CONTENTS
Thursday 24 October 1996
Aggregate and Petroleum Resources Statute Law Amendment Act, 1996 Bill 52, Mr Hodgson / Loi de 1996 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne les ressources en agrégats et les richesses pétrolières, projet de loi 52, M. Hodgson
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président: Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls PC)
*Mr JackCarroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
*Mr HarryDanford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)
*Mr JimFlaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr BernardGrandmaître (Ottawa East / -Est L)
Mr ErnieHardeman (Oxford PC)
Mr RosarioMarchese (Fort York ND)
*Mr BartMaves (Niagara Falls PC)
Mrs SandraPupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)
*Mrs LillianRoss (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
*Mr MarioSergio (Yorkview L)
*Mr R. GaryStewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr LenWood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
*Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin L) for Mr Grandmaître
Mr FrankKlees (York-Mackenzie PC) for Mr Hardeman
Ms ShelleyMartel (Sudbury East / -Est ND) for Mr Marchese
Mr JohnParker (York East / -Est PC) for Mr Tascona
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mr RayPichette, manager, program development, non-renewable resources,
Ministry of Natural Resources
Ms KrystineLinttell, solicitor, legal services branch,
Ministry of Natural Resources
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Lynn Mellor
Staff / Personnel: Mr Doug Beecroft, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1006 in committee room 1.
AGGREGATE AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES RESSOURCESEN AGRÉGATS ET LES RICHESSES PÉTROLIÈRES
Consideration of Bill 52, An Act to promote resource development, conservation and environmental protection through the streamlining of regulatory processes and the enhancement of compliance measures in the Aggregate and Petroleum Industries / Projet de loi 52, Loi visant à promouvoir la mise en valeur des ressources, la conservation ainsi que la protection de l'environnement en simplifiant les processus de réglementation et en renforçant les mesures de conformité dans l'industrie pétrolière et l'industrie des agrégats.
The Chair (Mr Jack Carroll): Good morning. Welcome to the continuing deliberations on clause-by-clause analysis of Bill 52. I thank Mr Maves for filling in for me last Thursday.
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I was glad to.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I knew it went smoothly.
The Chair: He obviously accomplished a lot more on Thursday afternoon than I did on Thursday morning, so we'll see how it goes.
Just to go back and pick up something he didn't do, that was to carry section 9. I understand there is an amendment to section 9 that we have to deal with.
Mr Michael Brown: Just one second, Mr Chair. As much as I want to proceed rapidly, I must point out that the critic isn't here for the New Democrats.
The Chair: Was Shelley discussing that amendment when a decision was made to stand it down?
Mr Michael Brown: Oh, that one? Okay. You're talking about the stood-down amendment.
The Chair: Right.
Mr Michael Brown: Perfect. We've had a short discussion of this. Our objective here was just to make sure that the applicant's history would only be taken into account if in fact that was the minister's reason for turning down an application at an OMB hearing. I think it's fairly straight-forward.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): We had actually asked to stand this down because we wanted to have a chance to give due consideration to the point Mr Brown was making. After much deliberation, I have to advise Mr Brown that the government cannot support this amendment. We really do feel that it would preclude the board from considering all of the relevant compliance history that may be necessary for the board to consider to make its decision. For that reason, we will not be supporting this amendment.
Mr Michael Brown: Could I ask the parliamentary assistant, given that there are already sections within the bill that provide for some scoping of the OMB consideration, could he envision at any point that the scoping would preclude something like -- one of the issues here is that all of us, regardless of who you might be and which side of the table you might be on in a particular issue surrounding aggregates, know that when it goes to the OMB the hearings can sometimes move off into areas that at least some people might believe to be frivolous. The scoping was, as I understood it, to keep it to the issue at hand.
Mr Klees: Precisely.
Mr Michael Brown: So if the issue of compliance were not a problem in the ministry's view, would it be scoped out? In the scoping, is it conceivable this would be one of the things that was not to be considered by the OMB?
Mr Klees: Mr Brown, I don't envision scoping to preclude or to dictate to the board what evidence the board might want to consider in making a decision. I agree with you that the intent of scoping is to narrow the focus, to avoid frivolous considerations and to ensure that the board deals only with those issues that have not already been dealt with, but I do think it would be inappropriate, and the government feels it would be inappropriate, for the preclusion of any evidence that might be relevant to the consideration of the issue before the board. For that reason, as I say, we will not be supporting this motion.
The Chair: We'll vote on the amendment first. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The amendment is defeated.
No further amendments to section 9. Shall section 9 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 9 is carried.
I understand the government would like to go back and open up section 12, which was carried as amended. We need all-party approval to go back and open up a section that has already been carried.
Mr Michael Brown: I ask for unanimous consent that we reopen that section.
The Chair: Ms Martel, I'm kind of catching you cold on this one.
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Sorry that I got here late. Can I ask why, just before I agree? Are you going to change something else here?
Mr Klees: Ms Martel, I was hoping to have an opportunity to discuss this section with you before the committee started. The reason is simply a drafting issue. In principle we have agreed of course to the amendment that was proposed by you, with a couple of changes if you recall; there were a couple of amendments that we made. Legislative counsel advised us that in light of those changes, in light of the amendments that we have made and in light of the fact that we've accepted your amendment, there need to be some clarifications in terms of referencing some other parts of the bill. I think you'll find it is strictly a legislative drafting issue.
Ms Martel: Can I just get from you, Mr Chair, exactly what section. Section 12?
The Chair: Section 12, the last one that was carried before we adjourned on Thursday afternoon.
Ms Martel: Is that in the new package we received this morning?
The Chair: Yes, it is, the second one down.
Ms Martel: The second one in? Is it section 12, subsection (2), clause 12(j)?
Mr Klees: Subsections 15.1(5), (6) and (7).
Mr Michael Brown: Could I suggest, Mr Chair, that we take a couple of minutes' recess and perhaps have that conversation you need to have, Mr Klees?
The Chair: Ms Martel, would you prefer that we --
Ms Martel: I've got it. It's okay, thanks, Mr Chair.
Mr Klees: In light of the fact that this is a drafting issue, it might be appropriate if I have counsel speak to this and provide the rationale for the --
The Chair: The first thing we need is consent to reopen this section.
Ms Martel: Yes.
The Chair: Mr Klees, if we could have counsel explain, it might help.
Ms Krystine Linttell: The reason for the redraft: One, I point out that the initial motion referred to subsection (4), and that's been corrected, because the correct subsection is (5). The initial motion, you will recall, also provided for a suspension on the basis of the submission of false information and we agreed that would be deleted, so that has been reflected.
On the other changes, I'll refer you back to section 12, subsection 15.1 of the Aggregate Resources Act, which actually talks about disclosure of the contravention and specifically refers to the requirement to remedy the contravention within a period of time and the requirement to immediately stop any act that forms the contravention.
What has happened is that this section has been redrafted. Specifically, rather than simply stating that the licence will be reinstated when the licensee takes such steps as are necessary etc, the clauses are specifically identified to refer back to the previous provision. This is in order to make it consistent so there is no dispute as to any alteration in meaning with respect to the application of the suspension section. Apart from that, the intent and the general substance have not been altered.
The Chair: With that explanation, Mr Klees, maybe we should have you introduce the amendment so that we get it on the floor.
Mr Klees: I move that section 15.1 of the Aggregate Resources Act, as set out in section 12 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Suspension of licence
"(5) A licence shall be deemed to have been suspended if,
"(a) the licensee fails to submit an annual compliance report in accordance with this section; or
"(b) the licensee's annual compliance report discloses a contravention of this act, the regulations, the site plan or the conditions of the licence and the licensee fails to comply with subclause(4)(a)(i) or (ii).
"Reinstatement; failure to submit
"(6) A licence that was deemed to have been suspended under clause (5)(a) shall be deemed to be reinstated if the licensee submits the annual compliance report to the minister.
"Reinstatement; failure to comply with clause (4)(a).
"(7) A licence that was deemed to have been suspended under clause (5)(b) shall be deemed to be reinstated if the licensee,
"(a) takes such steps as are necessary to remedy the contravention that was disclosed in the annual compliance report, if the licensee failed to comply with subclause (4)(a)(i); or
"(b) stops the doing of the act that formed part of the contravention, if the licensee failed to comply with subclause (4)(a)(ii)."
Mr Michael Brown: Just quickly, some clarification: I had some actual concern about this wording about the former amendment. We changed another amendment -- I'm trying to remember which clause -- but what concerns me is that clause 7(b) "stops the doing of the act." I wonder if it's counsel's view that, reading this along with (a), that means remedying the situation entirely; you can stop something but the situation is still there and is a problem. If you have to read both together, that probably addresses my concern. What I'm asking is really kind of a technical question. Does the wording work, because it does seem to me to be a little awkward?
Ms Linttell: Yes. The intention is that both provisions would apply. Basically the distinction between them is that you will have, I suppose, circumstances that are static, the failure to have a fence up, as opposed to the doing of an activity such as excavating within a setback, which continues. So clearly, yes, if it's an activity, it must stop. Since that, once it's stopped, it still represents a contravention and it must be remedied, as the second step.
Mr Michael Brown: Thank you.
1020
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): A question to the attorney: Why would we ever use such a phrase or could you explain it to me "stops the doing of an act"? Now either that's bad English or I'm just so stupid I don't understand it. I can't understand that word to be included in an act like this.
Ms Linttell: We were attempting to draw the distinction between, as the point I made previously, a state of affairs that represents a contravention and an activity, the carrying on of an activity that contravenes the conditions of a licence or the site plan or the act. There is a distinction in terms of --
Mr Klees: Could I help? Actually, I think this was incorporated here to make it crystal clear that while the person might be taking some remedy, that categorically they stop doing what was wrong or what brought it into contravention. Have you got a problem with just the words or the concept?
