CONTENTS
Tuesday 1 October 1996
Environmental Assessment and Consultation Improvement Act, 1996, Bill 76, Mrs Elliott / Loi de 1996 améliorant le processus d'évaluation environnementale et de consultation publique, projet de loi 76, Mme Elliott
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Président: Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)
Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside ND)
Hon JanetEcker (Durham West / -Ouest PC)
*Mr JohnGerretsen (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)
*Mr MichaelGravelle (Port Arthur L)
Mrs HelenJohns (Huron PC)
*Mr LeoJordan (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Mr GerardKennedy (York South / -Sud L)
Ms FrancesLankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
*Mrs JuliaMunro (Durham-York PC)
Mr DanNewman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
*Mr RichardPatten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
*Mr TrevorPettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)
*Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
*Mr BruceSmith (Middlesex PC)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mrs LillianRoss (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC) for Hon Janet Ecker
Mr DougGalt (Northumberland PC) for Mrs Johns
Mr DaltonMcGuinty (Ottawa South / -Sud L) for Mr Kennedy
Ms MarilynChurley (Riverdale ND) for Ms Lankin
Mr MarcelBeaubien (Lambton PC) for Mrs Munro
Mr R. GaryStewart (Peterborough PC) for Mr Newman
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mr LeoFitzPatrick, counsel, legal services branch, MOEE
Mr JimJackson, director, legal services branch, MOEE
Mr ChuckPautler, director, environmental assessment branch, MOEE
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Lynn Mellor
Staff / Personnel: Ms Laura Hopkins, legislative counsel
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONSULTATION IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 AMÉLIORANT LE PROCESSUS D'ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE ET DE CONSULTATION PUBLIQUE
Consideration of Bill 76, An Act to improve environmental protection, increase accountability and enshrine public consultation in the Environmental Assessment Act / Projet de loi 76, Loi visant à améliorer la protection de l'environnement, à accroître l'obligation de rendre des comptes et à intégrer la consultation publique à la Loi sur les évaluations environnementales.
The Chair (Mr Richard Patten): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We're here this afternoon to deal with Bill 76 in terms of clause-by-clause consideration. I look forward to it.
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): If it's appropriate at this time, I have a motion to make before we begin.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Environment and Energy called for these hearings to be delayed, whereas the government has not changed any amendments and whereas this bill fundamentally breaks the promise of the Premier that guaranteed that all new landfills would be subject to a full EA, I therefore move that the new minister, Mr Sterling, come before committee for clause-by-clause consideration to explain the amendments that stand in his name.
May I speak to this motion now?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms Churley: Shortly after the new minister, Mr Sterling, was appointed he called me, and I believe he also called Mr Dalton McGuinty, the Liberal critic, and asked our permission to delay clause-by-clause on this bill. I said to Mr Sterling at that time, "I welcome an opportunity for you review the bill because there are extreme problems with this bill, including the fact that you may not be aware, Mr Sterling, that if passed as it is, the Premier will have broken a fundamental promise."
Mr Sterling had some time to review this bill and keep to his commitment, when he was first appointed as minister, that the environment was important to this government and to make some substantive changes, at least one or two. He did not do that. Because he's a new minister and was not in the ministry when this was being developed it's very possible, and I like to think it's the fact, that he doesn't know what's happening with this bill. For his benefit as well as for that of environmental protection he should be here for clause-by-clause so that he will have the benefit of hearing from a few of us who have been on this committee from day one and heard day after day testimony from various committees and groups about the harmful effects of this bill on the environment. I believe we should not go ahead with clause-by-clause unless he is here to answer questions and participate.
The Chair: We have a motion on the floor and we've heard comments. Debate, other reactions, comments?
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Mr Chair, I intend to support this motion. We're proceeding here on the assumption that the new minister adopts wholeheartedly, holus-bolus, everything that's been put forward to date. I think it'll be helpful to the committee to have an opportunity to meet with the minister, review some of the concerns that have been raised to date and obtain his insight and personal feelings with respect to Bill 76. For those reasons I support the motion.
The Chair: Comment? Debate? There being none --
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I think there's unanimous agreement.
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Hardly. I appreciate the comments that have been made by members of both opposition parties. However, the minister did want to review the bill and be comfortable with it, know what was in it, what amendments were being put forth, and he is quite comfortable that the committee proceed with the line-by-line. As the parliamentary assistant for environment I do not support the motion.
The Chair: Any comments? All right. I'll put the question: All in favour of the motion? Against?
Ms Churley: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Churley, Gerretsen, McGuinty.
Nays
Galt, Munro, Pettit, Preston, Ross, Smith, Stewart.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
We will now begin at section 1. Shall section 1 carry? I believe there are some amendments to the first one from the Liberal Party.
Mr McGuinty: Mr Chair, you're going to notice that a great bulk of these amendments put forward by our party and the third party are identical. I suggest, for purposes of simplicity, that we just alternate in terms of who presents a motion.
The Chair: Can we have an indication of who will be moving this amendment?
Mr McGuinty: I'll start.
The Chair: Okay. Mr McGuinty moves subsection 1(1) of the bill.
Mr McGuinty: I move that the definition of "director" in section 1 of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in subsection 1(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"`Director' means an employee of the ministry appointed under section 31.1 to act as a director."
The purpose of this is to ensure that people who are given the power of director under the legislation are employees of the Ministry of Environment. Directors have approval authority under the Bill 76 EA process and therefore shouldn't have other biased involvements in projects which may be part of the EA process. For example, it would be a conflict of interest to allow Ministry of Transportation staff working on ministry highway projects to also be designated as directors for environmental assessment purposes.
Ms Churley: I have a motion that is the same and I support the amendment as stated. As it stands now, it's my understanding that the minister could appoint a member of the Ontario Waste Management Association as a director for the purposes of the act. I think that we need to make this amendment and I believe that this makes eminent sense. It's totally reasonable, and I hope the government members will support it.
Mr McGuinty: Perhaps we could direct a question to the parliamentary assistant or to staff here as to why they would object to this amendment.
The Chair: Your question is to either the parliamentary assistant or staff? If you want to pass it to staff, it's up to you.
1540
Mr Galt: My understanding is that this is making it consistent with other legislation. I don't really have a problem with the way the original amendment has been made. I don't see the real advantage in adding it here. If staff want to make a comment, they're certainly welcome to.
Mr Leo FitzPatrick: The definition provision in section 1 is relatively neutral. The effective provision, if this change were to be made, should be in the effective section, which is section 31.1, much farther on in the bill. There is a Liberal and an NDP motion with respect to that section.
Mr McGuinty: That's what we're starting to debate right now. That's the amendment being debated right now. Is there any particular reason that I'm missing as to why we're now going to broaden the definition of "director" so that it might include somebody outside the ministry?
Mr FitzPatrick: It's dealt with in this way, in this bill, for consistency with the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act. The definition in section 1 is simply a cross-reference to the effective section where specific authority would be given, in subsection 31.1(3); with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council such persons are to be appointed as directors. If this kind of change is to be made, that is the more appropriate place to make it.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Why? If that change is made under section 31.1, what difference does it make if it's made under section 1? I'd like to know.
Mr FitzPatrick: If it's going to be made, it has to be made in section 31.1. It could be made here as well.
Mr Preston: Subsection 31.1(3) says that they are allowed to "appoint persons other than those described in subsection (1)." That won't affect it at all if we change section 1.
Mr FitzPatrick: If you're going to make the change in section 31.1, you don't need to change section 1 at all. Section 1 can be left alone. The question of whether directors can be appointed from outside the ministry can be completely addressed in section 31.1 and cannot be addressed by changing only section 1.
Mr Preston: No, but if section 1 is changed to show that it's only within the ministry --
Mr FitzPatrick: Then we would later have to change section 31.1 to match. We'd have to make two changes rather than one.
Mr McGuinty: My concern is not technically how we do it. I need to know the government's position on this. Are they prepared to accept this amendment, whether we do it here or in section 31.1? Then we can let the lawyers work it out.
Mr Galt: As I am reading this and trying to sort it out, it's already covered under section 31.1 of the act on page 19 of the bill. The modification you're making could be considered under there, but I think it says what you want it to say.
"31.1(1) The ministry may appoint one or more employees in the ministry to act as director under this act."
Isn't that saying what you're trying to say in this amendment?
Mr McGuinty: It would but for sub (3), where the wording in the column says "same," but "not employees."
Mr Galt: Ah.
Ms Churley: That's the problem.
Mr Galt: This, then, could be accepted under section 31.1.
Mr McGuinty: Okay. So what does that mean? Do we have to submit a new amendment?
Mr Galt: I don't think so. Just make sure it's in the right location for clarity.
Mr Chuck Pautler: You have a later amendment to strike 31.1 which will have the effect of the provision --
Mr McGuinty: That takes out sub (3)?
Mr Pautler: Yes.
Mr McGuinty: Perfect. We'll deal with that when we get to it then.
The Chair: Are you prepared to stand down that amendment?
Mr McGuinty: Yes, I am.
The Chair: All right. Are you withdrawing that or postponing it?
Mr Galt: Do you want to postpone it?
Mr McGuinty: Whatever's recommended here, Mr Chair. I guess I should keep this in here until we get to it.
Mr Galt: Just as long as we don't miss it when we get to that point.
The Chair: So we'll stand it down for the moment. I believe we have other amendments under subsection (1) as well.
Mr Galt: I move that subsection 1(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in subsection 1(6) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Same
"(3) A class may be defined to include or exclude one or more members that would otherwise not be included in or excluded from the class."
The previous word was "undertakings." It's felt that would be more limiting and "members" would be more inclusive and broader.
The Chair: Any comments or questions? I'll call the question. All those in favour? Those opposed? The amendment is passed.
There's another Liberal motion, I believe, Mr McGuinty.
Mr McGuinty: This is identical with the NDP motion.
Ms Churley: We'll present this as an NDP motion. Do I have to read the whole thing into the record? It's quite long.
The Chair: Yes, we do. We have to put it in the record for Hansard.
Mr Gerretsen: We give you the long ones.
Ms Churley: I don't need to read the title over every time. It makes me ill every time I have to read it, Mr Chair.
