it's the same issue as with deposit-return for soft drinks. It
still ends up in the recycling system, it still ends up being
recycled. Are you introducing a second program, a second
collection system, into the mix when you already have a process
that works well and captures significant materials and is
multi-material-focused?
Ms Martel:
I might agree with you if we didn't have the clear example of
Brewers Retail and how successful it has been. It would be hard
to argue-it is a separate system. People use it. It has been a
tremendous success.
Mr West:
But there is no other jurisdiction that refills the bottles out
of the wine and liquor system. They would be sent straight to
recycling for recycling purposes. I think there is a difference
there.
Ms Martel:
I think the only difference is that we haven't tried it yet. I
heard the deputy say many times that it's been in place for a
long time, but at some point Brewers Retail made a decision to
change their outlets, and people have used Brewers Retail at a
phenomenally successful rate. Right?
Mr Lal:
With respect, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record,
you are really comparing apples and oranges. There is only one
major brewery per each of the two large companies here. It all
gets collected there. Wine is bought in Ontario from all over the
world, in different kinds of containers with different types of
products put in them. There is an issue of how much of the
problem is contributed to by imported glass versus glass
generated by local companies. Yes, the beer industry's example is
a very good example and I wish we could emulate that in the soft
drink area, but I do not think it is really a fair comparison,
for all the reasons that I have been enunciating.
Ms Martel:
I haven't been in a beer store lately, but the last time I was in
there I recall seeing a number of different bottles-imported,
Canadian; in Sudbury, Northern Breweries with their own mini-brew
as well. I just have a hard time believing-
Mr Lal: I
can assure you it is less than 5% of all the beer sold in Ontario
that is different; 95% is standardized bottling.
Ms Martel:
Let me ask one final set of questions, if I might. This has to do
with your changes to the environmental assessment procedure. In his 1997
report, the auditor had called on the ministry to "establish
monitors to measure and report on the effectiveness of the
process and to monitor compliance with the terms and conditions
of the approved projects." It's the monitoring of compliance with
terms and conditions of approved projects that I'm particularly
interested in. Can you tell me what systems-database, audit
etc-you've put in place to monitor terms and conditions to
guarantee they're being met?
Mr
Williams: Yes, I'd like to respond to that. We have a
database system in place. It was instituted in the past year and
it's a system that has a series of decision points relative to
conditions of approval for projects attached to it that
essentially flag key dates and times when staff need to ensure
there's appropriate follow-up with those conditions. That
particular system, as I said, has just come into play. We've been
using it for the past several months and we expect that it will
give us a great deal of success at looking at the types of
conditions that will require follow-up work.
Ms Martel:
Are you implementing this for previous cases as well?
Mr
Williams: No, the data that are being entered in it are
for all of the cases and projects that are currently underway in
our ministry. If there was a previous decision, it is not entered
in that database unless there has been an entry because something
needs to be checked or something needs to be complied with at a
carried-forward date into the future. So if we needed to check
something under a specific project, June 2000, then we would be
making an entry into that database, the date June 2000 would come
up and it would give staff the clue that there is something due
from a proponent or around a project that requires follow-up,
whether it's a report, an action item etc.
Ms Martel:
How are you dealing with follow-up on terms and conditions from
previous projects?
Mr
Williams: Previous projects that have been approved-we
don't have any specific measures to deal with follow-up for
previous conditions other than that one needs to bear in mind
that the environmental assessment approval is a planning level
approval and there are a whole host of permits and other
authorizations necessary by other provincial ministries or
agencies, and in some cases the federal government, before you
can implement that particular project. It's through those permits
and the conditions attached to those permits that there would be
follow-up.
Ms Martel:
What about the case where there aren't those kinds of permits
that have to be required, where the obligation is on a ministry
to do something, produce something?
Mr
Williams: In the case of where the obligation is on a
ministry to do something or produce something, they would be
required to file a report with our ministry indicating how they
have complied with that, and there are various time frames
associated with that. For example, under some of the class
environmental assessments quite a number of years pass before
there's a final due date for something, and I can assure you that
the discussions are being held with those particular ministries
and we will have reports that meet the due dates for them.
