CONTENTS
Tuesday 8 October 1996
Environmental Assessment and Consultation Improvement Act, 1996, Bill 76, Mrs Elliott /
Loi de 1996 améliorant le processus d'évaluation environnementale
et de consultation publique, projet de loi 76, Mme Elliott
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Président: Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)
Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside ND)
Hon JanetEcker (Durham West / -Ouest PC)
Mr JohnGerretsen (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)
Mr MichaelGravelle (Port Arthur L)
Mrs HelenJohns (Huron PC)
*Mr W. LeoJordan (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Mr GerardKennedy (York South / -Sud L)
Ms FrancesLankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)
Mrs JuliaMunro (Durham-York PC)
Mr DanNewman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
*Mr RichardPatten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
*Mr TrevorPettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)
*Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
*Mr BruceSmith (Middlesex PC)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr BudWildman (Algoma ND) for Mr Cooke
Mr GaryFox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings /
Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC) for Hon Janet Ecker
Mr Jean-MarcLalonde (Prescott and Russell / Prescott et Russell L) for Mr Gravelle
Mr DougGalt (Northumberland PC) for Mrs Johns
Mr DavidRamsay (Timiskaming L) for Mr Kennedy
Ms ShelleyMartel (Sudbury East / -Est ND) for Ms Lankin
Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC) for Mrs Munro
Mrs LillianRoss (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC) for Mr Newman
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mr LeoFitzPatrick, counsel, legal services branch, MOEE
Mr JimJackson, director, legal services branch, MOEE
Mr ChuckPautler, director, environmental assessment branch, MOEE
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Lynn Mellor
Staff / Personnel: Ms Laura Hopkins, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1546 in room 151.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONSULTATION IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 AMÉLIORANT LE PROCESSUS D'ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE ET DE CONSULTATION PUBLIQUE
Consideration of Bill 76, An Act to improve environmental protection, increase accountability and enshrine public consultation in the Environmental Assessment Act / Projet de loi 76, Loi visant à améliorer la protection de l'environnement, à accroître l'obligation de rendre des comptes et à intégrer la consultation publique à la Loi sur les évaluations environnementales.
The Chair (Mr Richard Patten): Everyone's received the new package of what is remaining. I'll reconvene the meeting for clause-by-clause on Bill 76. Mr Wildman, you had a point to make. Let me, first of all, welcome Ms Martel to the committee, and Mr Ramsay as well.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Thank you, Chair. I recognize obviously that I have not been a party to the discussions of this committee, so I will put that forward in preface to what I have to say.
I am most concerned that what has been a tradition around this place for as long as I can remember apparently has not been followed with regard to the clause-by-clause consideration of this committee, that is, when a critic from one of the opposition parties cannot be present, just as when a representative of the government cannot be present, it is traditional that the absence of that individual is accommodated by the committee.
My colleague the member for Riverdale, who is the environment and energy critic for our caucus, understood that this committee was going to complete its work yesterday and, with that understanding, she had made some time ago another commitment to be absent from the Legislature today.
I understand that the committee had a great deal of work to do on clause-by-clause with a number of motions, a number of which I would point out are government motions for amendments, and the committee worked as diligently, I guess, as it could yesterday. But certainly I don't think anyone could argue, from my review of the situation, that anyone -- NDP, Liberal or Conservative -- was prolonging the debate.
We didn't complete it and now we are in a situation where the committee apparently, even though they were informed of my colleague's conflict and inability to be here, voted to continue the clause-by-clause debate, even though the NDP critic could not be present, and I find that a most unfortunate transgression of the traditions of this place.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Mr Chair, may I speak to that? There were attempts made to accommodate your colleague and dates could not be found that coincided with anything that was available. It was as a last resort that we said: "We can't accommodate. Let's carry on."
Mr Wildman: Obviously the committee has made a decision. I just wanted to register my protest for that. I mean, if it meant waiting till next week, you could have waited till next week, in my view.
The Chair: Further comments? Thank you, Mr Wildman. Are we prepared to continue with clause-by-clause?
The first item on your revised package actually has to be dealt with after we deal with section 31.1. If we proceed to the second page, which is section 3, clause 12.2(2)(d) of the Environmental Assessment Act, that's a government motion. Dr Galt, would you commence with that motion, please?