I move that section 3.1 of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Harmonization
"3.1(1) This section applies,
"(a) if another jurisdiction imposes requirements with respect to an undertaking to which this act applies; and
"(b) if the requirements imposed by the other jurisdictions are identical to subsection 6.2(2) or have a substantially similar effect.
"Order to vary
"(2) Subject to subsection (3), the minister may by order vary a requirement imposed under this act with respect to the undertaking in order to facilitate the effective operation of the requirements of both jurisdictions.
"Same
"(3) The minister shall not vary or dispense with the requirements of subsection 6.2(2).
"Notice and comment
"When the minister proposes to make an order under this section, the minister shall give adequate public notice of the proposed order and shall ensure that members of the public have an opportunity to comment on it.
"Reasons
"(5) When making an order, the minister shall give written reasons demonstrating that the requirements under the other jurisdiction are identical to subsection 6.2(2) or have a substantially similar effect."
I expressed a great deal of concern about this and so did all of environmental groups that came before us for this reason. It's about harmonization and it has been presented as cutting red tape and overlapping jurisdictional problems. I believe at some times there are problems with that. Without this amendment what happens is that the minister can vary or dispense with parts of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act to make it consistent with other jurisdictions. What this means is only one thing, and that's harmonizing to a lower standard. Components of the Ontario EA act should remain consistent. If another jurisdiction wants to meet the Ontario standard, fine, let them harmonize up.
The other problem this amendment fixes is that it requires the minister to give adequate public notice of a proposed harmonization agreement to ensure that the public has an ability to comment on it. One of the issues that's consistently running throughout this bill is that despite everything the government says, that this bill improves public consultation, it actually takes away. This harmonization, because of the possibility in many cases to reach the lowest common denominator, would mean that, whatever happens, at least the public would know what's going on and would have an ability to give their views on it.
1550
I urge the committee to support this. I know not all of you sat through the whole thing, but it was a major issue with many people about the real possibility of Ontario standards being lowered even more. I don't think that's what the minister wants. If it's his intent to actually deal with red tape and overlapping jurisdictional problems, there are ways to do that. My amendment makes it clear that we'll harmonize, but if it's in Ontario then another jurisdiction is going to have to conform to our standards so that we won't have to lower ours.
I think this is eminently reasonable. I believe all members of the Conservative Party have at least said that they want to protect the environment, and this will be a clear message that they're willing to allow Ontario to go to the lowest environmental standards if we proceed the way it is.
Mr McGuinty: I support everything my colleague has said. We're not after the lowest common denominator here. I don't believe that was the minister's intent. I think we're looking for efficiency. Who isn't? I'd ask that the government members, in a true spirit of harmony, concede to this amendment.
Mr Galt: We're in support of harmonization and working together as in the past. There have been projects where they have worked together and it's gone to the highest denominator for whichever particular issue.
This particular motion says "identical," and we really can't support that kind of approach to harmonization, but working together and ensuring that the proponent doesn't have to do it twice, and that can be in the proposed terms of reference when they are submitted. As government, we do not support this particular motion.
We're just doing 3.1(1)(a) and (b)? We're not doing the whole thing at this point? Is that right, Mr Chair?
Ms Churley: I read the whole page.
Mr Galt: You read the whole page?
The Chair: The whole page, yes.
Mr Galt: We can support subsection (4), "Notice and comment," and subsection (5), "Reasons." We're not in a position to support the first part of this motion. We can put forth an amendment to the amendment or we can look at the last two later if you so wish, but we can support (4) and (5).
Ms Churley: I'm happy to split the motion if that would be helpful, so we deal with the first three. I'd like a recorded vote on this.
Mr Galt: Would you like to do the last two first so you get something through?
Ms Churley: Pardon?
Mr Galt: No, I'm teasing.
The Chair: So we will divide off subsections (4) and (5). Unless there are further comments, I will call the question on the amended amendment, which would deal with subsections 3.1(1) through to (3). Ms Churley, you'd like a recorded vote on both sections?
Ms Churley: Actually on the first three.
Ayes
Churley, Gerretsen, McGuinty.
Nays
Galt, Jordan, Munro, Pettit, Preston, Ross, Smith, Stewart.
Mr Galt: I'd like to point out that in subsection (5) the last portion of that does limit scoping. We can support item (5), "When making an order, the minister shall give written reasons."
The Chair: This would mean an amendment to the amendment.
Ms Churley: What are you doing?
Mr Galt: In subsection (5), putting a period after "reasons" and deleting the rest.
The Chair: "When making an order, the minister shall give written reasons."
Clerk of the Committee (Lynn Mellor): So Mr Galt moves that in subsection (5) all the words after the word "reasons" be deleted.
The Chair: We can have comment on that amendment to the amendment first and then vote on it, and then go back to the original. Is there further comment, Ms Churley?
Ms Churley: I'm trying to understand this. We are deleting what after "reasons"?
The Chair: Everything after, "When making an order, the minister shall give written reasons."
Ms Churley: And then nothing else? Can I have an explanation again as to why?
Mr Galt: My understanding is that this would limit scoping. It relates back to the motion that hasn't been carried.
Ms Churley: I'm sorry to do this, but could the staff explain it a little better to me? Sorry, not to insult you, but --
Mr Galt: It wouldn't be the first time.
Ms Churley: He's whispering in your ear. It's just easier and more efficient.
Mr Pautler: The effect of the amendment Dr Galt put on the table would be such that when the minister issues an order to harmonize with another jurisdiction, there would be written reasons provided for that order. The reason the three lines following the word "reasons" are deleted is because they are in reference to the motion above, which was not carried, so they need to be deleted.
Ms Churley: Oh, I see. Okay, gotcha. Sorry.
Mr Pautler: The net effect of both (4) and (5) would be such that when the minister is contemplating harmonizing with another jurisdiction, there would be a public notice given and the public would have an opportunity to comment on the nature of that proposed harmonization.
The Chair: Are we ready to vote? Mr Galt's amendment would be -- do you want to read it?
Clerk of the Committee: Mr Galt moves that in subsection (5) all the words after the word "reasons" be deleted.
Mr Galt: Has a motion been put on the table to accept (4) and (5)?
The Chair: Yes. Those in favour? This is in favour of the deletion of that. This is Mr Galt's amendment to the amendment, so this is deleting the second part. I just thought I would point that out.
Mr Preston: We almost got unanimity there.
The Chair: All in favour? Those opposed? Nobody opposed.
Clerk of the Committee: So the question is to subsections (4) and (5) as amended.
The Chair: Right.
Mr Galt: You're doing great. Just keep going.
Ms Churley: The other part is pretty irrelevant anyway.
The Chair: That's right, exactly.
Subsections (4) and (5) as amended -- can I call the question on that? All those in favour? Those opposed? Carried.
Mr Gerretsen: It's your amendment.
Ms Churley: No, because he removed part of it.
Mr McGuinty: I have a question with respect to government members. Who can vote here today, including Dr Galt? Can they all vote?
Clerk of the Committee: Mr Galt, Mrs Ross, Mr Stewart, Mr McGuinty, Ms Churley, and after 4 o'clock, Mr Beaubien for Mrs Munro.
Mr McGuinty: Can eight vote on behalf of government? That's what I'm asking.
Clerk of the Committee: Yes.
Mr McGuinty: They can?
Clerk of the Committee: Yes. They have eight members.
Mr McGuinty: You learn something new every day.
Mr Preston: What's the difference between that and four?
Mr McGuinty: Four.
The Chair: I can see our math is very good. So that part has been dealt with.
We have an additional motion from Mr McGuinty or Ms Churley, one of the two.
1600
Mr McGuinty: I move that section 3.2 of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Declaration
"3.2(1) Subject to subsection (2) and with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the minister may by order,
"(a) declare that this act, the regulations or a matter provided for under the act does not apply with respect to a proponent or an undertaking;
"(b) suspend or revoke the declaration;
"(c) impose conditions on the declaration; or
"(d) amend or revoke conditions imposed on the declaration.
"Restriction
"(2) The minister may issue a declaration only if,
"(a) the undertaking is not environmentally significant; or
"(b) the undertaking is necessary to address an environmental emergency and further delay may result in immediate danger to the health and safety of any person or may result in harm or serious risk of harm to the environment.
"Request for declaration
"(3) Any person may, in writing, ask the minister to issue a declaration with respect to an undertaking and shall give the minister written reasons for the request.
"Notice and comment
"(4) When the minister proposes to issue a declaration, the minister shall give adequate public notice of the proposed declaration and shall ensure that members of the public have an opportunity to comment on it and on any conditions that may be imposed in connection with it.
"Declaration in writing
"(5) A declaration must be made within 120 days after the minister receives the request for it and must set out the minister's reasons for issuing the declaration.
"Duty to monitor
"(6) The minister shall monitor whether conditions imposed in connection with the declaration are being met.
"Compliance order
"(7) The minister may order the proponent of the undertaking to which the declaration applies to comply with the conditions imposed in connection with the declaration or to discontinue the undertaking. The minister may make such an order if he or she considers that the proponent has contravened the conditions or is likely to do so.
"Enforcement
"(8) A certified copy of an order made under subsection (7) may be filed with the Ontario Court (General Division) and thereupon it is enforceable as an order of that court."
The problem here is that Bill 76 allows the Minister of Environment to exempt proponents from the EA process or to change the process requirements for a proponent. This amendment reduces the broad exemption and variance powers in Bill 76 by requiring that the proposal be shown to be not environmentally significant or to be necessary to address an environmental emergency; a proponent give written reasons for requesting a change in the process; the minister provide public notice of the request to change a process; the minister monitor the project to ensure that required conditions are being met; the changes to the process are filed with the Ontario Court to ensure that compliance can be enforced if a proponent tries to change the nature of the project.
Ms Churley: I think I agree with the comments by Mr McGuinty. A major component of this -- it keeps a thread throughout the bill as public consultation and public notice and I'd like to emphasize that the adequate public notice of a proposed declaration is extremely important. Again, I would urge all members of the government to support this amendment.