Ms Martel:
Just as I finish, I want to give you an example, all right? This
is the class EA for timber management. Right now we are awaiting
reports from the Ministry of Natural Resources with respect to
two of those conditions: (1) the annual report on timber
management that was required by term and condition 82, the last
one of which was produced in 1995-96-we haven't seen anything
since then even though it's supposed to be produced annually; and
(2) the state-of-the-forest report that was required as term and
condition 84, which has never been produced either. There are a
whole host of reports that have never been produced by MNR. My
colleague Bud Wildman, when he was here, and I actually asked Ms
Ligeti to investigate another term and condition, 77. It took a
whole year for the environmental assessment branch to even give
us a reply to the investigation. So in terms of your past
projects, sorry, but with respect to this ministry and this
project the MNR is notoriously late or behind or not producing
anything that it's supposed to produce as a result of the terms
and conditions outlined here.
1420
Ms
Mushinski: In order for us to really establish the
future of the WDO, I need to have an understanding of what was in
place before we established WDO. I know the ministry has gone
through some very serious business planning exercises to
establish target goals and measure performance indicators and
those sorts of things. Was any of that in place prior to the
establishment of the WDO and in terms of setting any mechanisms
for the funding of the blue box program before 1995?
Mr Lal:
Thank you for that question. Until 1998, the ministry
administered several different funding programs to assist
municipalities with their waste diversion activities. The
cornerstone of these programs was the municipal recycling support
program, or MRSP, which helped municipalities implement curbside
recycling systems. However, the MRSP offered funding for up to
five years for operating and capital costs as well as for the
demonstration projects and promotional activities.
The ministry discontinued
its 3Rs funding program in April 1996. Municipalities, however,
were eligible to receive funding until March 31, 1998, at which
time all funding ended.
The LCBO paid grants to
municipalities in 1999 for the costs they incurred in 1998 to
recycle glass containers sold by them. This funding has now been
incorporated into the WDO plan fund, as I indicated earlier
on.
The ministry will also be
detailing that current system, the WDO, as we think it brings
together a variety of partners, which was not the case under the
old system.
Ms
Mushinski: I take it then that the MOU also envisions
the establishment of some kind of business plan toward achieving
the 50% reduction?
Mr Lal: Yes, it does. Excuse
me; I just need to confirm that. Does the MOU do it?
Mr West:
The MOU itself still maintains the goal of 50% and it says,
"Here's a series of programs that we want you to implement, and
we want you to look long-term as to how we sustain and grow
this." The clear intent of the MOU is to enhance the blue box
program and other recycling activities and other diversion
activities of municipalities and to ensure that it's sustainable
from a funding perspective.
Ms
Mushinski: I'd like to pursue that, if I may, just a
tad. You've mentioned that in addition to looking at the blue box
program, the WDO will also be examining household waste; for
example, household waste management programs, recycling of tires
and that sort of thing. Can you enlarge a little bit on that? We
seem to have zeroed in on one particular component of waste
diversion, and I'm wondering if you could tell us what you
envision the WDO doing in terms of a larger waste diversion
program.
Mr West:
We've talked a lot about other jurisdictions. If you look at
other jurisdictions, they've taken a single-material approach to
most of their waste diversion activities and they've put a very
complicated administrative overseeing body over top of those
materials and the way that they approach things.
The WDO reflects what we
consider to be Ontario's multi-material approach in that we feel
there should be one organization that should have responsibility.
Its primary focus, to start off with, is clearly the blue box, to
make sure it's sustainable and to make sure we enhance it and
grow it. But as you mentioned, we're also very much interested in
making sure that for household special waste we have additional
depots in place in Ontario. We have a good infrastructure
already, but there are monies allocated to see that grow; also,
to have a program whereby the waste that is delivered to
municipal depots can be managed properly and disposed of in a
satisfactory manner. So that's certainly a priority within this
next year for the WDO to report back to the government.