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I move that subsection 12.2(1) of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:
"(d) establish a reserve fund or another financing mechanism in connection with an undertaking."
This provision allows municipalities to establish reserve funds prior to receiving approvals for an undertaking as requested by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. It's really all about planning ahead and giving them that opportunity.
The Chair: No debate? All right. I will call --
Mr Wildman: What is the reason for this?
Mr Galt: As I understand, municipalities are not in a position to develop a reserve fund unless there's a specific reason and this would give them the specific reason so that they could start planning for such an undertaking well in advance rather than waiting until it's approved and then trying to find the funds for it.
Mr Wildman: What happens if it's not approved?
Mr Galt: Then they have a few extra dollars in their coffers.
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I thought a municipality already had power to create reserve funds for such a project or the purchase of capital equipment.
Mr Galt: Maybe I can refer to Mr FitzPatrick.
Mr Leo FitzPatrick: I'm sure the municipality has those powers itself. However, under a strict reading of the Environmental Assessment Act, establishing that fund as part of an undertaking before they get approval would be illegal. This takes away any chance of that illegality.
Mr Lalonde: What do you call the fund that is created by development charges at the present time? It is divided according to the needs that there are going to be within the municipality. There's so much going for infrastructure for sewage services, so much going for the water filtration plant, so much for roads and fire services. It is in place at the present time. Every municipality had to pass a bylaw for that.
Mr FitzPatrick: The only problem would be if a particular fund were earmarked for a defined project before that project had been approved. There really isn't a problem with a general fund or with a fund that would be earmarked for a project subject to approval under this act. We tried to explain that to the municipalities, but they preferred to have it clear in black and white.
Mr Lalonde: My last comment on this: I'm not against it, but I thought it was already in place.
The Chair: As the Liberal mayor of a municipality --
Mr Lalonde: We had it going for years.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Maybe we should go back and look in the books.
The Chair: Any other comments? Debate? Mr Wildman.
Mr Wildman: Frankly, I agree with Mr Lalonde. The municipalities can establish general reserve funds. So if they have a reserve fund and then they want to withdraw moneys from that reserve fund for a specific project, they can do so, can they not?
Mr FitzPatrick: It's a question of establishing a fund for a specific project before the approval of the project. If they have a general fund, develop a project, get the approval and then withdraw money from a general fund, that would not be a problem.
Mr Wildman: So this is kind of redundant, isn't it?
Mr FitzPatrick: It is kind of redundant. If a municipality took some care in defining what the funds were for, they wouldn't have a problem, but as I said, they came to us asking for this specifically to take away all doubt.
Mr Galt: It's really an added clarification over and above what's already there. It re-emphasizes what they can do and earmarks it very specifically.
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I'm just looking at this section which refers to "Other Matters," and "proponent" is not defined as being the municipality unless that comes in a previous section that I haven't looked at. What if the proponent in this case is a private sector proponent? Wouldn't that whole section be null and void and not have any impact whatsoever? Can you clarify that "proponent" in this case does mean only the municipality?
Mr FitzPatrick: This is worded generally. It's really only of concern to municipalities. Private sector proponents are not automatically caught by the act until designated.
The Chair: Further debate? Ready for the question? All those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? No opposition. The motion is carried.
We have a Liberal and an NDP motion that are drafted with similar words. We've had a short tradition of going back and forth. Would you like to take this one, Mr Ramsay?
Mr Ramsay: I would like to address this motion and hope the government will accept this as I think it's fairly straightforward. I'm sorry, I'll move the amendment.
I move that section 12.2 of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Exception
"(1.1) Subsection (1) does not authorize a person to undertake site preparation, filling, grading, vegetation removal or other forms of site alteration or disruption related to the undertaking."
I would say to the government members that I hope they will support this in that it would ensure that no project was commenced in any way, in any physical sense, until the complete environmental assessment was accomplished and approved. I see it just as a safeguard so that no project would be commenced until we knew it had full environmental approval.
I'd like to ask the parliamentary assistant if he has any objection to this, and if he does, why.
Mr Galt: It's quite clear already in the bill, in 12.2(1)(b), "acquire property or rights in property in connection with the undertaking," and (c), "prepare a feasibility study and engage in research in connection with the undertaking." It's quite specific as to what they can do. They can go ahead and do some surveying and some testing and own the property, but the bill is quite clear in saying that's as far as they can go.