Mr Galt: Really, we're not changing in this. This is something that the opposition is adding more to the process. It's already been listed in the EBR, and I'll give you the 800 number, if you'd like, Ms Churley. Also, according to some of the figures that I have here, the exemptions have really been very low in recent years, dropping from a number of 51, going back to 1979-80, down to nine in 1993-94 and 12 in 1995-96. It's really not a big issue and it is being put in the EBR and I don't see any reason to be supporting this amendment, so I will not be supporting this amendment.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I just have a comment. If you look at the proposed new act, I think it clarifies the situation. When I look at the two amendments that we have, first of all, it is so wordy that probably the ministry won't understand it, let alone the public. I think what we're trying to do is streamline the process, get away from regulation that does not pertain to it and allow the minister to have the opportunity to take a look at the situation and what it addresses and the standards etc and to do a declaration if there is a variation from it. I certainly could not support the amendment in any way, shape or form.
The Chair: Further debate? All right, I'll put the question on the amendment to section 3.2 under section 2. Those in favour? Those opposed? The motion has been defeated.
Section 2, as amended, shall it carry? All in favour? Those opposed? Section 2 carries.
We now move to section 3. There are, I believe, amendments to section 3, and it's a government motion.
Mr Galt: I move that subsection 5(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by striking out "or 9.1" at the end.
The Chair: Would you care to comment on that?
Mr Galt: This is a housekeeping amendment which is needed to reflect section reference changes due to later government amendments -- basically housekeeping activities.
The Chair: There being no debate, I'll call the question. All those in favour? Those against? The amendment carries.
Are there further amendments?
Mr Galt: I move that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding the following section to the Environmental Assessment Act:
"Obligation to consult
"5.1 When preparing proposed terms of reference and an environmental assessment, the proponent shall consult with such persons as may be interested."
This is the one that both opposition parties have been looking for. It's certainly one that was a loud and clear message on the road. We've heard comments from many of the deputants regarding the importance of consulting the public up front when the terms of reference are being developed. We agree with this suggestion and are proposing this motion.
Proponents will now be required to consult with interested persons on the terms of reference before submitting them to the minister. This is a new requirement that is combined with the former requirement in section 6.1 of the bill to consult on environmental assessment. Certainly this is consistent with our intention of enshrining public consultation and will get it up front right at the very beginning in designing the work plan as you may, or terms of reference, and should overcome a lot of the confrontation that has occurred in this process in the past.
Ms Churley: I wholeheartedly support moving forward with an amendment on this. There's no doubt that it was one of the major -- I believe everybody commented on that and all but a few found fault with it. I wonder if the government would be willing to -- whatever the word is -- deal with my motion instead on the same matter, because it addresses the issue much more adequately.
Really, this only deals with it in the simplest form possible, what people said about that lack of access to consultation around the terms of reference. We heard time and time again that there was no definition of "interested parties," for instance. That's not even addressed here. That, among other issues that people responded to about that section, is not included in this. I would say that, although the government has moved a step forward and I applaud the government for doing that, it doesn't adequately address the concerns that many people raised. I wonder if Mr Galt would be willing to remove this motion and support mine instead, because it goes a little further in addressing those concerns.
Mr Galt: I certainly followed Ms Churley's comments and her concerns. I guess I'm one who likes to keep things just as simple as you possibly can. I just find that acts in general tend to turn people off from reading, and we have a very simple statement that's just inviting the public to be involved; it will be a requirement, and if it's not satisfactory, the minister's not going to sign off on it. With this, there's a lot of detail and it's quite cumbersome and I, for one, would just like to leave it in its simplistic, blunt, upfront statement that is easy to read and doesn't go into a lot of detail.
1610
Ms Churley: There's another speaker here if you want him to go before me.
Mr Gerretsen: No, go ahead.
Ms Churley: We've got to just get away from this notion, if we're going to keep hearing this throughout time and time again on these bills, that you just want to keep it as simple as possible, therefore keep as few words on paper as possible, then we've got a real problem here. We're talking about public participation and protection of the environment.
Unfortunately there are times when we have to adequately write out, as governments who have a lot of power to control, very clearly what we mean by our regulations and our laws because people quite frankly can get screwed, as they do time and time again, if the laws and regulations aren't laid out properly. I use a strong word there, perhaps an unparliamentary word, but it's a fact.
I just find the notion that in order to keep things simple, we use as few words as possible -- "Ah, don't worry about it. Trust us, trust the government," a government like this one that's dismantling environmental protection. It's absolutely absurd to say that they don't need to write it in. "Trust us and we'll take care of it. You don't have to worry. We'll make sure that this native band over there is consulted and this group over here and this municipality here." How do we know? We don't.
This is a very important section here, and I'll tell you why. Given the fact that the government has not made an amendment and I am doubting very much from what I've heard that -- both the Liberals and the NDP have a motion on a section, and I forget which one it is at the moment, to change the act so that an environmental assessment is assured on landfills, as the Premier promised. I don't think that's going to happen. There's going to be we don't know how many exemptions. We don't know what's going to happen because that section is so loose. The reason people argued so vehemently to at least have a say in the setting of the terms of reference -- is that it is going to become so fundamental and so important because it sets the groundwork, it sets the framework for the entire EA, the whole structure of the thing from there on in.
It's very, very important to people that this section be not as simple as possible but as clear as possible. I think mine is pretty clear. The words are pretty small, they're pretty simple. I think anybody, including Dr Galt, can understand it. I don't see any problem. It's just clarifying so that the public has some comfort that they will be included and it's written down in the law that they will be included.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Gerretsen and then Mr Beaubien after that.
Mr Gerretsen: Certainly the proposed amendments by both the NDP and the Liberals are much more succinct as to who should be consulted and the manner in which consultation should take place. The difficulty I have with the government amendment is that -- and maybe Dr Galt has an answer to this -- but who actually judges in your amendment whether or not the consultation that's referred to therein has been adequate?
In other words, your amendment basically says, "the proponent shall consult with such persons as may be interested." Who ultimately makes the decision whether or not all of the interested persons have in fact been consulted? Is that the minister?
Mr Galt: There are guidelines already in place to assist the public and proponents to put this in place and then for the terms of reference, when it's submitted to the minister. It's got to be described in there, the kind of public consultation they have gone through and the exercise that they've carried out. Before the minister signs off, they are going to know the kind of public consultation that's gone on.
Mr Gerretsen: The problem I have is that if the minister is going to be the final judge of whether or not in fact consultation has taken place, that isn't the most satisfactory method. I certainly agree with the notion that the kind of consultation that's referred to in the two amendments is much more specific, but I think it should go much further than your amendment suggests, sir.
Mr Galt: If I may, Mr Chair, the minister had far-reaching powers in this particular act in the past and will have in the future and this certainly does not match some of the other powers that the minister has in this area. It's consistent with how environmental assessment has been handled in the past and will be handled in the future. This has to do with the public being consulted on how the terms of reference will be designed, and there's already a guideline there for it. Maybe there are other members who can --
Mr Gerretsen: But guidelines can be changed on a momentary basis. We're dealing with the act here. If you're trying to improve the process, the improvement should take place in the act and not in some guidelines that can be changed at any time.
The Chair: Mr Beaubien, do you have a comment?
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Yes. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Sorry for being the new boy on the block here, but I take strong exception when the member opposite says that this government is trying to dismantle the Environmental Assessment Act. I think that's a totally irresponsible statement. It's incorrect.
For instance, if I look at the motion from the NDP and the Liberals, I don't know who's doing some plagiarism, or maybe it came off the same photocopying machine, but I'd like to know what a "reasonably interested" individual means, especially when the person does not have a "direct personal, pecuniary or proprietary interest in the matter." We talk about confusing people and gobbledegook and grey water and whatever you want to call it. I think if we keep introducing that type of thing, no wonder people are confused today and don't know which end is up and are sick and tired of government and the introduction of bills that you've introduced in the past number of years.
We're trying to clarify the situation: If you're interested, you make an appearance. That covers everybody, whether you have a pecuniary interest or no interest at all.
Ms Churley: I'm not going to bother responding to that because those out there who are watching what this government is doing to dismantle environmental regulations and the cuts know exactly what's happening, and those comments will be viewed with the disdain they're worthy of.
Getting back specifically to this amendment, I'm arguing it because I think it's important to people who came before us. If you will recall, it was an issue. I know not everybody in this room was on the committee at all times, but those who were should remember that it was an issue that came up time and time again. We didn't just make this up. We both consulted -- an environmental lawyer on some of these issues, to get the wording right, which you have to do for motions; you can't just put in something that isn't going to work under the law. That's why they're similar. But we listened to the people who came before us, and this is what we were told is important. We're responding to what people said to us is a problem. They're concerned about the fact that it's not clear in here who is to be consulted with, because communities have found in the past that they have been left out, that they haven't been given proper notification, and we were given examples of that.
Interjection.
Ms Churley: Well, this is what people told us. He can't believe it, but this is what we were told time and time again.
I don't know if people have read my wording. It is not gobbledegook. It's very clear, plain language and expresses clearly what people told us they wanted to protect the environment and to protect their communities. That is why this motion has come forward.
Mr Galt: I'm just curious on the comment made by the NDP critic that it's her wording. Is that true, Mr McGuinty?
Ms Churley: That's not what I said.
Mr Galt: Yes, you said it was your wording. I was just wondering if it's her wording or your wording.
Mr McGuinty: It's our wording.
Ms Churley: We consulted with the same lawyer on the wording. I don't think that is the issue at hand here.
Interjections.
Mr Gerretsen: We actually found two lawyers who think alike.
Ms Churley: Boy, you've got great things on your mind today, like who wrote their motions. Congratulations.
The Chair: I think most members would know that the legislative lawyers help in the drafting and therefore intent sometimes is similar.
1620
Mr McGuinty: Just on that point, it's my understanding, and I stand to be corrected on this, that when it comes to committee, amendments are always made by the same legislative draftsperson. So I think, first of all, we're dealing with the same legislative mind here.
Second, I'm not sure why it's an issue of any kind.
Third, I know common sense dictates that the fewer words, the less confusion. I can tell you, as somebody who practised law, I wish to God it was that way, but it's not. The fact of the matter is you've got to be specific, and to be specific you've got to use more words. That's just the way it works in law. The more words you have -- there's a limit on this stuff, but you can -- and remember, you're charged by the word.
I want to support the motion put forward by my colleague the NDP critic for the reasons put forward.
The good news is, and sometimes we lose sight of this, we've got some movement here on the part of the government. They recognize the importance of consultation.
Mr Gerretsen: We can't move them enough, though.