Mr Stewart: It's probably the wording of it. But I guess my concern is that we've got a lot of very ordinary people reading these acts and we make them so difficult to understand that we're going to have to hire a lawyer. The applicant's going to have to hire a lawyer to interpret this, no disrespect to the --
Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): Have you got a problem with that?
Mr Stewart: I'm surrounded by them. My apologies for that. I guess I have difficulty with what it means, the doing of an act. That's my concern. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I just have real difficulty with some of the wording that we do, for many of us who are just --
The Chair: Further discussion on this amendment proposed by Mr Klees? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.
Shall section 12, as further amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 12, as further amended, carries.
Ms Martel: I move that clause 16(5)(b) of the Aggregate Resources Act, as set out in section 13 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(b) on the clerk of each regional municipality, county and local municipality in which the site is located."
This section allows the minister at any time to require a licensee to amend the site plan. My reading of the current act is that the minister must serve notice with respect to that change on both a licensee and a municipality now under the current statute. The change that I want to make reflects that the minister will have to continue to carry out that same activity, ie, if he proposes to make an amendment of a site plan, the licensee is notified and so is any affected regional municipality, county or local municipality which is affected by that particular change. So the discretion that appears in the government's changes is taken out.
Mr Klees: We had some extensive discussion around a similar request on another amendment and Ms Martel will recall that the government was not prepared to support that simply from the standpoint of not wanting to be required to adhere to the administrative complexities that would be involved in very minor changes. It's my understanding that site plan changes particularly have many minor changes that come forward that don't affect the substance of the operation.
I'll restate the fact that as a matter of course, as a matter of practice, the ministry serves on the municipalities when major changes take place. The government is not prepared, for the same reason as the previous discussion, to support this amendment.
Ms Martel: My problem is that it will be the minister who will determine what is major and minor. In my view, what you're doing is taking away a right that a municipality already has, and that is the right of notification with respect to these changes. I don't think, if you're going to try and make this act work, given the changes you're making around self-regulation, it's too much to ask. I think you'll be much better off providing municipalities with information up front on this act, particularly with the other changes that are being made, rather than removing that obligation. I just think at the end of the day the government will find, for the cost, it would have been far better served to let people know what was going on.
Mr Michael Brown: I want to express our support for the amendment. I'll just leave it at that, for the reasons I've already stated.
The Chair: Any further discussion on the amendment? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment does not carry.
Ms Martel: I move that subsections 16(7), (8), (10) and (13) of the Aggregate Resources Act, as set out in section 13 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Exception
"(7) The minister may take the proposed action before the 30 days have elapsed if comments have been received from all persons notified and, in the case of a proposal to require the amendment of the site plan, if all persons notified waive the right under subsection (8) to require a hearing.
"Entitlement to a hearing
"(8) A person who is served with notice under subsection (5) of a proposal to require the amendment of a site plan is entitled to a hearing by the board if the person, within 30 days after being served, serves the minister with a notice that a hearing is required.
"Parties
"(10) The parties to the hearing are a licensee, any other person who required the hearing, the minister and such other persons as are specified by the board.
"Where no hearing
"(13) If no hearing is required under subsection (8), the minister may carry out the proposal."
What we are doing in this section is ensuring that not only does a licensee have the opportunity to serve notice to the minister that a hearing is required, but other affected or interested parties will also have the same rights that are now granted to the licensee under this section, particularly allowing them to waive a right of hearing if they want to, not just allowing the licensee to do that. Again, allowing interested parties and not just the licensee to serve notice to the board that a hearing is required extends and makes it clear that they can be a party to a hearing.
What we're trying to do is make sure that people who object to the site plan that's being proposed by the minister also have an opportunity to participate. That opportunity and right, as set out for the licensee, are also set out and made clear for interested parties.
Mr Klees: This is a parallel situation to the discussion we had around the proposed amendment to section 11. The government's position at that time was very clear in that we did not support the proposed amendment.
With regard to this particular amendment, I remind Ms Martel that this deals specifically with site plans, which are internal to the operation and which also are typically of a very technical nature. For the reasons that we stated previously relating to section 11, we feel that this is simply a parallel circumstance and, as a result, the government will not be supporting this amendment.
Ms Martel: I just point out that site plan proposals can be minor; a number of them can be quite major. I related the case we've got in my riding right now of a site plan change that has been proposed that people in an unorganized area are very interested in and very worried about. What we're trying to do is make sure that people who feel they have a right and should have a right, given the nature of the work that's being done here, to become party to a hearing at the board have the same right as the person who is the licensee.
Mr Klees: If I can just clarify, certainly Ms Martel is correct that from time to time there are major changes that take place. In those cases where it does involve a major change, as a matter of course the ministry will then serve notice upon the municipalities and invite comment. I want to provide that assurance that where there are major changes, that action will be taken by the minister.
The Chair: No further discussion on the motion? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is defeated. Any additional amendments?
Mr Michael Brown: We are not going to put our amendment.
The Chair: Okay, that's withdrawn.
Ms Martel: I move that section 16 of the Aggregate Resources Act, as set out in section 13 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Refusal to permit amendment
"(14) Subsections (5), (8), (9), (10), (11) and (12) apply, with necessary modifications, if the minister refuses a licensee's request to amend the site plan."
In this section, there is no provision for a licensee to get a hearing before the board if the minister refuses an amendment to the site plan as requested by the licensee, so the amendment that we're putting forward would allow the licensee to appeal under that circumstance.
Mr Klees: We had some previous discussions around I think it was an opposition motion put forward both by the Liberals and the NDP at that time referring to section 11, subsection 13(12). The point I made at that time was that we believe that at one point closure has to be brought to this process, and that in the end the responsibility to bring closure is with the minister, who is required to act in the public interest. We just feel that this would perpetuate appeals and we're not prepared to support that.
1030
The Chair: Any further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.
Any further amendments to section 13? Seeing none, shall section 13 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 13 carries.
Any amendments to section 14? Shall section 14 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 14 carries.
Ms Martel: I move that subsection 18(11) of the Aggregate Resources Act, as set out in section 15 of the bill, be amended by striking out "the person to whom it was transferred" in the second and third lines and substituting "the minister."
In this case, the amendment is being moved because we want to ensure that the minister will continue to have the obligation and the responsibility to serve a copy of the licence change to an affected municipality, which is I believe the obligation that the minister now has under the current act. The government proposes to have the licensee make those changes. We feel there is an ongoing obligation of the minister with respect to some of these changes and that the minister should continue to undertake that responsibility to guarantee that a notice of change would go out.
Mr Klees: We do not believe this responsibility should rest with the minister. As with other elements of administration relating to this bill, we have placed the responsibility on the operator and, as part of the cost-savings initiative under this act, we believe it is a reasonable responsibility to place on the operator. In fact, it is a legal requirement that it get done by the proponent. If the proponent fails to do so, they do so at the risk of losing their licence. We feel it is an act that will be carried out responsibly by the proponent, and we will not be supporting the amendment.
Ms Martel: I have a question. Is it clear then in the act that if the licence is not transferred, if that is not undertaken by the licensee, that they will lose their licence?
Mr Klees: It's a requirement of the proponent to provide that notice. If they aren't in compliance with doing what is required of them, they are subject to the consequences of non-compliance, and one of those consequences is losing their licence to operate.
Ms Martel: I guess the problem you have is whether or not the public or the affected municipality would know that there's a transfer taking place, so whether they can bring that to someone's attention to say they didn't get a copy is a whole other matter. It goes back to my concern that the issue of whether or not this bill works very much depends on people's decision to comply, and I think we heard at the hearing from a number of land owners that even where there were very clear rules set out, they continued to have significant and major problems with some, not all, operators. I just think that where the government has an obligation now, many of those obligations should continue, to avoid the very circumstance that people found themselves in.
Mr Klees: The government will certainly continue to carry out the enforcement responsibilities. I think what has been missing in the past perhaps are some serious consequences to non-compliance. We believe that this bill addresses that and we are very confident that the proponents will do what they're called upon to do.
The Chair: Shall the amendment by Ms Martel carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment does not carry.
Mr Michael Brown: I move that section 18 of the Aggregate Resources Act, as set out in section 15 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Transfer of part of licence
"(12) This section applies with necessary modifications to the transfer of a part of a licence that relates to a part of the licensed site."
The reason for this is a concern that has been expressed by aggregate producers that if an operator is operating on more than one parcel of land, we should be able to transfer the licence when the operations actually cease on one of the parcels. He doesn't need to remain licensed on the other side, but he can still operate without a full transfer of licence if he's not operating on one parcel. For example, he may lose the lease. It may be fully rehabilitated and there's no necessity any longer for the licence on that section. This is just to facilitate some of those real world things that actually happen.
Mr Klees: We see some pitfalls here. When a licence is initially granted, it's granted on the basis of the total picture, the total site. What we risk here is a splitting up or creating some additional complexities that weren't anticipated at the time of approval. The other problem that we see potentially is with regard to rehabilitation requirements. It's important that when we monitor a site we know the total site is licensed, the total site comes under the responsibility of the various conditions set out at the very beginning. The government feels that we're leaving ourselves open here to some issues that may not be anticipated at the time of approval, but then we have to begin to deal with them once that splitting of the licence takes place. We're uncomfortable with this and will not be supporting this proposed amendment.
Mr Michael Brown: Frankly, I believe the government makes some good points. I hadn't anticipated some of those arguments. My intention here was probably not what the wording of this amendment does. Given that, I'll withdraw the amendment.