Mr Ramsay: But wouldn't this be a good safeguard as a prohibitive action so that at least we would be assured that this sort of action -- actually starting to physically deal with the environment, taking off subsurface soil and all the other areas of concern here, grading, filling, vegetation removal -- we would know for certain that a proponent would not be able to proceed unless the project had environmental approval? Wouldn't that be a good safeguard? If you feel the intent is there by what the act allows, then wouldn't it be wise to have the prohibition included in the act? Then we would nail that down tight. We would know that no disruptive work to the ground could occur before all approvals were in.
Mr Galt: As we understand it, as it's written in the bill it's quite clear that they can acquire, they can do survey work and testing and that kind of thing, but they cannot go any further. I believe it's quite clear in the bill what they're saying in their amendment.
Mr Wildman: I listened very carefully to the parliamentary assistant's argument in favour of the last government amendment, and he said it was to add more clarity. It wasn't really necessary because it was already clear in the bill, but just to give comfort to the municipalities, he wanted to make it extra clear. This is all we're doing here. We're doing exactly what the parliamentary assistant suggested in his argument in favour of his own amendment. So I would think he would be in favour of this amendment.
The Chair: Further debate? I'll put the question. Those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Another Liberal-NDP motion. Ms Martel, would you like to begin the introduction of the next motion, please.
1600
Ms Martel: I move that section 12.2 of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Effect of activities
"(7) The minister shall not consider any pre-approval activities when making a decision under section 10 and the board shall not consider such activities when making a decision under section 9 or 9.1.
"Restoration order
"(8) The minister may by order require a person who has altered the site of an undertaking in contravention of this act to restore it or rehabilitate the environment to its previous condition.
"Enforcement
"(9) A certified copy of an order made under subsection (8) may be filed with the Ontario Court (General Division) and thereupon it is enforceable as an order of that court."
The Chair: Any comment, Ms Martel?
Ms Martel: No, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Mr Ramsay, do you have any comment on that motion?
Mr Ramsay: Again I think it's put here as a safeguard so that if any pre-approved activities take place, there is a mechanism for the minister to issue a restoration order to rehabilitate the ground where the work was done. It's for clarity and to ensure that proponents don't get a jump on approval.
Mr Galt: I believe that this bill already stipulates that no person shall proceed with an undertaking before receiving an approval, therefore this motion really is unnecessary.
The Chair: Further debate? I'll put the question. Those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
A government motion.
Mr Galt: I move that subsection 12.4(1) of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Transition
"(1) This part, as it read immediately before the coming into force of section 3 of the Environmental Assessment and Consultation Improvement Act, 1996, continues to apply with respect to the following:
"1. An environmental assessment submitted before the coming into force of section 3 of that act.
"2. Subject to subsection (1.1), an environmental assessment submitted within one year after section 3 of that act comes into force.
"Election
"(1.1) A proponent who wishes the predecessor part to apply shall notify the ministry in writing when submitting the environmental assessment."
A number of deputants suggested that the transition provisions of the bill needed more flexibility. A new transition provision is being added whereby within one year of the act coming into effect a proponent can elect to follow either the old or the new process.
The Chair: Debate? I'll put the question. Those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is carried.
A similar Liberal-NDP motion, Mr Ramsay.
Mr Ramsay: I move that part II.1 of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be struck out.
While many environmental experts support the concept of class environmental assessments, there is a concern that the process under this bill will fail to limit these class reviews to projects that are sufficiently limited in nature. For example, it would not be appropriate to have one class environmental assessment which would cover the construction of all future landfills in the province. Major landfill projects should undergo individual assessments. We're concerned that what you have here could, for instance, allow class EAs for something as potentially dangerous as landfill sites.
Ms Martel: If I might follow up, the issues of landfill sites are very controversial ones. Most of us have had experience with that in our own backyards, to coin a phrase, and it would seem to me that the government would be wise to clarify that local situations will still have to go through a local process and that you cannot have a blanket provision, such as you would have with a class EA, of any sort in this case with respect to landfill sites. That might very much undermine the local process that I feel people have to go through, very much so, just to be sure that local people have the opportunity to have input into the decisions that are going to affect them and their community. They wouldn't have that kind of process, nor that kind of input, in a class EA system.