Mr McGuinty: Well, we've got them somewhere. I'd like to move them further. I intend to support their motion, but I want it put on the record that I would prefer that they had gone further.
The Chair: Thank you. Any further comment?
Mr Stewart: Just maybe one comment where you're suggesting the interested parties. I was on the mall so I heard a lot of the comments that were made, and I believe that if you're going to start and do a description of interested parties, is it those with red hair, those with brown hair, those who are fat, those who are slim? It's absolutely ludicrous. If you're interested in the particular process that's being looked at, then I suggest you're an interested party. If you want to have something that's very wide open, if you look at this amendment number (d), it says "any other process." My goodness, that could mean umpteen things.
I think I made the comment that less words mean less lawyers may be a plus somewhere along the line, but to start and get so descriptive and so implicit on these things, I think you're opening a major, major can of worms that will not solve anything. If you're interested, then I suggest you're interested and you'll be part of the process.
The Chair: All right. Are we prepared to call the question on the amendment, which is section 5.1 of section 3, the motion by Dr Galt?
Ms Churley: Recorded vote.
Mr Gerretsen: It's a government motion?
Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Is this the government motion?
The Chair: It's the first one in your book, the one before the amendments by the Liberal Party and yours. It has been read into the record. Unless people would like it to be read again, it already has been and we are now calling the question on this amendment.
Interjection: I think Ms Churley asked for a recorded vote.
The Chair: Recorded vote. Okay.
Ayes
Churley, Galt, Gerretsen, Gravelle, Jordan, McGuinty, Pettit, Ross, Smith, Stewart.
Nays
Beaubien.
Mr Gerretsen: Is Mr Beaubien recorded as opposed? I would like to have this clarified.
Mr Beaubien: I just don't want a recorded vote.
The Chair: That was a recorded vote.
Ms Churley: You have to vote on the amendment.
The Chair: We'll let the record show that he's against the amendment. Mr Beaubien, you're recorded as having voted against the motion. Mr Beaubien now votes in favour.
Mr Beaubien: If you want to force me to vote.
Ms Churley: I voted for this on the assumption, because the Liberal and NDP motion is next, that because we voted for this one and the opposition said that -- I mean the government members, who seem like opposition to me all the time; they oppose everything I say --
Mr Gerretsen: They're opposed to most good things.
Ms Churley: -- that they will not support my motion on those grounds. So what do we do with mine?
The Chair: Ms Churley, you can move your motion and place it on the record.
Ms Churley: I can still move it? Okay, great.
The Chair: It has not been moved at this point. So we'll take it that the Liberal motion and the NDP motion are from the same drafter; therefore one presentation is required and you will make this presentation. Ms Churley, please.
Ms Churley: I move that part II of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding the following section:
"Obligation to consult
"5.1(1) When preparing proposed terms of reference or an environmental assessment, the proponent shall undertake adequate consultation with all persons who are reasonably interested in or affected by any matter arising from the proposed terms of reference or the environmental assessment, whether or not the persons have a direct personal, pecuniary or proprietary interest in the matter.
"Same
"(2) The consultation required by subsection (1) must ensure meaningful public participation in decision-making under this act and it must include, but is not limited to,
"(a) public advisory or liaison committees;
"(b) workshops, open houses, meetings, seminars or focus groups;
"(c) community outreach through media outlets; and
"(d) any other process by which information is conveyed to the public and public input is solicited.
"Funding
"(3) The proponent shall provide funding to the persons described in subsection (1) that is sufficient to facilitate meaningful public participation in the consultations."
I'll speak to it. I just repeat, I know how some of the government members feel about this. They said it before they even read my resolution, I think, because it's very clear after reading this that it's plain language. It's straight up front about who should be included in consultations about protecting the environment.
The Chair: Ms Churley, I'm sorry. I'm advised that this particular motion is out of order now --
Ms Churley: That's what I thought.
The Chair: -- having just voted on the amendment on 5.1.
Ms Churley: Well, I read it into the record.
Mr Gerretsen: Just a minute. Why would it be out of order?
The Chair: Because it has been introduced as an amendment to 5.1 and moved and passed.
Mr Gerretsen: But 5.1 is very broad and general.
The Chair: The 5.1 has just been carried.
Mr Gerretsen: But if it's very broad and general, just that "the proponent shall consult with such persons as may be interested," in this particular amendment we're getting more specific.
The Chair: We were dealing with that section and it could have been moved as an amendment to the amendment that was proposed.
Mr Gerretsen: I take your ruling, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Tricky, this stuff. All right. Section 3 now, NDP motion, subsection 6(2)?
Mr Galt: Just for clarification, there was some confusion there and I empathize with the opposition for getting cut off. Perhaps we could have that kind of clarification put up front, because I don't want to play games in getting amendments through. We should all understand. This clarification, I understand why, but I don't want you people to think that we're wedging or trying to play games with it. I want it up front and you have every opportunity to --
Mr Gerretsen: You've been doing that for a year now. What's different now?
Ms Churley: Thank you. We appreciate that.
Mr Galt: However, the ruling came, and probably all of us should have realized it on the ruling, but I'd like to see that ruling up front prior to any of the amendments being voted on.
The Chair: Thank you for your comments. I can't do it beforehand.
Ms Churley: I appreciate Dr Galt's clarification of that. I would like to ask, though, under the rules, with unanimous consent, can my motion be dealt with? Oh, all these people who know their rules here.
Mr Gerretsen: In light of what you've just stated, Dr Galt, surely you'll allow us some debate on this. You want to be fair and reasonable -- you just were -- and now we're putting that reasonableness to the test.
Ms Churley: That's what I'm asking for, yes.
The Chair: I'm advised that we would have to reopen 5.1, which has just been passed.
Ms Churley: Well, Dr Galt apologized for that and I appreciated his offer, so I can't see why, because we didn't understand the process here --
Mr Galt: He's had his ruling.
Ms Churley: We all thought that --
The Chair: If your request is to open it up, I can put that question.
Ms Churley: Yes. That's the question I'm speaking to now.
The Chair: All right. Is there unanimous consent to reopen 5.1?
Interjections: No.
Ms Churley: Okay.
Mr Gerretsen: It's obvious that Dr Galt is more reasonable than his colleagues.
Ms Churley: How did you vote on this, Dr Galt?
Mr Galt: Did you hear me?
The Chair: All right. We did not have unanimous consent. Can we proceed to subsections 6(2) and (3), NDP motion.
Ms Churley: Or Liberal.
The Chair: Or there's a Liberal motion.
1630
Mr McGuinty: I move that subsections 6(2) and (3) of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Same
"(2) The proposed terms of reference must indicate how the environmental assessment will meet the requirements set out in subsection 6.2(2).
"Restriction
"(3) The minister shall not approve the proposed terms of reference unless,
"(a) before submitting the proposed terms of reference, the proponent has provided adequate public notice of the proposed terms of reference and has given members of the public an opportunity to comment on them;
"(b) the proposed terms of reference have been reviewed by those ministries and agencies that may have an interest in or be affected by the undertaking;
"(c) an environmental assessment prepared in accordance with them will meet the requirements of subsection 6.2(2)."
What we're after here is that this amendment is going to ensure that a minister will not approve terms of reference for an EA to proceed unless the proponent has consulted with those affected on terms of reference, the terms of reference have been circulated to the affected ministries and the terms of reference follow the general EA procedures laid out in section 6.2(2).
Ms Churley: I'll simply say that we have an identical motion and we'll support it for the same reasons.
Mr Galt: Basically, we're back to trying to keep this simple. We have a motion coming up next in line. Also, the last part removes the minister's ability to scope and that's really part and parcel of what we're trying to accomplish with many of the amendments in this bill. So I will not be supporting this amendment.
Mr Gerretsen: This is more by way of a question. Do I take it that with a lot of these amendments, the government feels that they are simply too specific and that they will tie the minister's hands in dealing with the process here, if all of these various steps have to be followed? Certainly to the general public, it seems to me it's a lot clearer as to what can happen and what should happen.
Mr Galt: It's unfortunate you haven't been able to spend more time with us and understand why -- I don't mean that insultingly. What we were hearing a lot on the road was that the problem with the previous Environmental Assessment Act was we'd go through the whole exercise and the whole process, just about get it finished and somebody would come in with another thing that should be looked at, another alternative. Back we'd go through the whole system and 12, 15 years later they were still going.
The whole thrust of what we're doing here is to get the terms of reference or work plan, whatever you'd like to call it, right up front before it's even submitted to the ministry and the minister for their approval. Then, once that's approved, you now have the package. The amendment we just made was to get the public up there as well and get it enshrined that they be consulted in designing those terms of reference. Once that is agreed to by all parties as best as possible, from there on that's the package to be worked on.
Once the minister is satisfied with a particular aspect of that, that can be scoped out and then the rest can be left to be looked at by the board or whoever. You won't have this great, big package always floating around with other things that could be added in. Decide up front, with as many people as possible, what it is you want to accomplish and then go ahead and do it. From that we'll get a quicker yes to the environmentally safe ones and a quicker no to the environmentally unfriendly ones, and get this uncertainty out of people's lives. That, in a nutshell, is what we're trying to do.
Ms Churley: The government motion then: you're saying you have a motion to deal with this.
Mr Galt: Yes.
Ms Churley: And it's following this one? My motions are a bit out of order here.
Mr Galt: Yes, and it really covers some of what you're saying in nice, crisp, clear terms.
Ms Churley: Okay, I see your amendment. I just come back that your amendment doesn't deal with a lot of the issues and problems that were raised by people. Yes, it could be clear and crisp, but it also could be really abused. I think people do want clarity. I disagree with your premise. It looks nice on paper. Let me remind people that most undertakings don't go through a full EA for a number of reasons. What you like to drag out are the examples of ones that had gone on for 12, 15 years or whatever. There are certain sections of the bill that try to deal with that and this is one, the requirements of the terms of reference, the time frame, trying to cut that down. But I come back again to how important that is to the setting of those terms of reference.
The reason you gave for not supporting this amendment was you say yours is clearer and crisper. I would say yours is unclear, because it isn't more specific and it could be left wide open. That's the big problem. When you're making laws that affect people's lives, you have to be as clear as possible, and if that sometimes gets bogged down, that's far better than having a situation where the government has so much discretion. People need to have very clearly outlined what it is that's happening to them.