The Chair: There being no further amendments to section 15, shall section 15 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 15 carries.
I see no amendments for sections 16 through 18. Shall sections 16 through 18 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Sections 16 through 18 carry.
Mr Klees: I move that subsection 19(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(2) Clauses 23(3)(a) and (b) of the act are repealed and the following substituted:
"(a) the aggregate is required for a project of road construction or road maintenance;
"(b) the aggregate is to be obtained from outside the limits of the right of way of the highway; and."
The Chair: Just for Ms Martel's information, if this government amendment is carried, then yours will be out of order.
Mr Klees: This amendment essentially returns the purpose of wayside permits to its original intent. Wayside permits were devised as a means of facilitating the supply of aggregates from nearby sources for road construction and maintenance. The elimination of their use for non-road projects, which is the intent here, reflects a return to the original intent. There have been some concerns about misuse or abuse of the latitude that had been in place by having the word "urgent," and so we feel that this cleans this up and clarifies the matter.
1040
Ms Martel: I want to return to some of the comments that we received from the region of Niagara and also from the mayor of Caledon, both of whom expressed some serious concerns about wayside permits and how they have been used in the past. Specifically, they are concerned that they, especially the mayor of Caledon, had seen over a number of years a number of wayside permits and pits that just grew. There has been no environmental control because they don't come under the same provisions as a licensed site would. Both of those groups of people made it clear that there really should be a serious look given by the ministry to sort out what is a legitimate use of a wayside pit; also to be very careful about MTO's responsibility and participation in that because they also raised concerns that, more often than not, MTO was one of the main advocates to get a pit opened at the expense of a commercial operator. They were concerned about that.
The reason I was going to move to go back to the original language or the language that's in the current bill right now, which talks about an "urgent" project, is to somehow get at that circumstance. I must say that I don't feel that the amendments that you've put forward deal directly with that. You're still going to allow aggregate for a project of road construction or road maintenance. There is no time limit on that construction; you could have a major project, unless there's a limitation somewhere else in the bill, and maybe you could describe that to me. But I want to be sure that what we're talking about is a project where there is no close substitute, it is very time-limited and it is not a project that will go on and on without any kind of environmental look at what's happening. Those are very much the concerns expressed to us by some of the municipal leaders.
Mr Klees: I believe your concerns are legitimate, but I also believe they will be addressed. First of all, the wayside permits will be subject to the standards and will be required to comply with the standards set out for all pits.
With regard to the time frame, it is intended as a limited period, and there is an 18-month time limit to all wayside pits. If there's to be an extension, it will have to be revisited. I think both of your concerns are addressed in the context.
Ms Martel: May I just ask where the 18 months comes in? Can you just refer me to the section? It must be later on in the bill.
Mr Ray Pichette: Sorry, you're looking for the section that limits to 18 months?
Ms Martel: Perhaps when we get to it you can just advise me then so I'm clear that it appears directly in the act and is not actually going to be found in a reg.
Mr Klees: I thought it was in the regs, but perhaps while it's being searched for -- can we get back to Ms Martel on that question?
Ms Martel: We'll move on.
The Chair: Any further discussion on the amendment? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.
In view of that amendment carrying, Ms Martel's amendment is out of order.
There are no further amendments to section 19. Shall section 19, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 19, as amended, carries.
I see no amendments to sections 20 through 28. Shall sections 20 through 28 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Sections 20 through 28 are carried.
Mr Klees: We have that answer for Ms Martel.
Mr Pichette: The section under the Aggregate Resources Act is section 31, which reads, "A wayside permit expires on the completion of the project in respect of which it was issued or 18 months after its date of issue, whichever occurs first."
Ms Martel: Thank you.
Mr Klees: I move that section 29 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(0.1) Clause 34(1)(a) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:
"(a) to excavate aggregate or topsoil that is on land the surface rights of which are the property of the crown, even if the surface rights are leased to another person."
The explanation for this is to effectively bring leased lands under the Mining Act, under the clear jurisdiction of this act or definition of the act, if you will. When surface rights are leased under the Mining Act, they cease to be considered the property of the crown under the act. In the past, this has resulted in confusion in the interpretation of this clause and the argument that an aggregate permit is not required. That is not what was intended and we wanted to ensure that it was very clear that even those lands that are leased under the Mining Act would require an aggregate permit.
Mr Michael Brown: So this means that for any mining operation you would require an aggregate permit?
Mr Klees: I don't think that's what we mean. What we mean is that for any lands that are leased under the Mining Act, where there is an intention to establish an aggregate operation, a permit is required.
Mr Michael Brown: Aggregates being defined as basically sand and gravel, or is that a larger definition?
Mr Klees: It's a larger definition. We can search that up for you, if you like, but there is a broader definition of aggregates.
Mr Michael Brown: This is fundamental and I'm not totally clear -- I probably should be, but I'm not -- on what exactly an aggregate is by ministry definition and how easily that can be changed.
Mr Klees: I'm happy to give you the definition. It's in the Aggregate Resources Act. If you'd like me to read it to you, I will.
Mr Michael Brown: Yes.
Mr Klees: I'm reading now from the ARA: "`Aggregate' means gravel, sand, clay, earth, shale, stone, limestone, dolostone, sandstone, marble, granite, rock...or other prescribed material."
Mr Michael Brown: So it's fairly wide open to what could be decided. I have some difficulty with this.
The Chair: Ms Martel.
Ms Martel: It was a different section, so I can leave that part right now.
The Chair: No further discussion? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.
Mr Klees: I move that subsection 34(6) of the Aggregate Resources Act, as set out in subsection 29(3) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"More than one pit or quarry
"(6) An aggregate permit may apply to more than one pit or quarry."
This intends to address the issue of the multisite permits. As written, it relates to an area of land and effectively precludes the issuance of an aggregate permit for other pits and quarries within the area. This presents a problem, if not clarified, in that sustainable forest licences can comprise very large tracts of land. If we don't provide this clarification, it could preclude any other commercial aggregate operations within that area of land which come under a sustainable forest licence, effectively creating a monopoly situation. That was not the intent, and as a result of this amendment it would allow for commercial operations within that area.
Ms Martel: I think what you're doing is creating a monopoly situation because you're now adding a new provision which allows the minister to grant a multisite aggregate permit. You'll have one operator in a very large tract of land who will have, as I read it, and maybe I stand to be corrected, some exclusive control over all pits and quarries within a very large tract of land.
Mr Klees: No. What we're attempting to do, the idea here, is that where there is a sustainable forest licence and there are multiple pits, you can have one aggregate permit that covers all of those pits, a multiple pit site. However, if we don't provide the clarification here, then we would preclude any other commercial operations -- and this applies, by the way, strictly to crown land, as you know -- on that crown land. That wasn't the intent. The intent is that we allow for applications for commercial operations on that tract of land regardless of whether it's under a sustainable forest licence or not. It would be subject to the application procedure.
Ms Martel: But why would you not then continue with individual application processes? Surely what you're allowing then is a single operator to make application for any number of aggregate permits within a licensed area. Isn't that what this amendment is now allowing them to do?
1050
Mr Klees: That's right.
Ms Martel: So doesn't that run counter to --
Mr Klees: No. I think we see here that the two can live side by side. In other words, we certainly want the opportunity for multiple-site permits to be there, but in addition to that we want to ensure the right is there for individuals to come forward and make an application for a single site elsewhere on that same property.
Ms Martel: Aren't they allowed to do that now?
Mr Klees: The way the act is worded, with the term "area of land," it could be interpreted that they would be precluded from doing that. That's what we're trying to address.
Ms Martel: Where I see that falling apart is that if you allow someone to come in and make application for any number of pits and quarries within an area, that single person could legitimately, as I read it, get access to all that, and any other operator who wanted perhaps just one pit or quarry within that area of crown land might be precluded because someone else has come in and scooped up all the licences in that area. That's what I think you allow to happen with a multipermit process.
Mr Klees: That's exactly what we're trying to address here. The way it's written now is that it excludes other operators from coming on to that particular land. We're saying we don't intend and didn't intend that kind of monopoly. We're opening it up so others can come forward and apply for licences.
Why don't we ask counsel to address that and take another run at it?
Ms Linttell: This section was originally devised to aid the forest industry in building forest access roads. These are almost like wayside pits on crown land. The construction of the road is identified in the forest management plan. We know where it's going and we know where the sources of aggregate are. The intention is that when a section of road is being built, a permit can be issued identifying and capturing the six or 10 pits or quarries along the way that will have to be accessed to construct that road.
It prevents repeated applications for very small pits and the administration involved in dealing with this. That was the initial intention in designing that provision, and its application certainly will be limited.
Ms Martel: If I'm clear, it really doesn't have anything to do with allowing another operator access. What you're talking about is a single operator in a crown management unit, whoever has that unit, being allowed to access any number of pits along the way.
Ms Linttell: Exactly. But the way the section in the act was drafted, we realized that by trying to save the administration and simplify the process we were granting exclusivity. We were creating a monopoly situation because we said that if we issue an operator an aggregate permit, it effectively sterilized a large area of land and precluded our issuing any other permit.
In redrafting this section we are saying we may issue an aggregate permit that identifies six pits, and that's okay, otherwise we wouldn't be able to. However, we can still issue any number of individual aggregate permits to any other people within a given vicinity.
Ms Martel: I say to legal counsel I hope that's what it's doing, because my read is that it does exactly the opposite, and that's my concern. I'm not a lawyer.
The Chair: Mr Stewart thought stopping the doing of the deed was complicated.
Mr Stewart: We could use that word in here and probably clarify it.