Mr Galt: Certainly the new part II.1 has been added to acknowledge the success of class EAs and formalize a class environmental assessment process which works well and represents 90% of environmental assessment projects carried out annually. Class environmental assessments approved before the coming into force of proposed amendments will remain valid and are deemed to comply with the new act.
The debate or discussion or comments made, yes, I guess in theory what they're saying is possible but I can't imagine a minister ever allowing it for something such as a landfill or incinerator. That type of thing will always be an individual environmental assessment.
Ms Martel: I never would have thought that any health minister in this province would take on to himself the powers that we saw being taken on by this minister through Bill 26, so you don't give me a lot of comfort when you say that you can't imagine it could ever happen. We're saying that the local process is very important. It allows for local input in a way a class EA just does not. All I think we're requesting is that the process at the local level continue to be protected and that it not be subverted by a class structure.
Mr Ramsay: I'm a little concerned by the parliamentary assistant's answer that in theory that possibly could happen but that he doubts a Minister of Environment would allow that to happen. This is why we have legislation because, especially when it comes to the environment, we'd like to specifically nail down certain areas of concern.
Let me weave a little story here. Let's pretend a good friend of the Premier was a proponent of a landfill and had invested millions and millions of dollars into this project. I think that for the comfort of the proponent and the Premier and the government you'd want to have the protection built into the act so that a minister could not arbitrarily make the decision that this landfill could be done just as a class EA and not have the full environmental assessment be the test to this project. I think you would want that as a member of the government.
If a minister inadvertently did this, it could certainly bring a lot of suspicion upon a government if it looked like, in this hypothetical sense, a project was given the okay without due process. I think you would want that as a government member so that, just like we have with our Members' Integrity Act, you have everything aboveboard and up front so that all your actions are above suspicion. I would hope that you reconsider this so that this could never happen in the future.
The Chair: Further debate? There being none, I'll put the question. Those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Another Liberal-NDP motion of similar drafting. Ms Martel.
1610
Ms Martel: I move that subsection 13(1) of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Application for approval
"(1) A person may apply to the minister to approve a class environmental assessment with respect to a class of undertakings that are minor in nature, recur frequently and have limited, predictable and mitigable environmental effects."
If I look at this in comparison to what the government amendment is that appears in the bill, the substantial change occurs around "class of undertakings" qualified by "minor in nature, recur frequently and have limited, predictable" etc. As it currently stands in the bill, there is no such defining nature with respect to what undertakings a person may apply to the minister for approval of. We've tried to define those characteristics and limit them as much as possible.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Lalonde, do you have any comment? No? Dr Galt.
Mr Galt: This motion is redundant because "class" has already been defined in subsection 1(6) of the bill and further amended by the government motion which was carried by this committee on Tuesday, October 1, 1996. We have class EAs that are working well now. Why introduce limitations that are really unnecessary?
The Chair: Further debate? Being none, I'll call the question. Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion is defeated.
A government motion.
Mr Galt: I move that subsection 13(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended as follows:
"1. By striking out `a class environmental assessment' in the second and third lines and substituting `an approved class environmental assessment.'
"2. By striking out `or 9.1' at the end of clause (b)."
This is essentially a housekeeping provision.
The Chair: Debate? There being none, I'll call the question. Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion is carried.
The next is a government motion as well.
Mr Galt: I move that part II.1 of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding the following section (after section 13):
"Obligation to consult
"13.0.1 When preparing proposed terms of reference and a proposed class environmental assessment, the applicant shall consult with such persons as may be interested."
This provision requires a proponent to consult with interested persons when preparing terms of reference for a parent class environmental assessment. This is parallel to the provision provided to individual environmental assessments in section 6.1 of the bill and combines the requirement to consult on both the terms of reference and the parent class environmental assessment.
The Chair: I'll just make a point especially for some of the new participants here. When we come upon a section where all three parties or two parties are dealing with an amendment, the way to deal with the same issue at the beginning is to take your motion, if you don't agree, and amend what is proposed in the first instance. If we make a decision on who makes the first motion, then the rest just fall by the wayside. I just thought I would inform them.
Mr Galt: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. That's only fair.
Ms Martel: To the parliamentary assistant, if I'm clear, you're adding a very specific requirement that there will be consultation. Was that left out in the original drafting? Are you just fixing that?