Mr Galt: A lot of the problem with developing environmental assessment has to do with one shoe doesn't fit all, or one size doesn't fit all, and up front, when the terms of reference are being made, that's when the specifications -- it's going to be well defined for that particular site: jurisdiction, quantity of garbage or kind of incinerator, whatever the issue happens to be -- will be decided up front and will be signed off by the minister in due time. That's when the packaging will occur and when the well-defined issues will be included.
The Chair: Further debate? I'll call the question. All those in favour of the section 3, subsections 6(2) and (3) amendment? Those opposed? The amendment is defeated.
Mr Galt: I move that section 6 of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same
"(2.1) The proposed terms of reference must be accompanied by a description of the consultations by the proponent and the results of the consultations."
We've heard comments from many of the deputants regarding the importance of consulting the public up front when the terms of reference are being developed, and we agree with this suggestion and are proposing this motion. The requirement to have a proponent report on the consultations on the terms of reference parallels a reporting requirement on consultations on environmental assessment. These two provisions will strengthen the public's ability to influence the proponent's decision-making. As we were discussing earlier, this is where those kinds of details will be put in, and since one size doesn't fit all, that's part of the reason for environmental assessment and you can be assured that there will be a full environmental assessment on all these issues.
Mr McGuinty: So there is a corresponding obligation with respect to environmental assessment somewhere else in here, right?
Mr Pautler: Yes.
Mr McGuinty: Right, yes, I thought so; I'm just wondering why we're not adding any -- is it elsewhere in here?
Mr Pautler: It's in the bill.
Mr McGuinty: Okay, 6.2(2)(e) I think it is, the bottom of page 4.
Mr Pautler: Yes, sir.
Mr McGuinty: That satisfies my concern.
The Chair: Further debate? There being none, I'll call the question on the amendment, subsection 6(2.1). All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
1640
Ms Churley: I move that subsection 6(5) of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by inserting after "notify the proponent" in the first line "and the public."
I have to just look; if anybody can tell me what page that's on quickly -- page 4? This comes back to the discussions we've been having throughout this, that notifying the public and the consultation with and public participation is extremely important to the people of Ontario. I don't see any problem at all for the members to support this amendment. It's very short, not very wordy and --
The Chair: Crisp.
Ms Churley: -- and crisp, yes, extremely crisp and very important, albeit small, and I hope I can count on your support for this one.
Mr Galt: I can comment on it. Certainly the public are going to be a group and it could be rather difficult to reach all of them. It's going to be on an Environmental Bill of Rights registry and it's going to be in the proponent's terms of reference how the public involved are going to be informed. The addition of this really doesn't gain anything.
Mr McGuinty: I wonder if I could raise an issue. Was it in Chatham we had a professor from the University of Windsor law school who said that putting this on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry was going to call for an amendment to that act? I remember her saying that explicitly.
Mr Jim Jackson: I'm Jim Jackson, Ministry of Environment and Energy, legal services branch. Under subsection 6(2) of the Environmental Bill of Rights, it is possible to put a wide variety of things on the electronic registry that is maintained under that act. No amendment to that act is required to enable those kinds of notices to be put on the registry.
Mr Gerretsen: I am just trying to think through the logic here. We've just passed some amendments that say that in order to draw up the terms of reference, all interested parties will have input into that. Surely to goodness, once you've got the terms of reference, all of the interested parties at least that had some input into drawing up those terms of reference should be notified what the final proposal is going to be.
How can anybody be against that? The way this is written, only the proponent has to be notified of the terms of reference. Why wouldn't the people who had some input into that system have an equal right to know what the terms of reference are? If you don't like the words "and the public," say "and the interested parties that expressed an interest initially." Surely it's a basic premise in everything we do that people who have an input into something are entitled to know what the results of that input are in the long run.
Ms Churley: I would like to think this is more than oversight, in fact that the public has been left out. I come back to your assertion that you're trying to make your government more accountable, which of course I don't agree with, but you can't say that out of two sides of your mouth on this, which you constantly do.
It just belies everything you said and I think it must be an oversight. I wonder if the staff can comment because I don't think your explanation was adequate in terms of why you wouldn't want to notify the public on this.
Mr Galt: I would just like to ask Ms Churley what is meant by "and the public"? How would you go about doing that?
Ms Churley: As I said, a motion of mine was not discussed because your motion passed first, but I believe that the public has to be involved in environmental protection in every possible way we can assist them to be. Earlier I tried to make a motion that would define "interested party," but I would certainly say that it's got to be more than the proponent, that you have to include -- I mean, you can define it perhaps -- although I would like to see "interested party" defined, maybe we could make a friendly amendment that you would at least include -- I would be willing to amend my motion to say, "and interested parties beyond the proponent," because it's not just the proponent who have a great deal of interest in these terms of reference.
Mr Galt: The question was, how would you inform the public -- go back to the original bill and "shall do so by the prescribed deadline." How would you physically go about notifying the public? What's your proposal in making it happen out there?
Ms Churley: There are a variety of ways, as a government, that you can alert and prepare the public and give public notice. You mentioned yourself the environmental registry. I don't know if this could be included in that, but there are going to be interested parties declaring themselves up front at the beginning, right? You're going to know, even though you haven't defined who they are. Some members of your own government said, "Gee, when something's happening in their community, they're going to be alerted to the fact that it's happening and either get involved or not get involved," although I disagree. Some people have been shut out and we have given examples of that. On the whole, interested parties do make themselves known. I just don't see a problem with this.
Mr Gerretsen: Just to take it one step further, we have just passed a government amendment that states, "When preparing proposed terms of reference and an environmental assessment, the proponent shall consult with persons that may be interested." So these people have come forward, whoever they are, who may have an interest in the terms of reference. They're now a known quantity, they're a known number, because they have been consulted with respect to putting together the terms of reference. You know who they are, and surely what you can do now is, once the terms of reference have been finalized, you notify these people as to what the results of their input have been.
Mr McGuinty: That calls for a friendly amendment, Dr Galt.
Mr Gerretsen: I realize "the public" is a much larger term than "the interested parties," and you may have some problem with that, so what I'm suggesting is that at least include the interested parties that have had some input into the process.
Mr Galt: As I see it, that would be an automatic thing that would happen and be put in the Environmental Bill of Rights. I have a problem with meeting the required prescribed deadline and informing the public and knowing what that public really would be. The interested parties are already going to be listed. It's going to be in the proponents' proposal. I see that as an automatic thing happening.
Mr Gerretsen: I would move an amendment to this amendment which deletes the words "and the public" and includes the words "and the interested persons as defined or as set out in section 5.1."
Mr McGuinty: Then you're working with a defined quantity. I know that Dr Galt has made reference several times to the fact that you could put it on the registry, but the fact of the matter is that only 30% of Ontario homes have personal computers, and I'm not sure what the number is in terms of how many of those are hooked up to the Internet. So it's not really, to date, an effective means of giving notice to the public. I don't think it's deemed in law yet to mean you put it on the registry and, bingo, that means that everybody is deemed to know what it is.
I think my colleague's friendly amendment makes eminent good sense. "And the public" is too broad, I'll give you that, and we've got to restrict it and use some of the language that has been used earlier in the act.
The Chair: It was moved by Ms Churley. Would you accept that as a friendly amendment to --
Ms Churley: Under the circumstances, yes, I will.
The Chair: It has to be moved as an amendment to the amendment. Do we need any further discussion on that?
Mr Galt: I need clarification on the amendment to the amendment. What's it now? How's it going to be worded?
Mr Gerretsen: Instead of the words "and the public," which is part of the motion, it would read "and the interested persons, as set out in section 5.1," which was the earlier government amendment.
Interjection.
Mr Gerretsen: Oh, okay -- "and such persons as may be interested."
Mr McGuinty: "Such persons as may have been consulted," right, because you've got to consult.
Mr Gerretsen: Whatever. I prefer the way I had it before.
The Chair: Would you read the amendment?
Clerk of the Committee: Mr Gerretsen moved an amendment to the amendment that the words "and the public" be deleted and the words "interested persons as set out in section 5.1" be substituted therefor.
The Chair: Any debate?
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): My question's to the parliamentary assistant. Given the language of the section, it refers to prescribed deadlines, notification. Could I conclude from that that there would be regulations pending on how notification by the minister would occur, and would those regulations potentially address the obligations of a proponent to notify interested parties?
Mr Galt: The difficulty being dealt with is the time period for the minister to deal with it and then to notify, and we're talking a 28-day period. The problem becomes how to notify that possible number of people.
Mr Smith: But would those time frames be dictated by a regulation, and if so, would the notification requirement for interested parties be done through regulation as well? Instead of including an amendment to this section, as suggested by the opposition, I'm inquiring as to whether or not that could be achieved through regulation.
Mr Galt: Could I just have a second to discuss this?
The Chair: Would members like a five-minute recess?
Mr Galt: We'd appreciate that.
The Chair: Why don't we take five minutes and come back at 5 o'clock.
The committee recessed from 1652 to 1659.
The Chair: All right, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us an amendment to the amendment as proposed by Ms Churley, and the amendment to the amendment is by Mr Gerretsen. We have read it. Would you like it read finally to refresh your memory and then we can vote on it, if you wish.
Clerk of the Committee: The amendment to the amendment moved by Mr Gerretsen is that the words "and the public" be deleted and the words "interested persons as set out in section 5.1" be substituted therefor.
Mr Gerretsen: It should say "and interested persons." Legislative counsel agrees.
The Chair: Any further debate? Then I'll call the question. All in favour? Opposed? The amendment to the amendment is lost.
Ms Churley: Can I have unanimous consent to have a government member explain what happened in the last five minutes, why people voted against this now when they seemed to support it before?
Mr Gerretsen: It's taken care of in another area, whatever that means.
Ms Churley: Dr Galt?
Mr Galt: We've voted on it. We don't have to worry about it.
Ms Churley: Okay, fine.
The Chair: Now Ms Churley's amendment, which is subsection 6(5). Is there any further debate? I'll call the question on that. All in favour? Those opposed? The amendment is defeated.
There is a government motion.
Mr Galt: I move that section 6 of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same
"(6) Different deadlines may be prescribed with respect to proposed terms of reference that are referred to mediation and with respect to those that are not."