Mr Michael Brown: I have to confess to being slightly confused by what's going on here also. I accept what counsel has said as far as the roadbuilding goes, and I believe that to be necessary. I'm a little confused about how this permits more people rather than fewer, but if you say so I'm going to have to take your word for it.
The other thing I find a little problematic in the wording, not particularly of the amendment but of the previous section, is that they talk about an "area of land." What's an area of land in legal terms? I would not have seen a sustainable forest licence as an area of land, but there you go. I would have thought you would define an area of land by a township boundary or some legal description we may know that really applies to land, whereas a sustainable forest licence is not an exclusive right; it is a right to harvest, essentially, in a particular area. I think MNR itself would have some difficulty with the idea that this is an exclusive right of a sustainable forest licence on an area of land. It's particular rights, not exclusive rights as in ownership.
Mr Klees: That's precisely the reason we felt it needed clarification. To take one more stab at it for your benefit, I'd like to ask Mr Pichette to comment on this.
Mr Pichette: First, an aggregate permit has fundamentally two purposes: (1) It is a disposition mechanism for aggregates on crown land, and (2) it provides that regulatory control for operations. The original intent was to issue sites where there is a sustainable forest licence and issue an aggregate permit for that licensed area that would allow them the disposition right, in which case they would allow it to operate many pits within that site.
If you look at the size of some of the sustainable forest licences, all of a sudden towns like Hornepayne are included in that, and there will be a commercial industry required too to satisfy the needs of the infrastructure of Hornepayne. It became very apparent the way it was written, because the aggregate permit is issued on the basis of an area of land, that it would give exclusivity rights to that permittee for all the aggregate in that boundary of land.
As a result it became very apparent that we were giving that exclusive right when all we were trying to accomplish here was to use things like the sustainable forest licence, forest management planning, and reduce paper in terms of not having to issue eight specific permits for every site. We could issue one permit that might cover eight to 10 sites and again be under the same standards. It becomes more of a paper efficiency and reduction than anything else.
This clarifies the intent of introducing that efficiency measure.
Mr Stewart: Can you just clarify something? Where it's a permit issued on crown land by the ministry, is a site plan required? In this particular case, if you are giving a blanket permit and building a road for 100 miles and you have 10 pits along the way that you've issued one blanket permit for, is the one site plan for all the pits or do you have to do an individual site plan for each pit if you do a blanket permit pit operation?
Mr Pichette: I'll just qualify something here. The road construction, and I believe we're getting to that section on the exemption, is meant to be covered predominantly by the exemption aspect of that. The operations we see that are in concert with forest operations would be more maintenance-oriented pits and as a result each would require a site plan. The vision of this thing is one permit with a schedule of sites, each having an individual site plan.
Mr Michael Brown: I'm sorry; I still have some difficulty. If we're talking about sustainable forest licences and that's the reason for this, we know that in areas that are now crown land units which are being converted to sustainable forest licences at the moment, in many cases a lot of what's happening on those units today will be fundamentally changed at least in the way the operations are run.
1100
Does this mean that if the licence holder is contracting the building and/or maintenance of roads to a third party each pit and quarry will have to be licensed to the third party for use in the area, or is the sustainable forest licence holder that is building the road the one that has the permit? Who has the permit?
Mr Pichette: It's a matter of perspective. I think you're interpreting it as the sustainable forest licence having some degree of control over or influence on the aggregate permit. It does not. That's the first thing. This is very separate, the aggregate permit being a disposition instrument and a regulatory instrument.
We're trying to introduce certain efficiencies, particularly with regard to paper transactions, with the client. The permittee of record is the one that's accountable. There's no restriction in this bill that says the third party can't be the permittee and therefore accountable for one or a multitude of permits under one permit. From our perspective the permittee is accountable, and it doesn't necessarily have to be the sustainable forest licensee.
Our ability to issue a permit that will cover many sites is all we're trying to accomplish.
Mr Michael Brown: Yes, I understand that. I'm just trying to understand: If it is a third party, if Shelley Martel Contracting is going to look after the aggregate part, if Shelley Martel Contracting holds the particular licence, there's more of a danger of that becoming a commercial pit for use in Hornepayne than there is for the sustainable forest licence. Perhaps there's no difference. I guess you're telling me it doesn't really make any difference.
Mr Pichette: The intent of the section is to deal with the forest sector a little more efficiently as they are a major producer of aggregates, but it doesn't preclude us from dealing with the commercial sector in this fashion as well.
The Chair: Shall the amendment, as proposed by Mr Klees, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.
Mr Brown, you have an amendment to section 29.
Mr Michael Brown: We've decided not to place it.
The Chair: Mr Brown withdraws that amendment. Shall section 29, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 29, as amended, carries.
Shall sections 30 through 32 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Sections 30 through 32 are carried.
Ms Martel: I move that section 33 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"33. Sections 37(3) and (4) of the act are repealed."
In this section the amendment would do the following: Subsections (3) and (4) of the current act appear elsewhere in the new bill that has been put forward by the government. My amendment would allow everything that is in the current act under section 37 to remain in effect.
I'm doing this because I do not believe aggregate permits should be issued in perpetuity, which the new bill is now proposing. I believe the resource belongs to the public, not to the operator. The current wording in the act which says an aggregate permit cannot be fixed for more than a period of five years is sufficient to ensure that the public continues to be satisfied that a site is being maintained in good order and every five years there is a chance when that is renewed for it to either return to the hands of the public or to continue if all of the conditions have been met. I don't like that we are moving now to grant a licence and there is no kind of limitation on that in terms of timing of that licence to remain in an operator's hands.
Also, I was concerned that under subsection (5) of the current act there are specific references to how conditions must be set on licences to protect fish habitat in those areas where operations are taking place underwater. When I looked at the new bill, I could not find any continuing specific reference to those circumstances and I don't think we should be removing a very particular reference in the act right now that says there will be conditions set on licences where those operations are taking place underwater. But I couldn't find it anywhere in the act and that's why I believe that the wording in the current act should remain.
Those are the reasons for the amendment, I say to the parliamentary assistant. First, I don't think we should be moving to indefinite licences without any time limit, and that's what the government changes do; second, I believe ought to still be somewhere in the bill, not in regulation, a very specific comment with respect to protection of fish habitat for operations that are occurring underwater. I don't see that anywhere in the new act, but maybe it is there and I just haven't found it yet.
Mr Klees: First, with regard to the reference to the indefinite time period, I again we've had some discussion on this matter. What we're attempting to do here is to avoid administrative processing of applications or reapplications that may be unnecessary under the circumstances. Particularly in light of the fact that annual compliance reports are required, the ministry has a very up-to-date view of the operation and has a good sense of whether or not it's in compliance -- in fact, much more so now than under the previous circumstances.
Keep in mind that the ministry has the latitude to impose terms if, given the circumstances of an application, it's deemed appropriate that there should be a limitation in term. That can be set down as part of the condition by the ministry. That's not precluded. And so, from the standpoint of administration, we feel that the time frame is something that is not necessary.
One other factor to this -- and this is a very practical matter -- when it comes to a commercial operation seeking financing or doing their business plans, if there is a two-year limitation, for example, on an operation, even though the intention is that it be renewed, it's very difficult for an operator to establish a sense of security in terms of the viability of that operation.
With regard to the aquatic habitat, it is the intention to incorporate that into regulation. I hear what you're saying, but it is the intention of the government to incorporate those standards into the regulations along with the other standards that we've been referring to, and so the government will not be supporting this amendment.
Ms Martel: Just briefly, with reference to an ability of an operator, for example, to get financing based on the length of a contract or the length of a permit, we have the same situation that occurs in the forestry industry now. You have five-year, 10-year, 20-year forest management plans and those people still continue to operate. They don't seem to have a problem getting financing for very major and very expensive undertakings on land that they are operating under in terms of the sustainable forestry licence. So I don't buy the argument that this somehow will make it easier or will guarantee financing for an operator.
Right now, you have a fixed period already in the act. I have never received complaints from operators in my riding that they couldn't get financing for an undertaking because of that fact. I continue to believe that the same checks and balances that you have under sustainable licences, where there are very specific reviews, are very necessary, especially now because the number of staff that will be left at the MNR will be significantly reduced. If nothing else, if you want to issue it every five years -- the current act says it can be a fixed period of no more than that -- you will at least be assured that there will be a very thorough review of the permit of the site and of what's going on, because that renewal will have to take place. Given that the number of inspectors will be so reduced, it's the one thing you could hold out to municipalities and to the public, to say that at least on those periods of time we will be going through this very carefully, because I think outside of that, the ministry inspectors won't have time to do much of a review of anything.
1110
The Chair: Any further discussion on the amendment? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment does not carry.
Shall section 33 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 33 is carried.
There are no amendments to sections 34 and 35. Shall sections 34 and 35 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Sections 34 and 35 are carried.
Section 36: Just a note here that the government has an amendment and Ms Martel also has an amendment. Ms Martel, your proposed amendment, the first part of which is identical to the government amendment, if the government amendment passes, would then be out of order. Your way of dealing with the second part of your amendment is either to propose an amendment to the government's amendment, which would add that second part, or once the government amendment is dealt with, to change your amendment so that it only deals with the second section of that. I just wanted to make you aware of that.
Mr Klees: I'm also prepared to be flexible in terms of how we deal with this. This goes back to a similar amendment that we agreed to that was introduced by Ms Martel under section 12, 15.1. Ms Martel, if you would prefer to have this be your amendment, we'll agree to that, to an amendment to your amendment, or we'll introduce our motion now.
Ms Martel: Just for clarification purposes, let me ask the parliamentary assistant: I assume that subsection 1.2 of my amendment you will not support, because you didn't with the other one. So having said that, I'm prepared to delete from my amendment the section with reference to ministry review, although, having said that, I really do believe the ministry has to find a way to keep municipalities informed of what's happening through these sites.