Mr Galt: Maybe I should walk you through, if you don't mind. In the original we had enshrined in the bill that there would be requirement of public consultation in the environmental assessment. What wasn't in the original bill was enshrined consultation for the development of the terms of reference or work plan, and what this is really doing is just tidying up and making sure that everything is covered to ensure that it will happen. It was covered earlier, the actual amendment, but this just tidies it up in the class as well.
It was something that came out loud and clear in the hearings that they wanted the public involved, and rightly so, when we thought about it, that they needed to be involved right up front in this design period as well as in the actual work in putting the environmental assessment together.
The Chair: Further debate? There being none, I'll call the question. Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion is carried.
We move to subsections 13.1(2) and (3), Liberal and NDP motions.
Mr Ramsay: I move that subsections 13.1(2) and (3) of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Same
"(2) The proposed terms of reference must indicate how the environmental assessment will meet the requirements set out in subsections 6.2(2) and 14(2).
"Restriction
"(3) The minister shall not approve the proposed terms of reference unless,
"(a) before submitting the proposed terms of reference, the proponent has provided adequate public notice of the proposed terms of reference and has given members of the public an opportunity to comment on them;
"(b) the proposed terms of reference have been reviewed by those ministries and agencies that may have an interest in or be affected by the undertaking;
"(c) an environmental assessment prepared in accordance with them will meet the requirements of subsection 6.2(2).
"Same
"(4) Subsections 6(4) and (5) apply with respect to the terms of reference with necessary modifications."
This amendment brings the consultation amendments we have proposed for the individual's EA into the class EA process. What's important about this amendment is that it ensures that the minister will not approve the terms of reference for a class EA to proceed unless the proponent has consulted with those affected on terms of reference, as required in our previous amendment, and the terms of reference have been circulated to the affected ministries, and also the terms of reference follow the general EA procedures laid out in subsection 6.2(2).
The Chair: Any comment, Ms Martel?
Ms Martel: No, Mr Chair. I agree with the amendment that's been placed.
Mr Galt: Certainly the bill provides sufficient detail with respect to the contents of a class environmental assessment and enables additional requirements to be prescribed. The bill requires proponents to prepare class EAs in consultation with such persons as may be interested.
Mr Chair, we do have an amendment to the amendment. It's getting kind of complicated here, but we would have to strike out their amendment, because ours is on 13.1(3). I may have to have some instruction from the clerk to make sure we're on track with this, but I'd move this as an amendment to the amendment.
I move that subsection 13.1(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by striking out "to (5)" in the first line and substituting "to (6)."
The Chair: This would replace the whole recommended amendment here, so your amendment is to this amendment?
Mr Galt: Yes, if that is in order, through the clerk. I think it is, but on parliamentary procedure I could use some divine guidance.
The Chair: So your amendment to the amendment is to strike out everything after "I move that subsection 13." That would be taken out and replaced by what you just read into the record?
Mr Galt: Yes.
1620
The Chair: All right. Seeing that it's an amendment to an amendment, we will vote on that first. First of all, do you want to make any further comment on it?
Mr Galt: My amendment to the amendment is purely a housekeeping activity in the bill.
The Chair: Any debate on the amendment to the amendment?
Mr Ramsay: Could I get a clarification, Mr Galt, what this will actually do now, your amendment to our amendment?
Mr Galt: If we vote in favour of this amendment, then it strikes out your amendment and puts ours in place. Then we'll have to vote on the amended amendment, as I understand the procedure. So I'm in favour of both.
The Chair: The amendment to the amendment. Ready to receive the question? All those in favour? Those opposed? The amendment to the amendment carries.
Are you ready for the question on the amended amendment, the motion as amended? All those in favour? Those opposed? The amended amendment is carried.
The next one is subsection 13.1(5). Mr Ramsay, do you want to speak to that one, please.
Mr Ramsay: I move that section 13.1 of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Effect of approval
"(5) The approval for the proposed terms of reference expires two years after it is issued."
This amendment ensures that the approved terms of reference for a class EA expire after two years, and this is to ensure that the proponents do not sit on the approved terms of reference for a class EA while over time the need for the projects changes. This amendment mirrors a similar amendment we put forward for individual EAs.