In terms of the long-term
perspective of the WDO, this umbrella organization as it grows
and matures, the intent is that from a multi-material perspective
we look at issues of used oil, we look at issues of used tires,
we even look at possibilities of getting into take-back programs
around pharmaceuticals and other materials that are clearly of
issue. While we have programs in place, the WDO provides us with
an opportunity to enhance those programs and to seek the private
sector funding towards the delivery of those programs in a more
enhanced nature. Clearly, the objective is to continue the
multi-material focus, make it broad-based, make sure that the
industries that are producing the materials that come into those
programs are part of the solution, part of the funding and part
of an overall plan to ramp up waste reduction in Ontario.
Mr Bart Maves
(Niagara Falls): Just going back, you had said that
glass was basically a break-even, give or take, or a little bit
of a cost.
Mr West: I
haven't looked at my most up-to-date figures, but glass has
traditionally been a material that clearly does not pay its way
in the system. It does have a fairly constant market and it is
normally below the grade rather than at the grade in terms of
program cost.
Mr Maves:
I just want to go through the five things that I know I recycle:
cardboard-break-even, money-loser?
Mr West:
Again, it depends on what kind of cardboard. We have boxboard,
cardboard and corrugated containers. We have a very mature
recycling market for boxboard and corrugated containers now. I
forget what the costs are, but it does pay its fair share in the
program at this point in time. It may also at times, depending on
market conditions, dip below paying its way.
Mr Maves:
OK. Cans are a money-maker. Plastic?
Mr West:
It depends on the stream very much. Some are not money-makers,
some are a cost to municipalities.
Mr Maves:
When you average it all together, is it a break-even or a bit of
a loser?
Mr West: I
would suggest that it's probably close to break even, if a
little-
Mr Maves:
And newsprint?
Mr West:
It's hard to determine. Because there are different programs in
place, depending on the newspapers and who's getting what and
who's paying what, up until about a year ago, I think that the
floor that was in place made newspapers a money-maker. Now it's
more on the spot market. I don't have current figures on
that.
Mr Maves:
Some of these five things are money-makers and some of them break
even.
Mr West:
And some of them are money-losers. I don't want to misrepresent
this.
Mr Maves:
But there doesn't seem to be a lot of loss.
Mr West:
No, I don't want to leave that impression. We have a net
operating deficit for municipalities of $46 million. I think
that very much is associated with the fact that there are
transportation costs associated with collection and things of
that nature and infrastructure costs around material recovery
facilities. I don't want to leave the impression that these
things are always making money because that is not the case. It's
certainly the goal, but it's not always the case.
Mr Maves:
The auditor said that without the blue box program it would
actually cost the municipality more money. They would have still
incurred the cost of disposing of their recyclable materials for
landfill and they wouldn't receive any revenue to offset
disposable cost for recycled materials. That also doesn't include
the costs to society and the environment of having all of those
materials in landfill sites. When you figure all of that in, the
auditor seems to think that the blue box program is a better way
to dispose of these materials.
When we say that
municipalities, governments, have the traditional role of taking
society's garbage and disposing of it, this is a program which is
better for the environment because you're putting less of these
materials in the landfill site, giving a longer life to the
landfill site. Do you have any estimates of dollar values of what
the benefits to us are
of not having all of these materials just going into a landfill
site?
1430
Mr Lal:
Maybe I will attempt to answer that question and then see if Mr
West wants to add to it. I think our blue box system is really a
very successful initiative. Today, it serves 3.8 million
households and more than 90% of all households in Ontario. In
1998, for instance, 650,000 tonnes of material were recycled as
opposed to being sent to landfill sites. This is a 42% increase
in terms of recyclable materials compared to 1994 and represents
about 170 kilograms of recycled material per each household. It
is truly a very successful program.