The Chair: On that basis, Mr Klees, do you want to withdraw your amendment?
Mr Klees: Yes, I will.
The Chair: Ms Martel, you want to propose an amendment to your amendment.
Ms Martel: Then I would move that section 40.1 of the Aggregate Resources Act, as set out in section 36 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Copy for municipality
"(1.1) The permittee shall give a copy of the report to the clerk of each regional municipality, county and local municipality in which the site is located."
The Chair: Ms Martel has proposed an amendment to section 36. Any discussion? All in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.
Just to advise Ms Martel again, if Mr Klees's amendment to section 36 carries, your following proposed amendment would then be out of order.
Mr Klees: This amendment is parallel to the amendment that we have just dealt with relating to section 12, 15.1(4). This incorporates the same changes that we had some extensive discussions around. I will proceed to read it into the record.
I move that section 40.1 of the Aggregate Resources Act, as set out in section 36 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Disclosure of contravention
"(4) If an annual compliance report discloses a contravention of this act, the regulations, the site plan or the conditions of the permit,
"(a) the permittee shall,
"(i) within a period of 90 days after the report is submitted to the minister or within such longer period as may be specified by the minister, take such steps as may be necessary to remedy the contravention, and
"(ii) immediately stop the doing of any act that forms part of the contravention; and
"(b) if the permittee complies with subclause (a)(ii), no prosecution shall be commenced in respect of the contravention, and no notice may be served by the minister under clause 43(1)(b) or section 45 in respect of the contravention,
"(i) during the period described in subclause (a)(i), or
"(ii) after the period described in subclause (a)(i), if the permittee complies with subclause (a)(i) within that period."
The Chair: Notwithstanding the stopping the doing of the act, Mr Klees?
Mr Klees: I wanted to see if Mr Stewart had any problems with --
Mr Stewart: I do. It's the worst English I ever heard in my life.
Mr Klees: As I indicated previously, this parallels the amendment passed to section 12, subsection 15.1(4), and affects the changes that were discussed at that time relating to this section.
The Chair: Any further discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is carried.
The following amendment proposed by Ms Martel is now out of order.
Mr Klees has another proposed amendment to section 36. Just before he reads it into the record, I advise Ms Martel and Mr Brown that should the government amendment carry, your two amendments to the same sections would then be out of order.
Mr Klees: I move that section 40.1 of the Aggregate Resources Act, as set out in section 36 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Suspension of permit
"(5) A permit shall be deemed to have been suspended if,
"(a) the permittee fails to submit an annual compliance report in accordance with this section; or
"(b) the permittee's annual compliance report discloses a contravention of this act, the regulations, the site plan or the conditions of the permit and the permittee fails to comply with subclause (4)(a)(i) or (ii).
"Reinstatement; failure to submit
"(6) A permit that was deemed to have been suspended under clause (5)(a) shall be deemed to be reinstated if the permittee submits the annual compliance report to the minister.
"Reinstatement; failure to comply with clause (4)(a)
"(7) A permit that was deemed to have been suspended under clause (5)(b) shall be deemed to be reinstated if the permittee,
"(a) takes such steps as are necessary to remedy the contravention that was disclosed in the annual compliance report, if the permittee failed to comply with subclause (4)(a)(i); or
"(b) stops the doing of the act that formed part of the contravention, if the permittee failed to comply with subclause (4)(a)(ii)."
This is the same as section 12, subsections 15.1(4), (5), (6) and (7). It parallels the legislative drafting changes to that.
The Chair: Any further discussion? All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment carries.
The next two amendments are now out of order.
No further amendments to section 36. Shall section 36, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 36, as amended, carries.
There are no amendments to sections 37 through 41. Shall sections 37 through 41 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Sections 37 through 41 are carried. Section 42.
Mr Klees: I move that section 42 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(42) Subsections 46(2), (3) and (4) of the act are repealed and the following substituted:
"Returns and payment
"(2) Every aggregate permittee shall make a return to the aggregate resources trust, when required by the minister, showing the quantity of material removed from the site and enclosing the required royalty payment payable to the trust.
"Deposit
"(3) The minister may require an aggregate permittee to pay a deposit to the aggregate resources trust, in an amount determined by the minister, for the payment of any royalty that is due or that may become due under subsection (1)."
This was effectively an oversight when the bill was initially drafted. Royalties were missed in the original drafting. Effectively, we are now incorporating this into the act to allow the trust to administer the royalties on behalf of the government.
1120
Mr Michael Brown: It's interesting. I think this is a new concept, that the trust will be actually administering the royalty part, the payments to the crown?
Mr Klees: They will be collecting. In light of the fact that they are administering all of the other financial transactions and doing other collections, we are simply now transferring to the trust the authority to also collect the royalties, with the understanding that it will be transmitting those to the crown. Rather than have two separate entities doing the collections, we're saying, let's let the trust handle that and then transfer those royalties to the crown.
Mr Michael Brown: The trust is now becoming the tax collector, so to speak. Is that what I hear?
Mr Klees: The trust will be collecting the royalties as one of the terms of the obligations that the trust has.
Mr Michael Brown: One of those other words for taxes. I understand what you're doing. We've already decided, however, that this is an independent, privately administered trust.
Mr Klees: It has responsibility directly to the crown, as you're aware. The trust will be reporting to the minister. The minister will be tabling the accounting of the trust with the Legislative Assembly, so I think the accountability certainly is there. We're simply asking for an administrative efficiency here.
Ms Martel: A quick question: If the royalties are collected by the crown now, by MNR staff, aren't you going to have a duplication? You're going to have the trustee collect that and then you're going to have to have a second remittance to the crown. Correct? Why would you make a change that would have money that currently flows to the crown be diverted to the trust and then returned to the crown?
Mr Klees: It's simply a matter of who's doing the collecting. If we've got one entity doing the collecting, doing the accounting for that, responsible for maintaining the records and submitting, we're simply looking at that as one less function that the crown has to take.
Ms Martel: So you'll have someone who does that currently in the ministry who will no longer do that and supposedly lose their job, and you will have someone at the trustee's office now do that and pick up that job. Is that what you're saying? Oh, come on.
Mr Klees: It's no secret that we believe in less government. We believe that if there's a function that can be performed by the private sector, we're asking them to perform it.
Ms Martel: But I'm just asking if you don't see the contradiction. You've spent most of your time -- and you're supposed to do this -- talking about administrative efficiencies, except that this is actually a contradiction of that. Right now the money comes directly into government. What you're going to do instead is have people send the money to the trustee and then the trustee is going to remit to government. As I see it, that's an extra step which is completely unnecessary from what the process is now, unless my understanding of the current process is all wrong.
Mr Klees: Let me ask Mr Pichette to make a comment on that.
Mr Pichette: Currently, right now, all fees will go to the trustee and all permittees would effectively then have to write out two separate cheques: one to the trustee for the fees and the other one to the crown for the royalties. We figure there is far less confusion for the permittees out there if they write one cheque to the trustee that includes the royalties and the fees. The trustee is then accountable to remit those royalties to the crown in one lump sum, rather than us having a multitude of offices collecting them. That's where the efficiencies are introduced.
Mr Klees: The crown will be receiving only one cheque from the trust as opposed to having to process numerous cheques from across the province.
Mr Michael Brown: Will the trust be in the position of verifying the royalty payments? Are you also changing that administrative responsibility? Obviously that's based on quantity. Is it the position that now the MNR staff will verify quantities, or is it the trust?
Mr Klees: The trust will have the responsibility to ensure that the appropriate royalties are collected. The confirmation for that is through the compliance reports, where the actual follow-up on that will take place. Again, it's all within the context of the one form, the one administrative step.
The Chair: With that explanation, all those in favour of this particular amendment? Opposed? The amendment carries.
Shall section 42, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 42, as amended, carries.
I see no amendments to sections 43 and 44. Shall sections 43 and 44 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Sections 43 and 44 carry.
We have a Liberal amendment to deal with adding a new section.
Mr Michael Brown: It's not going to be placed.
The Chair: That amendment is withdrawn.
On section 45 we have two amendments, the same, one by the Liberals and one by the New Democrats. The New Democrats' motion was submitted first, so we will deal with it.
Ms Martel: I move that subsection 50(1) of the Aggregate Resources Act, as set out in section 45 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Rehabilitation security payments
"(1) If requested by the trustee of the Aggregate Resources Trust, the minister may require licensees to permittees to make rehabilitation security payments in the prescribed amounts and within the prescribed times."
The purpose for the amendment is to make it clear that it is the trustee who also has some obligation or responsibility or authority to advise the minister when additional payments should be made. As I understand other sections of the act right now, the minister makes a determination when additional funds might be necessary or due from licensees and permittees, but it isn't the minister who's overseeing the trust. Our change makes it clear that the trustee should also have some responsibility to inform/advise the minister when payments are required.
Mr Klees: We view this as effectively undermining the Lieutenant Governor in Council's power to set the fees. We have no problem with the trustee making recommendations regarding fees. We expect that would happen, but we don't believe it's something that is necessary to incorporate into the legislation. We do not see the trustee as the overarching authority. We do see that the trustee has administrative responsibilities. They do have responsibility to make recommendations, but the authority for setting the fees we believe must be retained by the crown. We will not be supporting this amendment.
Mr Michael Brown: As we have the identical amendment, I think what Mr Klees just said makes the case. It seems to me, having been around this place for nine or 10 years, or whatever it is now, the concern is that the trust be administered in an actuarial way, in a way that is businesslike and forthright, and that a trustee bears the responsibility of the "administrative function." The introduction of the minister being in charge, if you might pardon me, introduces the political aspect of this. That is what concerns the public at large. The minister may be, for whatever reason, sympathetic to one side or the other. He may require either too large a payment or too small a payment for a completely political reason rather than an actuarial reason.