This amendment provides for a time frame to be set by which the minister must make a decision following the receipt of a mediator's report on the terms of reference. It is expected that the minister's decision time frame would only be extended by the amount of time taken for the mediation. In other words, the 28 days the minister has the minister would still have if there was mediation in there, so the time clock would stop running during the mediation process.
Ms Churley: I just didn't talk about -- sorry, but this was a word used on that side of the House -- gobbledegook. I didn't understand and I don't know if it's me. I admit it could be me. It's the end of the day and I'm tired. We have the same situation again where an NDP motion and a Liberal motion to follow are on the same section. So I assume if this motion passes, our motion is then just deleted.
The Chair: Is it dealing with the same subsection?
Ms Churley: Yes, it is.
The Chair: Yes, if it is dealing with the same --
Clerk of the Committee: No, it's not.
Ms Churley: Oh, isn't it? Sorry. I have to admit I have trouble following these sometimes. I thought it was.
The Chair: Yes, it is.
Ms Churley: Section 3 of the bill, subsection 6(6) --
Mr Galt: It's the same subsection but different information.
The Chair: If I could clarify, if there are different motions dealing with the same section or subsection, what have you, but the motion might precede yours, Ms Churley, the best way to proceed would be if it touches on what you propose, you can call for an amendment to the amendment that would put it in line with what you'd like to see happen as we deal with that section. But once we've voted on that section, then that's gone. So we'll have to watch that as we go along. In this case, where it is dealing with the same subsection 6(6), if you wish to influence it, you could make an amendment. Is that fair?
Ms Churley: If I could speak to this, the motion I'm putting forward is on this same section.
I move that section 6 of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Effect of approval
"(6) The approval for the proposed terms of reference expires two years after it is issued."
The problem I have with the government motion is that there's the word --
The Chair: Can I add a word of explanation? I was advised by legal counsel.
Ms Churley: Yes, that would be helpful.
The Chair: In this instance you're dealing with a different subject even though it's part of the same subsection. So in that instance, one can add to the other without cancelling it out.
Ms Churley: All right. Because it's a different part of the same section, I could then speak -- okay, I see what you mean.
The Chair: You can deal with these two individually without them cancelling each other out, in other words.
Ms Churley: We can deal with them individually? Okay. Let's go back to this one.
Mr McGuinty: I wonder if I could ask for that explanation again as to the intent of the government motion.
The Chair: We're back to your motion, Dr Galt.
Mr McGuinty: I'm just asking for an explanation.
Mr Galt: I did go through an explanation a few minutes ago having to do with the time for mediation being the time out to save the 28 days for the minister to make his or her decision. It's the purpose of the amendment.
Mr McGuinty: I'm still not clear. So we have terms of reference. There's going to be a deadline, I guess a standard deadline, that's correct, that they're not referred to mediation?
Mr Galt: The intent would be a 28-day deadline.
Mr McGuinty: But if it's referred to mediation, then you are thinking it will require a longer period of time. Is that what you're talking about?
Mr Galt: Equal to the length of the mediation, ie, if the mediation is going to take 15 days and it's laid out that it's 28 days to the minister's decision, then a total of 43 days would be recognized. The minister would still have his or her full 28 days to make the decision.
Mr Gerretsen: It just seems to me that for a government that likes to pride itself on clarity this has got to be one of the most unclear sections I've ever seen. "Different deadlines may be prescribed with respect to proposed terms of reference that are referred to mediation and with respect to those that are not." Why don't you spell it right out there that if there's mediation the length of the mediation will be added on to the standard 28-day appeal period?
Mr Galt: You're not a lawyer.
Mr Gerretsen: This section puts to the test everything that you've said before about trying to clarify this matter. This is gobbledegook, Mr Galt.
Ms Churley: I understand this to mean that -- I see the intent; it just doesn't go far enough. For instance, it says "Different deadlines may be prescribed." But that doesn't mean that it will be and I think that should be tightened up, strengthened, to guarantee that it will be. You could do nothing for years the way it's written now, and then proceed with the undertaking and circumstances could change. I think that's the problem with this, it's hard to understand, but also my reading of it is that's what it means. Talking about clarity for people down the road, even if you understand what's written here, it just doesn't go far enough and you could have a situation where circumstances could have changed so drastically that it doesn't mean anything any more. So that's my concern with that section.
Mr Galt: Just for a little clarity on this, in reference to "Different deadlines may be prescribed," if you just simply say the mediation time in there, it could be a complication whereby it's going to mediation within a day or two of the final deadline. The minister may need a few extra days when he gets the mediator's report to make the final decision, so that does give a little bit of flexibility so there might be a little more than the 28 days or the X number of days for the minister --
Mr Gerretsen: More discretionary powers.
Mr Galt: A little bit of discretion there, yes.
The Chair: Any further debate? I call the question. All in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.
Mr McGuinty, I believe, and Ms Churley. Who's on deck here?
Ms Churley: We're losing track here. Who's on deck?
The Chair: I think it's his.
1710
Mr McGuinty: Sub (6) is what we're talking about, Mr Chair?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms Churley: It's the same section.
Mr McGuinty: I move that section 6 of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Effect of approval
"(6) The approval for the proposed terms of reference expires two years after it is issued."
What we're addressing here is effectively the shelf life of terms of reference. This is to ensure the proponents don't sit on approved terms of reference for a project while over time the need for the project changes. For example, you could have terms of reference regarding the review of a landfill site which may no longer be relevant five years from now. We're just saying: "Listen, two years is the deadline. That's the shelf life of terms of reference once approved."
The Chair: Ms Churley, would you like to make comments?
Ms Churley: Yes, I would agree with the comments of my Liberal colleague. Given that we have the same motion and we're putting forward the same motion here, I --
Mr Gerretsen: It's a most reasonable request.
Ms Churley: It is a most reasonable request, yes.
Mr Galt: The thinking here would be that we're putting a deadline on the shelf life of the particular project. I can certainly follow the thinking of the opposition in bringing this forward so it doesn't sit around forever, but again one size doesn't necessarily fit all. Some projects may take several seasons to be able to get together the environmental information necessary.
This would have to be in the proponent's proposal up front and the terms of reference as to how long they are going to allow themselves to work with it. The two-year time frame might screen out some major projects. If they're existing or happening, they might have to go through the exercise again on two occasions just to get there. We see the shelf life as part of the proposal, the terms of reference, the work plan, however you want to describe it, put right up front and it would be all part and parcel. It would not go on forever.
Mr McGuinty: So the terms of reference itself would contain an expiry date?
Mr Galt: Yes.
Mr Gerretsen: Which could be more than two years.
Mr Galt: Yes.
Mr Gerretsen: In other words, you're in favour of delaying the process?
Mr Galt: No.
Mr Gerretsen: It sounds that way to me.
Mr Galt: In a large project it may be necessary. In a minor project let's have it shorter than the two years -- six months, a year, whatever.
Mr Gerretsen: How could we gain?
Ms Churley: Yes, that would be my question. Given that because of the concerns raised -- and I'm sorry, I didn't hear what Mr McGuinty was saying. I was looking at another motion. It seems to me that it ties in with my comments that I spoke to earlier, that circumstances really change and it's important to have this two-year deadline there. I'm just not sure if I understood your explanation about the terms of reference. The terms of reference will have in each case deadlines attached?
Mr Galt: That is expected, yes.
Ms Churley: So you're saying this doesn't need it.
Mr Galt: That's right, yes. We follow your thinking and we don't want it sitting on the books and wandering around for the 12 or 15 years that we've experienced in the past. I have some empathy with the concern you're putting forward. However, I do have some concerns over major projects being put on the books or trying to operate and develop and being locked into the two-year time frame that you're putting into the legislation.
Mr Pautler: If I could add to Dr Galt's response, some of the larger-scale undertakings that are subject to the act can require field work to validate the information and to determine the impacts in the environmental assessment, and oftentimes that field work can take more than 12 months or 24 months to validate.
I think it would be a mistake to put a shelf life into the legislation itself. It's much more appropriate to force the proponent to come forward with an appropriate shelf life given the scale and the consequences of the kind of project they intend to bring forward. In that way we don't screen out projects or automatically put a roadblock in this act so that large projects can't meet the conditions of it. We'd be very concerned technically if this kind of shelf life were built into the statute itself.
Mr Gerretsen: On the other hand, new information could come to light in a matter of two years, so it wouldn't make sense if the terms of reference are to be altered. We're finding out new things about the environment all the time and how to deal with it and different problems that arise, and to just take that completely out of it and allow the terms of reference to go on indefinitely when there may be newer methodology or newer information available as to how to deal with the situation doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Mr Preston: What criteria did the movers use to come up with two years?
Mr Gerretsen: Well, it's better than indefinitely. We want to get on with things. You people want to delay them.
Mr Preston: No. The government says they could put in the terms, anywhere from six months to five years, depending on the project. That means they've looked at the criteria to set the date, and your criterion is better than nothing.
Ms Churley: I think that's a good question. It's been a while since we dealt with these resolutions and motions, as you know. I suggest that we stand this one down, if you don't mind. I think you asked a good question and I feel that I have to go back and look at this a little more carefully in light of what Dr Galt said about how this is being dealt with throughout the terms of reference.
The Chair: Do we have agreement for postponing this motion?
Ms Churley: Until tomorrow?
Mr Galt: Sure.
The Chair: All right. This motion is postponed. There is another motion. Ms Churley, do you want to handle this one?
Ms Churley: I move that section 6 of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Modifications
"(7) The minister may approve modifications to approved terms of reference,
"(a) if the proponent has provided adequate public notice of the proposed modifications and has given members of the public an opportunity to comment on them; and
"(b) if the modifications are necessary in light of changed circumstances, new technology, new alternatives, new information about environmental impacts or other relevant considerations."
This comes back to the issue of public participation and the issue that we were just talking about: changed circumstances. Again I say to government members, in terms of ensuring that the public is given adequate public notice on all aspects of any environmental assessment process, I think it's fundamental to the integrity of the process. There absolutely have to be some modifications to be dealt with, as we all know, and we're hopeful there will be even new environmental technology that will improve conditions that exist now. We know that circumstances can change drastically over a short time. So I believe that we need these modifications to make sure that a public notice is absolutely crucial in this. I hope that the government members will support this motion of public notice and public participation.