Mr Maves:
OK. As a consumer, when I put my garbage out I've got all kinds
of food products, food packaging. I've got my recycling, I give
them my plastic and my glass and my cardboard and my paper, and
so on and so forth, and I put those out every day. I try to be
conscientious, but obviously a lot of food items get in the
garbage and some of the packaging from food items still gets in
the garbage and goes to the landfill site.
It's interesting to me that
as a society we want to recycle these products because we use
fewer trees if we're using recycled paper and fewer ores if we're
recycling aluminum cans and so on and so forth. We're pursuing
this line of making the producer pay, and in this instance it's
WDO; you're going to make the producer of these products pay, to
not send these things to the landfills for this garbage
collection. So we're going to put a tax, in effect, a voluntary
tax, on these people to collect those products and to dispose of
them in a certain way; municipalities sell them, so on and so
forth.
But wouldn't it hold true
then that we should be putting a tax on farmers and producers of
other packaging that have food products that go into the garbage
and go into landfill sites? It's municipalities that pay for
that, wholly and entirely. Why do we have the different opinions
about the different products? It's still garbage disposal. It's a
better way of doing it. It's better societally and
environmentally for these five products in particular to be
recycled, yet here we're saying you have to pay for that. But
there are all kinds of other products that go into the garbage
that the companies that produce those products don't have to pay
for. We're not even thinking about asking them to pay for it,
yet, it's the municipalities, it's the taxpayer picking up the
cost of that. There's something strange there. Yet obviously the
companies, in their recycling program, are saying, "Yeah, we'll
pony up." I understand they ponied up $20 million in the first
place for the blue box program, which no one has mentioned here
today. That's a substantial sum. Any comment on that?
Mr Lal: I
don't know whether I would use the terminology of a tax. I know
what you mean, but as you are probably aware, there are issues
relating to taxing it versus paying the cost of actually running
their recycling program. So, yes, we are asking those companies
that produce recyclable materials to pay towards the cost of
recycling that material. I think, again, there are some
differences between those materials for which there is a
recyclable market and where there is an ability to recoup or
reuse those articles versus products that are going to
disintegrate and, therefore, will not have a market. We are very
big on composting, for instance, which takes care of food
products that can be reused in various varieties, but I'm not so
sure that we could even begin to assess a system which would say
we would tax food producers to a certain point for their
contribution to garbage.
Mr Maves:
We would never dream of that. We would never even dream of
putting-
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you. It's my understanding that we
were going to go another hour. We're pretty flexible, if you want
make another round.
Mr Maves:
No. We were just going to finish our 20 minutes, I thought.
The
Vice-Chair: It was my understanding that you gave part
of your 20 minutes to the New Democratic Party.
Interjections.
The
Vice-Chair: That's what I understood. You didn't make it
clear. Well, if you want to go on for another four minutes then,
if that wasn't the case, but we'll have to watch that closely the
next time.
Mr Maves:
OK.
Mr
Gerretsen: I'm with you, Chair.
The
Vice-Chair: Put your foot down then.
Mr Maves:
I have some statistics that have been given about Alberta. I
lived in Alberta for three years and I hated their program. I'm
sure there were cans in Alberta. I'm not sure about newspapers,
but I know there were glass bottles, and I know they'd lie around
my house for two or three months until we finally got enough to
get together and throw them all in the garbage can, dump them in
the car, and go down to the facility and turn them over.
I remember as a kid we had
a refillable bottle program and I loved it because I could get 10
cents a bottle, but it was also a pain in that you had all these
bottles lying around the house. And it's inconvenient. When you
go to the store you've got to get a 750-millilitre glass bottle
and it's really heavy compared to a two-litre plastic bottle.
There doesn't seem to have
been the push from either party to move on this 30% refillable at
all. There doesn't seem to have been any societal push, and it
seems to me that society likes their two-litre, non-refillable
bottles. It's convenient. So isn't it therefore appropriate that
society also decides when they make that choice that we're going
to absorb the cost of that?