Given that these reports are to the Legislature, what happens with this trust is publicly accountable. It seems to me it only makes good sense to have the trustee independently determine these issues on the basis of sound business practice, not for any other kind of reason. I'm quite surprised that the parliamentary assistant would suggest that somehow the crown may always make the actuarially appropriate decision instead of a trustee.
1130
Mr Klees: You shouldn't be surprised, because I said that the minister would look to the trust for recommendations. However, as you so well know, the buck stops with the minister on these things. The minister may well feel that it's prudent, regardless of what the trust instructs, to collect additional fees to ensure that the resources are there to perform whatever obligations the trust has. What you have here in this amendment effectively binds or precludes the minister from taking that prudent action. We don't feel it's appropriate to tie the minister's hands in that regard. What we're really achieving here by allowing the flexibility is exactly the kind of prudent thinking you're suggesting needs to take place in this place.
Mr Michael Brown: You're suggesting that the minister may decide to ask for additional funds. The minister also could ask, depending on who the minister is, for less funding for the particular trust; it works both ways. The minister could make the decision both ways, and it seems to me that it's probably an inappropriate interference in the operation of a trust fund, one of the bases of which will be to be actuarially sound.
We hate to say it, but we've seen governments over the years play all kinds of games with trusts, with accounting methods, with all sorts of things. We're all aware of that. I would be most pleased with the business decision on this issue as something that the Provincial Auditor would probably support. Why the minister needs to interfere in this is beyond me.
Mr Klees: We prefer to refer to this as discretion in the public interest.
Mr Michael Brown: I know you do.
Ms Martel: My argument's just a little bit different from Mr Brown's. I understood the parliamentary assistant to say this somehow usurps the power of the Lieutenant Governor. I don't think so. If you read it again, very clearly what we're saying is that the minister may request. It doesn't say "shall." What we're saying, though, is that as the trust is set up under this legislation, it will assume all the administrative functions. I suspect there may come a time where they will determine that more funding is needed to deal with any of those pits and quarries that have been abandoned.
What I was attempting to do in moving the amendment was to say that at that point where the trustee who is assuming responsibility for this fund under this act determines that payments have to be made, that trustee, or the board of directors, however it ends up being formed, can and should make a recommendation to the minister that the minister then increase the fees or ask for new fees from a whole set of new permittees and licensees. The minister still continues to have the power by regulation to do that. We're not suggesting that the trustee assume that power. What we're saying, though, is that the overseer of the funds on a day-to-day basis is the trustee. Then surely the trustee should have some responsibility to make recommendations, to give direction to the minister, to say: "The funding is low at this point in time. You better recommend some more."
Mr Klees: That will be one of the responsibilities of the trustee that will be clearly spelled out in the trust agreement.
The Chair: Any further discussion on this amendment? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.
Shall section 45, as amended, carry?
Interjection.
The Chair: Wait a minute now. Hang on a second. There's some confusion on the question here.
Mr Klees: What was the question?
The Chair: The question is, shall --
Ms Martel: It just got carried, I think.
The Chair: The question was it would be wise to pay attention.
Mr John L. Parker (York East): Could we have a recorded vote on that one?
Mr Michael Brown: Too late.
The Chair: I ask for all-party consent to re-ask the question. Agreed. Thank you very much. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall section 45 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 45 is carried.
I see no amendments to section 46. Shall section 46 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Mr Klees: I'd like to address an oversight again that was brought to our attention by legislative counsel. It has to do with the fact that now that the trust has been given responsibility for rehabilitation, there's a section of the act now that is redundant and would conflict. As a result, I would like to move an amendment that addresses that issue.
I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"46.1 Section 56 of the act is repealed."
The explanation for that, as I indicated, is that in light of the fact that the trust now has been assigned the various responsibilities that are laid out in section 56, it really is a redundancy.
The Chair: Any discussion on that? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 46.1 is carried.
I see no amendments to sections 47 and 48. Shall sections 47 and 48 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Sections 47 and 48 are carried.
Section 49: Mr Klees, an amendment.
Mr Klees: I withdraw this motion.
The Chair: The amendment to section 49 is withdrawn. Shall section 49 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 49 is carried.
I see no amendments to sections 50 and 51.
Ms Martel: May I just make a point to the parliamentary assistant with respect to section 50? This repeals section 8 of the act, which was the section that laid out notification processes in unorganized territories for people who wanted to be advised of applications. As I said on numerous occasions during the hearings, I fundamentally disagree that this notification should be taken out of the act and now put into regulation. We have seen that again and again in this bill, and I really think that notification, whether it be to people living in unorganized communities or to affected municipalities, should stay and have the force of law in the act. Since we haven't seen the regs, we don't know what the notification process is going to look like. I really strongly disagree with the move by the government in that regard.
The Chair: Shall sections 50 and 51 carry?
Mr Michael Brown: I have a question to ask about section 51. Can we deal just with section 50, get section 50 passed?
The Chair: Shall section 50 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 50 is carried.
Section 51: Mr Brown.
Mr Michael Brown: I just wonder what the reason for using regular letter mail as opposed to registered mail would be.
Mr Klees: It's a function of cost.
Mr Michael Brown: But what assurance do you have that the letter was actually delivered if you use regular mail?
1140
Mr Klees: Mr Brown, are you calling into question the efficiency of the --
Mr Michael Brown: Yes.
Mr Klees: Are you?
Mr Michael Brown: I'm not actually calling into question -- I'm talking about the efficiency of being assured that the person or the company actually received it.
Mr Klees: I think the requirement for notification is very clear. The expectation that notification be made, even in the existing act -- let me just read something that may shed some light on this for you. This is subsection 64(2):
"Service made by registered mail shall be deemed to be made on the fifth day after the day of mailing unless the person on whom service is being made establishes that the person did not, acting in good faith, and for cause beyond that person's control, receive the notice until a later date."
I think what we're saying here is that notification has to be made. The discretion is up to the individual as to whether it shall be made by registered mail or by regular mail. It's a function of compliance. We fully expect that these people will comply with that notification. To impose the additional cost of registered mail we feel is unnecessary.
Ms Martel: Two things: It's a cost that most of them bear now, and I find it interesting that even in the submission that was made by the aggregate producers, who are probably the group most affected by this provision, they clearly stated that the current provisions in the act should remain; ie, the use of registered mail. I don't understand, when the producers themselves have made it clear to this group that the provision should stay, why the government then would feel it is necessary to take it out. It is a cost that they bear now, and I think for them it is an added protection when they are going about doing their business to know that changes and proper notification are going to take place. Where is this coming from, this need to do that? It's certainly not coming from the producers themselves.
Mr Klees: There's the issue of efficiency of cost. What we're trying to do here is to streamline this to the degree that it could be.
There's another factor. It's a practical issue, and I haven't discussed this with staff, but registered mail doesn't necessarily assure that the individual receives the notification. Registered mail may or may not be accepted for delivery. The point we're trying to make here is that notification must be given. We're placing that responsibility on the individual to do the notification. Sometimes the whole issue of registered mail can be used in a negative way. If someone refuses to receive it, they can say, "I didn't receive it." I think to simply rely on notification in the natural course of events would be to the benefit of the system.
Ms Martel: They might refuse to receive it, but there still would be a record of it having been sent and that whoever was responsible for undertaking the notification did carry out their obligation. That's the difference. When you've got it in regular mail, you just don't have those kinds of traces put on things, or that kind of proof. I just don't understand why the government is moving when the association itself said to us: "Keep that particular section of the act in place. It's a protection for us." I don't see what's drawing the government to move from that position now, because it's not coming from them. So I don't know who is recommending that change.
The Chair: Basically we haven't got an amendment on the floor here. If nobody's prepared to put forward an amendment, I think I'll call the question on this section.
Ms Martel: We have to vote against it.
Mr Michael Brown: We could vote against it. We have the ability to speak to any clause we wish here. I find this reasonably incomprehensible. It just doesn't make any sense. I know, and probably we all know, the regular mail comes in, we get the letter from Ed McMahon and we get the letter from Mike Harris, and a lot of it ends up on the fridge. The other part of having registered mail is that it brings it directly to the attention of the people who are getting it that this is something out of the ordinary. With the amount of often surplus mail we get, I think everybody wants to --
Mr Klees: Let me just say this, Mr Brown: If you feel so strongly about this, would you care to introduce an amendment? We'll hear it, we'll vote on it and we'll see how the vote comes out.
Mr Michael Brown: All we have to do is vote against it.
Ms Martel: We looked at moving an amendment but we were advised by legislative counsel that we have to vote against this section, because what we want to do is revert to the wording that's in the current act. That's why we didn't place an amendment to this section.
Mr Michael Brown: That's why I asked.
Mr Klees: Let's call the vote on it.
The Chair: Shall section 51 carry?
Mr Michael Brown: Recorded vote.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Ayes
Danford, Flaherty, Maves, Parker, Ross, Young.
The Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Brown, Klees, Martel, Stewart.
The Chair: Section 51 is carried.
Section 52. Mr Klees, you --
Mr Michael Brown: Point of order, Mr Chair: I ask unanimous consent to reopen that. Could we have unanimous consent? I think people were perhaps confused.
Interjections.
The Chair: I don't see unanimous consent.
Ms Martel: I thought we gave you one. Five minutes ago we gave you guys a break on this.
Mr Klees: Mr Chair, I'm willing to give unanimous consent to doing this vote again.