The Chair: Mr McGuinty, do you have anything to add? Some comments?
Mr McGuinty: I think it's in keeping with the position taken by the government so far today. If there's going to be genuine consultation required in connection with the terms of reference, there ought to be consultation required with respect to changes to approved terms of reference. They seem to go hand in hand.
Mr Galt: The difficulty is that it will put us right back to where the old act had us. You could work your way through and somebody would come up with a new idea, a new technology, and back to the beginning you would go. That is part of what we were attempting to do with this bill, in changing the act, that everything would be put up front, signed off by the proponents and those they're consulting with and then the minister, and from there on you have your package to work on and there are not going to be any surprises later on.
Major projects may take a lengthy time, as we were discussing earlier. Technology does change, but the proponents and the public and the minister know about a lot of activities going on in the field of research, and that can be included in it. With a reasonable time frame to get an environmental assessment completed, there shouldn't be that many surprises and new technology coming through.
1720
Mr McGuinty: We're talking about changing the agreement. There's been an agreement, if I can call it that loosely. The public has been involved. They helped lend shape to it, and suddenly we're saying it's okay to change it and the public need not be involved. It doesn't strike me as fair.
Ms Churley: Why would you shut the public out again, Dr Galt?
Mr Galt: I fail to follow the question. We've enshrined the public in two specific areas to be very thorough with them. I don't follow your question that we're shutting them out. We're being very thorough, giving them every opportunity. However, we don't want to go partway through and then get a surprise and have them go back to the beginning and work their way through again. A very small project would soon be up to the two-year limit you had placed on it to begin with.
Ms Churley: Dr Galt, if I could follow up, you're saying that if the public are given notice of modifications, they may hold the thing up. Does it not occur to you that perhaps they will have very legitimate concerns that, if not taken into account, could at the end of the day have profound adverse effects on the environment? We have examples of that. We heard some from citizens' groups who came to speak to us. If it weren't for citizens just being dogged and persistent and at the end of the day turning out to be right, with a great deal of difficulty, I believe the opposite of what you said, that there's a very delicate balance here. If you don't put these modifications in you've weighted it more to the proponent, and if problems emerge, citizens, particularly people who can be directly affected by these changes, should know about them and be given the opportunity to comment.
The Chair: I remind members that when addressing another member of the committee, if you wouldn't mind please addressing them by way of the Chair.
Ms Churley: Thank you.
Mr Gerretsen: This goes right to the heart of public consultation. If you consult the public, if you believe in consulting the public at the outset, surely to goodness you have to consult them throughout the process, and if there are significant modifications or changes to be made, the public ought to be reconsulted. If you don't believe in that, I'm afraid you're just paying lip-service to the notion of public consultation. That's the bottom line. If there are significant changes, there ought to be reconsultation because that may very well change the whole nature of the project, the whole nature of the process or procedures that you're involved in. Through you, Mr Chair, of course.
Mr Galt: In response to that, I hear them saying the status quo is satisfactory because that's what has been going on. I make reference to Peterborough county trying for 12 or 15 years to get a landfill site through mainly because of the kind of thing they're describing.
We're saying, and we've put forth the amendment that's been passed, that we will enshrine public consultation up front in the designing of the terms of reference. It's not just the public that are going to be involved in that; the proponent, the ministry and all ministry staff that have anything to do with environmental assessment would be involved in it, and I hope that group of people would know about most of the things that should be examined during the environmental assessment.
Once that package is signed and they understand what the work plan is going to be they work towards that, going through the environmental assessment process and coming up with a final package. So we're consulting at both levels. When we're developing the environmental assessment we're not now saying to the public, "Is there something else you can dream up that you would like us to go back and look at?" We already have that package and we're working through it step by step to get it. In the past, once the proponent got all finished and went to present it, somebody would come along and say, "By the way, you forgot to look at frogs in the pond," or something.
Mr Gerretsen: Just a minute, now. Mr Chairman --
Ms Churley: There might be more who think that.
The Chair: Dr Galt has the floor.
Mr Galt: The problem is that they come along with another example or something to look at and the decision just never gets made; it goes on and on until the example like in Peterborough: 12, 15 years and you still don't have a landfill site. Maybe the people there, arms flailing, would like to keep their garbage in their apartments and save it going to a landfill site when you can't get one for 12 to 15 years.
Mr Gerretsen: That is not what this amendment is addressing. I certainly agree with you that the process has to be speeded up if we're talking about the total process. This amendment says, "The minister may approve modifications to approved terms of reference," so we're talking about terms of reference that were approved at one time with public input. If you allow the public to have a say in coming up with the original terms of reference, I assume that if the minister modifies those terms of reference there's a good reason for his or her doing so.
Surely to goodness the public at that point has a right to know why those terms of reference are being changed and should have the same kind of input they had before. That doesn't delay the process; it just gives public consultation its right and meaningful place in the process.
Ms Churley: We can go round and round on this one, and part of the discussion on this bill is the public consultation and participation. This is another example of the public being shut out of a very key part of the process. My position on Dr Galt's comment, "The public could come back and say that the frogs are dying in the pond" -- I know he threw it out as an example -- is that if frogs are dying in a pond and the studies around looking at why frogs are dying in a pond are not part of the original terms of reference and modifications are being made, that's why public participation is so important.
Not all proponents are bad, but remember that we've been given very clear-cut examples of situations where communities have not been given the opportunity to be fully involved for a variety of reasons and a proponent with big bucks has had scientific studies done -- I'm trying to remember one biggie; I'm just tired and I can't think of it -- where groundwater would have been contaminated, drinking water for a whole town, had the citizens not been persistent in demanding certain studies and looking at various aspects that had been okayed by the proponent.
We have to look at citizens as not just impediments. We know there have been really long hearings, and there's an agreement that there had to be some ways to streamline some of that, but what I hear time and time again is, "Where possible, let's shut out the public; we'll deal with the proponent." This is a blatant case of the public being frozen out, and they may have some important points to make.
That's another aspect. We shouldn't laugh at the suggestion that citizens might come back and bring up the fact that frogs are dying in the pond, "Therefore we can't go ahead with this now." I think we'd have to look at why the frogs are dying, because they may be drinking that water. I think Dr Galt unwittingly brought up a very good reason why in fact citizens should be involved in hearing about modifications to a terms of reference plan.
1730
Mr McGuinty: The argument made by Dr Galt, I'm not sure -- with all due respect, he was making reference to what the intent of this amendment is. What we're after here, Dr Galt, is to ensure that once the terms of reference are approved, once the working plan -- I think you called it earlier a working plan. Once the proponent decides they're going to change it, I think the public ought to be reinvolved again. That's all we're talking about.
Mr Gerretsen: That's all we're saying.
Mr McGuinty: Fine. Let's get us involved at the outset. You've come up with a plan, fine, but then the proponent says, "I want to change it." This isn't the public that's offering to change it now, it's the proponent that's initiating a change or perhaps ministry staff that's initiating a change. We're saying, "Well, now go back to the public."
The Chair: Mr Stewart and Mr Preston.
Mr Stewart: Mainly because the Peterborough landfill etc was brought up, I cannot not comment on it. What the opposition is talking about is what delayed the process on getting a Peterborough landfill for probably some eight to 10 years, because every time there was a slight change, you went back and you started all over again. I suggest to you that the type of amendment that is being proposed here is exactly the same type of act we've been dealing with for the last 10 years that hasn't worked. What we're trying to do here is to streamline it. We have got the terms of reference, let's get on with addressing them, not change them and start all over again like we've had to do for the last 10 years.
A perfect example is what's happened in Peterborough county and Kingston and to Carleton, all of them, because the minute the terms of reference were changed, you start all over again. As you know, the criteria over the last five or six years have been changed -- actually the last 10 years have been changed half a dozen times and what's been approved? Nothing. Why don't we streamline it, get on with the job, have the public input, which there are all kinds of now on this, and get on with the job? I think this type of an amendment is redundant.
The Chair: Mr Preston was next, then Mr Gerretsen.
Mr Preston: Streamlining the process -- I have half a dozen in my area that are held up because every time there is a change, the whole list of individuals gets back on the bandwagon again. On the other side of the coin, what my question really is, how can we be sure that we incorporate any new changes, any new evidence without having to go back and start the process all over again? That is the big crunch, isn't it?
Everybody wants to make sure we're doing the right thing, but every time we dot an i or add a period to something, we've got to go right the way back and start with 200 people who want to fight the project, the "not in my backyard" syndrome.
The Chair: Dr Galt, did you want to respond to that question?
Mr Galt: I was just simply going to make reference -- in my comments earlier I was purely commenting on public and some new technology or something, but right in (a) it does refer to proponent, and essentially if some new technology comes along that's significant, this is exactly how it would happen anyway. That would be in the terms of reference as to how it's going to follow through, as I understand it.
On a technical point, if we could refer it to Mr Jim Jackson, maybe he can help to clarify some of the problems we're having here in clarity in understanding this.
Mr Jackson: If new information came up that required a change that was outside of the scope of the terms of reference, the proponent would propose new terms of reference which would reflect such of the old terms of reference and the work done under them as work going to be changed, as well as the new provisions and those new proposed terms of reference would be processed under the provisions we've just been dealing with. There would be notice to the public; they would get to make submissions; the minister would get to make a decision and approve the new terms of reference.
I think I've addressed the other point about how you incorporate it without going back to square one. The new terms of reference would say what you have to go back and do, so it wouldn't have to open up the whole field right back to square one.
Mr Gerretsen: First of all, in understanding the comments of Mr Stewart and Mr Preston, it almost seems as if the public is somehow a hindrance to the whole process.
I'm not totally familiar with the Peterborough situation, but I can certainly tell you what the Kingston situation is. This is perhaps not going to make me very popular with some of the politicians in Kingston. I wouldn't for a moment suggest that the 10-year delay there has anything to do with the public; maybe it has more to do with the politicians, that they're simply not willing to make the decisions at the appropriate time.
To make a general statement that just because there's been a change in the terms of reference or a change in the way things are done etc, now, unfortunately, 200 members of the public should all be given an opportunity here -- first of all, it can be limited to just the changes that are being dealt with at that time. Any new public input can be strictly limited to the changes that are being proposed in the terms of reference.