Mr Lal:
That is certainly one element of it. Consumer convenience is a
very important factor. I also think that society generally is
very concerned about the environment and is very concerned and
very interested in recycling material as much as possible. It
really is a whole spectrum of issues that you have to look at,
from convenience to whether these bottles are being used for
refilling or whether they're just being used for recycling,
to creating a parallel
system, to the cost of creating a parallel system, to the issue
of who manages that system and what sort of additional cost or
burden you may be putting on municipalities or taxpayers should
it not be able to sustain itself.
So I think the government,
in its wisdom, has decided that it is much better to have one
system which would have different materials that could be
collected, where the sorting out would be done somewhere else but
the consumer would not have to go to different locations to
deposit their soft drink bottles versus their newspapers versus
anything else. And really it's our view that if the blue box
program is funded well and if the cost of running that is
equitably and fairly divided among the producers who actually
produce these materials, and that we encourage the growth of a
recyclable material industry, these are all very positive aspects
and we would rather go in that direction than create five
different, separate streams. Because why would you stop at just
soft drink bottles? Why would you not have a separate system for
newspapers, and why would you not have a separate system for
plastics or cardboard? That's the reality.
Finally, I want to say that
we are the largest province, very disparate. Our population is
spread all over the province. It is much easier, with respect,
for a province like PEI to create a system that is much more
contained because it is on a much smaller scale than it would be
in a province with a population of 11 million.
1440
Mr Maves:
You can throw a rock across PEI.
Interjections.
The
Vice-Chair: I think we've each had a good 20 minutes. If
there is agreement not to go around again, I guess it's strictly
up to the committee to make that decision.
Mr
Gerretsen: In all fairness, Mr Chair, since the third
party and the government have had four and a half minutes more,
my colleague here has just indicated that she can straighten this
whole thing out in the next four and a half minutes. So may she
speak for four and a half minutes too?
The
Vice-Chair: I guess we'd have to give everybody four and
a half minutes then.
Mr
Gerretsen: I move that she be heard.
The
Vice-Chair: Is it agreeable?
Interjection: Yes.
The
Vice-Chair: OK.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I'm just taking the minute I missed the
second time around.
My point, Mr Chair, would
be to the deputy, in a response to some of the comments I have
heard from a government member with regard to convenience. From
my perspective, and certainly from what I'm hearing from my
constituents, the government and the representatives of the
people have a responsibility to be leaders and to have the people
in Ontario understand that there is a price to be paid for
convenience and it is at the cost of our environment. Until we do
what we can as a government to have people understand that as
long as we are prepared to accept disposable containers, they
will continue to find their way into landfill sites, which are
increasing in size at exponential rates. I think that any
initiative that could and should be considered, which would
direct waste away from landfill, would be truly worthwhile and
worth supporting. I think that's a minute. Thanks, Mr Chair.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. It's my understanding
now that the hearings have wound up. Is that correct?
Mr Erik
Peters: Could I ask a question?
The
Vice-Chair: Sure.
Mr Peters:
I want to raise a quick question before the committee returns to
an in camera session to discuss what we have heard. I must admit
that I'm a little bit unclear on one issue and that is the WDO.
In response to our recommendation in 1999, you indicated to us
that the WDO was founded to develop options to reduce the cost of
recycling programs and fund initiatives to increase waste
diversion. The press release of January 13 said that the WDO is
committed to develop, implement and fund municipal waste
diversion programs. I want to be clear-I don't know whether the
members are clear, but I'm not clear-whether the WDO is advisory
to the ministry or whether it is indeed a partnership to develop,
implement and fund municipal waste diversion. I don't know
whether the members are clear, but I'm not clear on this
point.
Mr Lal: Mr
Chair, if I might reply to that: In its first year of operation,
the WDO has been given a specific mandate. The WDO is a
not-for-profit corporation that is established separate and apart
from government. It is not an advisory committee of the ministry.
The WDO has been given a specific mandate by the minister to look
at the whole waste diversion issue, to suggest a course of action
to be adopted, to look at the equity aspect in terms of who pays
for what in comparison to what they generate, and to submit a
report to the minister by September of this year. The report will
give us some guidance in terms of what action the government
should take in respect of it, if any action is required. I hope
that helps you in terms of-
Mr Peters:
It helps a little bit, but I have then a subsequent question.