The Chair: Pardon, Mr Klees? I didn't understand what you said.
Mr Klees: I think there was some confusion perhaps on the part of some members of the committee as to what the question was. Certainly I'm prepared to offer unanimous consent to do this vote again on this section.
The Chair: Ms Martel?
Ms Martel: Yes.
Mr Michael Brown: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay. Shall section 51 carry?
Mr Michael Brown: Recorded vote.
The Chair: Are you calling for a recorded vote again, Mr Brown?
Mr Michael Brown: Yes.
The Chair: All those in favour of section 51 carrying?
Ayes
Flaherty, Maves, Parker.
The Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Brown, Klees, Martel, Ross, Stewart, Young.
The Chair: Section 51 does not carry.
Mr Klees: I move that section 52 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(0.1) Subsections 66(1) and (2) of the act are repealed and the following substituted:
"Act overrides municipal bylaws, etc
"(1) In the event of a conflict, this act, the regulations, the conditions of a licence and a site plan prevail over any municipal bylaw, official plan or development agreement.
"Application
"(2) Subsection (1) applies even if the bylaw, official plan or development agreement came into effect before the coming into force of section 52 of the Aggregate and Petroleum Resources Statute Law Amendment Act, 1996."
Current provisions of section 66 provide for an override. This clarifies the original intent.
Ms Martel: Let me just be clear. We're giving the government the opportunity to override a municipal official plan. Is that correct?
The Chair: Yes, section 52, subsections 66(1) and (2).
Ms Martel: Can I ask then why the government was not prepared to override what may be changes that had not occurred to an official plan in an earlier section? I moved an amendment from the regional municipality of Niagara with respect to -- sorry, Mr Chair. I'm just trying to find it. Under section 10, I moved an amendment which raised a concern from the municipalities that they didn't want aggregate extraction to be permitted in appropriate areas not envisioned in the official plan. The government said at that time it wasn't their view that they were going to get involved in the official plan process or override it. Can you explain to me what the change is here where it now becomes necessary to do so?
Mr Klees: That is at the licensing stage. What we're addressing here is that where there is a conflict between the provincial legislation and the prevailing municipal bylaw, official plan or development plan, it is the provincial legislation that prevails.
1150
Ms Martel: Can you just give an example so I know how this works on the ground?
Mr Pichette: I'm trying to think of a good example here: where a municipal bylaw comes in and changes the setbacks that were established through the licence and that are currently a condition on the licence or on the site plan.
Ms Martel: Do you mean it minimizes the setbacks?
Mr Pichette: It might expand the setback. In other words, let's say the setback's 100 metres and it expands it to 300 metres. In this case there would be a conflict if there's a licence that says 100 metres and a municipal bylaw that says 300 metres. The licence condition, because it's under provincial legislation, would prevail. That's the way it is right now.
Ms Martel: What does a municipality do in the event it disagrees with that? Do they have a right to appeal?
Mr Pichette: The municipality is very much a part of the licensing process in establishing the setbacks through the process of licensing, through their comments, and there are also some standards that identify minimum setbacks.
The Chair: Any further discussion on this amendment? Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.
Mr Klees: I move that subsection 66(6) of the Aggregate Resources Act, as set out in section 52 of the bill, be amended by striking out "section 50" in the third line and substituting "section 52."
Effectively, this is a correction to a typing error that took place in the original drafting.
The Chair: All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.
Ms Martel: I move that section 52 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection to section 66 of the Aggregate Resources Act:
"Exception
"(7) Despite subsections (1) and (5), a development agreement or development permit prevails over this act and the regulations to the extent that it requires a licensee or permittee to take action, including the upgrading of haulage roads, to reduce the impact of aggregate extraction."
The purpose of the amendment was to allow municipalities to enter into agreements with licensees on issues that related to extraction in their own municipality. As I understand it, the proposed act places some really strict limitations on their ability to do so, and what I'm trying to get in place is that the municipality will be in a position and will have a legal right to make some agreements with the operator, be it for increased aggregate for those municipal roads that are going to be used by a company, which will then experience a lot of wear and tear and which they might not have enough money to do maintenance on. So it's to allow side agreements, which would not be part of the licensing process at this point any more, to still occur and have some force and to allow the municipality to have some remedial action, particularly on those municipal roads that are going to be used by the operator.
Mr Klees: I think they have the right to do that now. The reason we couldn't agree to this amendment is that it effectively would make the entire bill redundant in terms of the role of the municipality. We feel we cannot have the municipal position in conflict with the ministry and with this act. So we just could not support this.
Ms Martel: I'm not clear on why it goes the length you say it does. The intent is not to undermine provincial regulation; the intent is to allow the municipality to have an arrangement with the operator which would allow it to do work in a municipality, particularly on roads that will be used by the operator through his task of carrying out his operation.
We heard complaints that funding is not what it used to be so municipalities are having difficult times maintaining what are public roadways that are being heavily used by operators. The intent of the amendment was to make sure that if they wanted to, they would have some right to come to an arrangement that might be separate from any arrangement they had with the government around some remedial or some compensation for those situations.
Mr Michael Brown: I agree with the intent of what Ms Martel's trying to do here. There is a growing problem, and I think the government should be aware of this, in my part of the world anyway, with the combination of lack of funding for providing roads and the need to extract various minerals and/or forest products in the area and the impact that has on townships.
I'm not sure that this actually does what we need it to do, but I want to indicate to the parliamentary assistant that his government needs to have a very careful look at what happens in these rural townships that are affected by resource extraction and harvesting, whether it be aggregates, minerals or forest products. It is quite complex and if you are going to continue to withdraw funding to these municipalities, we could get ourselves into a position where resource extraction will not take place because of municipal decisions about their roads that preclude it. I have seen municipalities put on axle limits which just absolutely preclude the extraction of resources, which has got to be counter-productive to the provincial interest and certainly to the interest of the wider area, but you can perfectly understand why particular municipalities would take this notion.
As you withdraw funding in transportation for roads, you're going to have to address the issue Ms Martel is attempting to have addressed here. I don't think it would quite work the way it's being proposed, but the intent of what she's doing needs to be addressed by the Minister of Northern Development, by the Minister of Transportation and certainly by your ministry.
Mr Klees: I appreciate the comments that were made and I just want to reassert that the right for municipalities to enter into agreements now exists and nothing in this bill precludes them from doing that, as long as it's not in conflict with the prevailing provincial regulations or conditions of the existing plan -- the site plan and the conditions that relate to the site.
Mr Michael Brown: That's interesting, but you should read Bill 26 and what it precludes municipalities from charging for in this situation. There's actually a section, and I don't have Bill 26 in front of me today, which says pretty clearly that you cannot do this, particularly if it isn't within your municipality that the resource is either harvested or extracted from. In my part of the world, that affects a lot of land and a lot of municipal roads. I just want to tell you that this is a big problem and it's going to shut down, perhaps, forest industries and aggregate extraction if somebody doesn't grab the bull by the horns and go out there and find a solution that will work.
Ms Martel: I really want to say to the parliamentary assistant that your view of what is permissible is different from the municipalities. I took the amendment from the brief from the region of Niagara, which expressed a concern about what they thought their ability was going to be to enter into these arrangements, and clearly in their brief they felt they would not be permitted to enter into side agreements or private agreements. I don't know how you get around their reading of that and whether that's a message that's been sent to other municipalities as well. But it came directly from their brief.
Mr Klees: We'll have a look at that and certainly we'll do our utmost to clarify where there may be some misunderstanding.
Mr Stewart: Is that not part of the site plan agreement? In the municipality I represent, we would include haul routes, times of operation, any type of maintenance. It was automatically in the site plan agreement. Is that not permissible? It is, is it not?
Mr Klees: Yes.
Mr Stewart: So that addresses it, does it not?
Mr Klees: It's the point I was making, that it's certainly appropriate and the authority is there now to enter into those agreements, to set those conditions out clearly as long as it's not in conflict ultimately with the provincial interest. I may have Mr Pichette comment.
Mr Pichette: It's through the process with the municipalities. Things like haul routes and setbacks are all part and parcel to the decisions that have to be made. That will most of the time find its way on to the site plan. These are very separate agreements outside of that process that we're speaking to, and that is development permits that might have something totally unrelated but might impinge on the proper operations of what's on that site plan. Hence, the previous motion made it very clear that if there was a conflict, the site plan would prevail, but if there's not a conflict, then certainly there's no problem with having a development permit that is a side agreement.
Mr Stewart: I thought that. Thank you.
The Chair: Shall this amendment carry? All those in favour of this amendment? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.
Shall section 52, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 52, as amended, carries.
It now being 12 o'clock and time to go to the House for a vote, we will recess until --
Mr Michael Brown: Mr Chair, I will be unable to be here this afternoon. My place will be capably taken by Mario Sergio. I must be at a very important meeting in the fine municipality of Rutherford and George, which is better known as Killarney, this evening at 6 o'clock. That's where I will be.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Brown. We will try to get this process finished in your absence. We've recessed until 3:30 this afternoon.
The committee recessed from 1202 to 1531.
The Chair: We're continuing with our clause-by-clause discussion of Bill 52. Mr Klees, do you have an amendment to section 53?
Mr Klees: I move that clause 67(f.5) of the Aggregate Resources Act, as set out in subsection 53(1) of the bill, be amended by striking out "wayside permit fees and annual permit fees" in the fifth, sixth and seventh lines and substituting "wayside permit fees, annual permit fees and royalties."
This relates to the matter we were discussing earlier about the fact that we also want to empower the trust to collect the royalties in addition to the other fees. This clarifies that.
The Chair: Any further discussion on that? All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.