Second, I think an awful lot of the delays that have taken place in the province are not just because special interest groups are involved; they are because of delays by proponents, by politicians and by all of the people involved in the process. The moment we stop scapegoating one particular group of individuals or members of the general public, I think we'll probably be a heck of a lot better off. Maybe there's a little bit of blame to be shared by all of the people involved in the process.
Mr McGuinty: Mr Jackson, I'm just wondering, is there anything in here in black and white that confirms what you've told us? I don't doubt you for a moment, but just to lend some comfort to me, is there something in here that says, "If we're going to change these things, you've got to start over from square one"? That's basically what you're saying.
Mr Jackson: There's no authority to change them, so what happens is the proponent stops acting under his existing terms of reference and submits and gets approved new terms of reference that can reflect all of the valuable stuff that the proponent and the public consultation had already produced, together with the change. It's like starting from scratch except that the instructions in the terms of reference will, in effect, bring forward whatever was still valuable from the previous terms of reference and the work done under them.
Mr McGuinty: So nowhere in here is the minister given authority to amend approved terms of reference.
Mr Jackson: That's correct.
Mr Stewart: I just want to clarify one thing. I did not say for one moment that the public or the special interest groups were holding up this process. What I said was that government over the last eight or 10 years has changed criteria every two or three years, which meant you had to go back to square one and start all over again.
If you're worried about new technology, if we continue to arrive at landfills like we have in the past -- technology does change a bit over 10 or 12 years. What we're suggesting here is, let's get on with the job under good terms of reference and, yes, if there is new technology, it will happen when they're already started.
The Chair: Further debate? Any further questions?
Mr Galt: If we're making clarifications at this point, I referred to a frog, not frogs dying.
Mr Gerretsen: You mean the government is not in favour of frogs dying?
Mr Galt: That was the response.
The Chair: I'll call the question on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment? Those opposed? The amendment is lost.
A government motion.
Mr Galt: I move that section 6.1 of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be struck out.
This section is replaced by an earlier amendment in section 5.1. It's basically that of housekeeping.
The Chair: The explanation is housekeeping.
1740
Ms Churley: Not quite, because what I'd like to do, because I know it's -- no, never mind, it's struck out. Never mind; I pass. I wanted to make a comment about interested parties again, but since it's been struck out -- obviously it has to because we've adopted another section, so never mind.
The Chair: Further comment or debate? All in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is carried.
All right, I think we'd better move to the next motion, quickly.
Mr McGuinty: I move that part II of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding the following section (after section 6.1):
"Referendum re waste
"6.1.1.(1) This section applies with respect to an undertaking that involves the transfer of waste from one county or from one regional, metropolitan or district municipality to another.
"Same
"(2) No application for approval to proceed with the undertaking shall be approved unless,
"(a) the county or other municipality to which the waste is to be transferred holds a referendum to determine whether its residents agree with the proposal to transfer the waste; and
"(b) a majority of residents voting in the referendum agree with the proposal.
"Same
"(3) The proponent shall not submit an environmental assessment for the undertaking until before the requirement for a referendum is met."
What we're talking about here is this notion of a willing host. I can recall debate in this Legislature some three or four years ago when this was a very contentious issue in the greater Toronto area, the time when they were trying to site new landfill sites here. The resolution that was put forward was debated at some length and supported by the now Premier and I counted five or six members of the now cabinet. In essence, what we're saying is you cannot send waste into a community that doesn't want to take it. That's all we're saying here. This requires that there be a referendum held.
This is in keeping with the government's tendency right now, its attraction to referendums or referenda, whatever the heck it is. This is an opportunity to give the public a say in whether or not they want to take -- let's say we want to ship the garbage up -- this is hardly speculation here -- ship Metro garbage up north to an open-pit mine. The community has to be involved in deciding this, and the government members, particularly five or six now cabinet ministers -- they weren't then -- argued vociferously, compellingly, eloquently, forcefully that we should not be allowed to send garbage into a community unless we had their consent. That's all this is doing.
Ms Churley: The whole issue around willing hosts is really complex, because I recall when I was on Toronto city council there would sometimes be an issue with the various communities saying their councillor did not support the majority of the community's position and would argue back that -- and I did say it gets very complex because, of course, you can argue that we elect our politicians to represent us and if we don't like what they're doing, they can throw us out. But it does get complex because people do say the council voted on this and took a position which a whole bunch of us don't agree with. I think in the Kirkland Lake situation, am I not correct that a referendum was held? Do you know?
Mr McGuinty: The referendum was held. I think one of the issues is who ought to have been included in that.
Ms Churley: Yes, and that became an issue because there was a referendum in the Kirkland Lake area and those people who would be most directly affected had not been included in that. We haven't had this debate in the House yet, and I'm looking forward to it, around referendums, because I have very mixed feelings about it and I think there are some occasions where it's a good idea to determine a community's position in this way. I believe in the area of waste management that Kirkland Lake is an example where it didn't work.
I'm not sure I'm thinking through this because of my contradictory positions on referendums overall. I'm not sure if the willing host concept is one that is easily defined because, say, sometimes it's in the interests of a council, for a variety of reasons -- money for the town, a special relationship with the proponent, whatever -- to vote a particular way. You see what I'm saying here. I know where Mr McGuinty is coming from on how to resolve this, but I have reservations about this whole willing host concept and how in the world you end up at the end of the day being able to define what's acceptable. I assume, if I could ask a question on the motion, that when you talk about the residents you would suggest that there would be some kind of regulations around -- I get back to this subject of who these residents are, how that would be defined, whose vote would be consulted and whose wouldn't be.
Mr McGuinty: Yes. The amendment may be primitive in some ways, but the intention is this -- and the government members have to make a decision here. If they're going to put a dump in your riding, should your constituents have the opportunity to vote on that? I'm talking about a big dump, a major dump. Should your constituents have an opportunity to vote on that? This says they ought to have that opportunity. It was a very contentious issue during the NDP government, I can tell you. This was a big issue.
Mr Preston: When you talk about a big dump, a mega-dump, then there's good reason for this, but way back in history I started a landfill site for Grimsby, Lincoln and the surrounding area and it was very successful. If Grimsby had had to go through a referendum, I think the cost would have blown that thing, just the cost of the referendum to take into our landfill site the garbage which came from Smithville, all around the Grimsby area.
Mr McGuinty: What if we want to send Metro garbage to Grimsby?
Mr Preston: We've got signs up in Cayuga saying "No Toronto Trash Allowed Here" -- that refers to your garbage -- because they tried to open up a large site there. Consequently, it was knocked out. I'm confident that we would not have had a favourable result in a referendum, but the pressure on the council prevented the site from opening, and I think that's sufficient. The pressure on your individual councillor is sufficient to prevent a site from accepting, or to allow a site to accept, outside waste.
Ms Churley: I think that at the end of the day I'm going to support this resolution, although I have some misgivings about the primitive way it was written. I'm just using your word, and "primitive" probably isn't correct anyway. It just needs more meat on it. I'd be very interested to see how government members are going to vote on this, given that there is going to be a bill in front of us. Has it been introduced yet?
Mr McGuinty: I don't think so.
Interjection: On what?
Ms Churley: On referendums. We had the announcement today in the House that the redistribution is going to happen and many seats are going to be lost. We believe the purpose of this government is to suggest that there be more direct governance now, fewer politicians, to save money and that there will be more referendums. We'll see what happens with this bill. I suppose it's like the Hydro hearings on privatization. We haven't got a commitment from the government yet to allow a referendum on that. I assume all members in this committee would vote for this and would support this resolution today given that this is the direction their government is going, notwithstanding that it's expensive to hold referendums. We have to think very carefully about how often we allow issues to be resolved by referendum, because I think it is going down a very dangerous path, with fewer politicians, that could end up costing far more money in the long run.
Mr Preston: It's governing by consensus.
Ms Churley: I think one has to draw that balance there. I'm going to watch with interest to see how government members vote on this resolution today.
Mr Galt: Just a few comments in reference to this: The thought on referendum is commendable, particularly when the government plans to bring in a bill on referendums. We walk a fine line between putting out regulations for municipalities and how council should function and also having them be autonomous and function on their own without a lot of interference from Big Brother, so to speak. Hopefully when this referendum bill gets in place there will be a provision in it whereby the public can force a referendum -- that's part of what referendums in many other countries are -- and therefore it would be possible for the public, with X percentage of the population, to force one.
The proponent also can put forth the idea of having a referendum, which would be commendable on the part of the proponent, and in that way would also be paying for it. As set up currently, as mentioned earlier, referendums are very expensive to carry out unless we have a standing voters' list. I, for one, would be supportive of that and making referendums more available and easier to take place in the future. I have a little difficulty with having it legislated in hard, cold fact every time you want to move some garbage from one municipality to another.
I'd have to ask the question, what would happen with cover for a landfill site that you've sorted out, and landfill mining? You have a beautiful pile sitting here. It has maybe a few nails in it or a bit of broken glass, but it would be great for covering another landfill site. Is that going to prohibit you from moving that fill that's a little bit contaminated over to another landfill site to be used as cover? I see some complications. Would that require a referendum?
It's commendable, the thought, in this particular instance, but when you get right down to it it's difficult for me to support it.
Mr McGuinty: Just to remind government members, I'd never heard of this notion of a willing host until I got here in 1990. It was something that was talked about at great length, particularly by the member for Nipissing, now the Premier. He said, "There's no way on God's earth" -- this is hardly a direct quote -- "we're ever going to impose a dump in any community that is not deemed to be a willing host." We talked about this notion of a referendum. Anyway, that was then and this is now.
The Chair: Mr Preston, would you like to have the floor?
Mr Preston: Yes, please. What allows anybody to put garbage in somebody else's backyard now? If a garbage truck comes up to my municipal dump, my dump manager says, "You're not allowed in here." If they continue he calls the police, complains to council and council says, "Don't bring your garbage into our dump." Isn't that the way it works? Good, that's the way it works.
The Chair: Are we ready to call the question? Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion is lost.
I understand that there's a vote in the House at 6. Being three minutes to 6, may I suggest that we adjourn today. We would resume next Monday at 3:30.
The committee adjourned at 1755.