Mr West:
Could I answer that? The WDO, in its first year-there is also the
$14.5 million. We've given them the parameters in terms of the
dollars that we would like expended on a particular program area,
but they are to develop it, they are to implement it and they are
to fund it within that $14.5-million framework.
So there are two parts to
the answer: There is the immediate, where they are actually
developing, implementing and funding through the MOU and the
requirements of the MOU, and then the longer-term strategy and
funding formula that's being requested.
Mr Peters:
First is an observation: Out of the $14.5 million, it's actually
a diversion of net profit of the LCBO of $9 million to this
organization, according to the press release. That's number one,
as an observation.
The other question pertains to the point that it
is described as a partnership of the government, municipalities
and industry. What confuses me slightly, and again just to
understand the situation, is that the government, although it is
a partner-it has provided most of the funding, $9 million out of
$14.5 million-has only observer status in this partnership,
according to the press release of January 13. I'm just wondering
about the concept of partnership here, how that is actually
working.
Mr West:
You're right. The LCBO contribution is $9 million. They look
at it very much as they are a business that is producing
materials that are ending up in the blue box and they are paying
their share, as they see it, in terms of making a commitment to
the blue box. So there is $8 million that is going directly to
municipalities almost immediately and again later on in the year.
They look at that as being part of their business. They are one
of the industry sectors that are represented.
As to the ministry's
observer status, at the end, the recommendations will obviously
come to the minister and to the government for their
consideration. We are playing an active role in terms of that
observer status. The deputy is the observer on that board, he
plays an active role on the board, but when it comes right down
to it, we are the ones who will be implementing the
recommendations from a policy perspective and therefore we wanted
to maintain a more observer-like status in front of the
board.
Mr Peters:
Coming back to the first question, for the first year it's mainly
advisory.
Mr West:
That's correct, aside from implementing those specific programs
that I mentioned earlier; it's not advisory. It has been tasked
to deliver on those specific programs during the first year.
Mr Peters:
I have a suggestion to make, and I can make it on or off the
record.
First, is the WDO taking
into consideration all the mandatory refund policies legislation
that is in place in Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick,
Newfoundland, Nova Scotia-PEI, incidentally, bans these kinds of
bottles; that's where their system is coming from-Quebec and
Saskatchewan? And are they also considering the two-cent levy,
the Manitoba system, in their advice?
The other one I would urge
them to take a look at is the 1993 report prepared for the US
Congress entitled "Bottle Bills and Curbside Recycling: Are they
Compatible," which I believe came to the conclusion that there is
a benefit to the municipalities. They said local governments
would achieve a greater diversion of solid waste from disposal at
a lower cost per tonne if both a bottle bill-that is, a
refundable system-and a curbside collection program were in
place. I just put it out for possible consideration.
Mr West:
The WDO has expertise on it that clearly has a national, North
American and even a European context associated with it. There is
a lot of expertise in the WDO, in the committee structure itself.
The municipal sector also will be making sure that those other
systems are part of the discussion. Again, we've asked the WDO to
come back with options and recommendations as to what it should
look like. They will clearly be looking at what is the best
system for Ontario, but in the context of what other
jurisdictions are doing.
Is there a report that
requires them to come back and say, "Here's what other
jurisdictions are doing"? No. We've been through that through the
RCO process and I think we're into the next step.
Will they be considering
the Manitoba two-cent model? I think they should take a very
serious look at that model and other models here in North America
and in Europe as well.
Mr Peters:
Thank you, Chair.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you, Auditor. I'd like to thank the
ministry staff. It's my understanding that we go in camera now to
make a decision on what we're going to do. Thanks to everyone who
participated.
Mr Lal: Mr
Chairman, I would also like to say thank you on behalf of my
colleagues and myself for these proceedings.
The committee continued
in closed session at 1451.