Mr Sergio, a Liberal amendment to section 53.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I should say that my colleague Mr Brown, prior to his leaving, indicated that we have no more amendments. I suppose he was saying to withdraw it, if I understand it right.
The Chair: Okay, that Liberal amendment is withdrawn.
Shall section 53, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Section 53, as amended, carries.
I see no amendments to sections 54 through 61. Shall sections 54 through 61 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Sections 54 through 61 are carried.
Mr Klees: I move that clause 7.0.1(b) of the Petroleum Resources Act, as set out in section 62 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(b) any activity relating to the well has been suspended."
This amendment will provide more latitude for the inspectors. Currently, there are basically two circumstances under which an inspector can order the plugging of a well, one being environmental hazards, the other if the well has been in suspension for 12 months.
This is impractical in the sense that there are many reasons a well may be under suspension and not necessarily related to environmental issues. We wanted to ensure that there was more latitude to allow the inspector's discretion in terms of ordering the plugging of a well.
The Chair: Any questions? All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment carries.
Mr Klees: I move that subsection 7.0.2(6) of the Petroleum Resources Act, as set out in section 62 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Operation of order pending appeal
"(6) Subject to subsection (6.1), the bringing of the appeal does not affect the operation of the decision or order appealed from pending disposition of the appeal."
"Same; orders under clause 7.0.1(b)
"(6.1) The bringing of an appeal stays a decision or order made under clause 7.0.1(b) pending disposition of the appeal.
"Current provision
"7.0.2(1) Any person who considers himself, herself or itself aggrieved by a decision or order of an inspector made under section 7 or 7.0.1 may appeal to the minister within 30 days after the decision" --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Klees, that's a little different from what I have filed. The first part down to "same, (6.1)" was identical, but then you've added some things that are not in what we have.
Mr Klees: Please give us a minute to check with staff.
In that case, we're prepared to go with the motion as it was filed with you. I suppose I would just ask you to delete from the record, then, beginning with "Current provision."
The Chair: Okay, that's fine. Is there discussion on that?
Mr Klees: The purpose for this is that operators may require the opportunity to defend a suspended status of a well where there are legitimate reasons, which may well be economic or other circumstances other than for cause relating to environmental issues. We felt it was important to provide that opportunity for appeal.
Ms Martel: Is there a time line or a time frame around -- is there a current practice that the ministry wants to refer back to?
Mr Klees: I'll just defer to staff on this, if I might. The amendment the way I have it makes reference to that. I'll ask staff to address that.
Mr Pichette: The way the appeal is identified right now is that it must be heard promptly. It is intended to be a very efficient and quick appeal.
Ms Martel: Is it that what's in the act now is going to remain in the act?
Mr Pichette: Yes.
Mr Klees: Subsection 7.0.2(1) reads as follows:
"7.0.2(1) Any person who considers himself, herself or itself aggrieved by a decision or order of an inspector made under section 7 or 7.0.1 may appeal to the minister within 30 days after the decision or order is made."
There is a 30-day reference in the act now.
Ms Martel: But this is the part that doesn't appear on the amendment. Are you going to move that too, in addition to the two portions above that we currently have as the proposed amendment?
Mr Klees: That's already in the act and it'll stay in the act. The next section reads, "The appeal shall be heard and disposed of promptly by the minister's designee," and that remains in the act.
Ms Martel: I'm confused. If the time line already appears in the act, why were you proposing to move it in an amendment then?
Mr Klees: I guess that's why you didn't have it. It was originally in mine.
Ms Martel: Yes, because it's appearing in the book.
Mr Klees: Precisely.
Ms Martel: All right. I understand the problem now.
Mr Klees: They obviously caught it between the time of filing it with the clerk and now.
The Chair: All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment carries.
Shall section 62, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 62, as amended, carries.
Shall section 63 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 63 carries.
1540
Mr Klees: I move that subsection 10.1(1) of the Petroleum Resources Act, as set out in section 64 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Transfer of well licence
"(1) No person shall transfer a licence relating to a well without the minister's written consent."
The rationale for this amendment is that it's a common occurrence within the petroleum industry for well ownership to be divided among a number of parties in different percentages. This allows us to deal with the complexity that would be inherent in the ministry having the responsibility for tracking ownership. It's really for the purpose of bringing some administrative clarity to this exercise.
Mr Sergio: When we say "the minister's written consent," would that imply any other person assigned by the minister on his behalf? Does that imply strictly the minister's written consent, or can he delegate authority to somebody else?
Mr Klees: Certainly the minister can delegate that authority. However, whoever the minister's designate is must be given that written consent. It must be on record as having been addressed to the minister.
Mr Sergio: I take it that the answer is yes. Is that assignment in the act now or should it be added to this clause here? If the minister can assign the authority, shall we have it in here or is it already in the act?
Mr Klees: I think it's already inherent. It's in the ministry act, staff advises me.
Mr Sergio: Okay. It's watertight the way I see it here, "the minister's written consent."
The Chair: Any further discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment's carried.
Mr Klees: I move that subsection 10.1(4) of the Petroleum Resources Act, as set out in section 64 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Plugging by previous licensee
"(4) If, at any time after a licence relating to a well is transferred, an order to plug the well is made under section 7.0.1 but is not complied with, an inspector may require a previous licensee to plug the well at the previous licensee's expense."
This relates to my comments earlier about how the ownership of these wells is held and that often it's difficult to track ownership, so we wanted to focus on being able to refer to the licensee and obligate the licensee of the well to comply.
The Chair: Any questions? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment's carried.
Shall section 64, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 64, as amended, is carried.
I see no amendments to sections 65 and 66. Shall those two sections carry? All in favour? Any opposed? Sections 65 and 66 are carried.
Mr Klees: I move that subsection 16(1) of the Petroleum Resources Act, as set out in section 67 of the bill, be amended by striking out "may" in the first line and substituting "shall."
You may recall that this was an item that was brought forward by the opposition to which we agreed. We felt it only appropriate to extend the same amendment to this component of the act.
The Chair: Any comment?
Mr Klees: I'd just be appreciative if Ms Martel would vote with us on this one, seeing as she hasn't done too much of that today.
The Chair: All those in favour? Opposed? There was unanimous support for that amendment. The amendment's carried.
Mr Klees: I move that subsection 16(3) of the Petroleum Resources Act, as set out in section 67 of the bill, be amended by striking out "may" in the first line and substituting "shall."
Ms Martel: So I might be consistent, in the earlier version under the aggregates act I moved an amendment that said the person would be an employee of the crown. I would say here that in the same manner I'll vote against this particular section because I do believe that these functions should remain within the ministry, as they do under the Mining Act.
The Chair: All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is carried.
Shall section 67, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 67, as amended, is carried.
There are no amendments to sections 68 through sections 75. Shall sections 68 through section 75 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Sections 68 through section 75 are carried.
Mr Klees, you have a new section to propose?
Mr Klees: I do. I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Transition; orders under Ontario Energy Board Act
"75.1 The Mining and Lands Commissioner appointed under the Ministry of Natural Resources Act may give any approval required by an order that was made under clause 24(b) or (c) of the Ontario Energy Board Act before subsection 72(3) of this act came into force."
Bill 52 transfers the jurisdiction of compulsory pooling, as we've had discussion previously, and unitization from the Ontario Energy Board to the Mining and Lands Commissioner. The transition that we're proposing to facilitate here is required to provide for an orderly transition of the cases that would be heard before the Mining and Lands Commissioner from the current practice.
The Chair: Any questions or comment? Shall new section 75.1 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 75.1 is carried.
There are no amendments to sections 76 and 77. Shall section 76 and section 77 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 76 and section 77 are carried.
Shall the title carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The title is carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The bill, as amended, is carried.
Shall I report Bill 52, An Act to promote resource development, conservation and environmental protection through the streamlining of regulatory processes and the enhancement of compliance measures in the Aggregate and Petroleum Industries, as amended, to the House? All those in favour? Opposed? That's carried.
Mr Klees: Mr Chair, could I just take one minute and get clarification? The committee will remember that there was some discussion following the minister's appearance before the committee about the designation of other areas of the province under the act. I undertook at that time that there would be consultation around that subject, and certainly we're interested in getting the members' input. Particularly I'd like to ask Ms Martel if she feels it would be appropriate specifically for some of the areas that she represents to be seriously considered for designation. Have you had any input at this point, just in the interest of getting some of our discussions moving forward?
Ms Martel: I'm certainly interested in seeing what can happen in Sudbury. As Marcel Ethier made clear, there is quite a distinction between those who operate immediately adjacent to one another, one inside a designated area and the other outside. I can't speak for the Sault and Thunder Bay because they're not, obviously, within my riding, so I don't know what the level of problems there are. I do know, though, that the northern producers particularly wanted those areas to be looked at, because they are sensitive in terms of people competing directly against each other.
If the ministry could look at at least those three communities where there seem to be the more serious problems and the more immediate problems, I would certainly be happy with that. I have not had any consultation, though, with the northern producers with respect to the undertaking that the minister and you gave last week.
Mr Klees: But with regard to Sudbury specifically, you would be in support of designating those areas?
Ms Martel: I think we have to do that.
Mr Klees: Mr Chair, I'd like to thank members of the committee for their support. It's been a most interesting process. I also particularly want to thank Ms Martel for her positive vote today.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Klees, and thanks to the members of the committee for your cooperation in allowing us to do our job. The committee is adjourned until Thursday morning at 10 o'clock, at which time we will revert back to clause-by-clause discussion of Bill 53, a private member's bill of Mr Gilchrist's, with a title something like "disclosure of financial status of unions and employer associations."
Mr Klees: I would be remiss if I didn't thank staff for their support throughout this process.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Klees. We stand adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1550.