Mr Galt: This has already been discussed and debated under individual environmental assessments and has been voted down. As previously discussed with the terms of reference for individual environmental assessment motions, it's too limiting, it does not take into consideration project-specific circumstances. Each terms of reference will contain an expiry date which reflects the nature of the project. Therefore, this motion really is unnecessary.
I do follow what you're saying, and we have concern too that we don't want it running forever. If you get into some big linear projects such as hydro lines or 407, that type of thing, you'd have to end up piecemealing it if the two-year limitation was in there. With each project a time frame would be part of the terms of reference.
The Chair: Further debate? There being none, I'll call the question. Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion is defeated.
A government motion.
Mr Galt: I move that section 13.2 of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be struck out.
This is essentially a housekeeping provision which is now included in section 13.0.1.
The Chair: Debate? Ready for the question? Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion is carried.
Mr Ramsay: I move that subsection 14(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be struck out.
This section allows the minister to exempt a class EA proponent from following the comprehensive EA review criteria set out in section 6.2, and this amendment deletes this loophole. We think it's pretty important that the loophole be deleted. Of course, this amendment mirrors a similar amendment we've put forward for individual EAs under subsection 6.2(3).
Mr Galt: As previously discussed, for individual environmental assessments this clause is required to ensure that proponents in consultation with the public and government agencies are able to focus on environmental assessments on environmentally significant issues on a project-by-project basis.
We are trying to get away from the encyclopaedic and costly environmental assessments that don't necessarily contribute to good environmental protection. Stakeholders will be consulted on the development of terms of reference by the proponent, and the minister will seek input prior to approval. This clause also allows more information than that already provided in the bill.
The Chair: Further debate? There being none, I'll ask the question. Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion is defeated.
The next one is a replacement government motion.
Mr Galt: I move that section 15 of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Application of part II
"15. Sections 6.3 to 11.3 and 12.1 apply with necessary modifications with respect to a class environmental assessment."
This is a housekeeping provision to be consistent with authorities provided for in individual environmental assessments.
The Chair: Debate? All right, seeing none, I will call the question. Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion is carried.
Dr Galt, subsection 17(4).
Mr Galt: I move that section 17 of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same
"(4) Section 12.4 applies with necessary modifications with respect to a class environmental assessment."
This really allows for the one-year transitional period in class environmental assessments.
The Chair: Debate? Any further debate? Seeing none, I will call the question. Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion is carried.
A government motion: This is a second replacement, which was handed out today. I gather all committee members have a copy of this. This replaces the replacement motion.
Mr Galt: On the beige-coloured sheet that's been circulated, I move that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding the following part to the Environmental Assessment Act (after part II.1):
"Municipal waste disposal
"17.1(1) This section applies with respect to an undertaking by such municipalities as may be prescribed where the facilities or services of another person will be used for the final disposal of waste,
"(a) by depositing it at a dump;
"(b) by landfilling; or
"(c) by incineration.
"Prohibition
"(2) No municipality shall proceed with an undertaking to dispose of waste unless the municipality obtains approval to proceed under this act.
"Interpretation
"(3) For the purposes of this section, a municipality is using the facilities or services of another person if the municipality enters into contracts or makes other arrangements with the person with respect to disposing of the waste.
"Same
"(4) For the purposes of this act, the undertaking to dispose of waste includes,
"(a) the enterprise or activity of the other person; and
"(b) any proposal, plan or program of the person with respect to the disposal of the waste."
1630
Certainly during the standing committee hearings, we heard submissions that made it very clear that waste disposal has environmentally significant impacts. This amended motion would allow the government to bring forward a regulation in the future to require an environmental assessment where municipalities are contracting out for the waste disposal only.
The intent of this motion is to ensure that municipalities evaluate the broad definition of the environment, being natural, social and economic, and alternatives when considering third-party contracts for waste disposal. When the regulation is being drafted, there will be stakeholder consultation and the draft regulation will be placed on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry.
Mr Ramsay: I've got a number of questions on this. The first one I want to know, because it's been a while since I've been involved in clause-by-clause, is that up in the top right-hand corner, we have "second replacement motion, government motion," and then we have "5-LAH," and the 5 has been crossed out and replaced by "6." What does the "6-LAH" stand for?
Ms Laura Hopkins: This is a record-keeping code used by legislative counsel for electronic record-keeping purposes.
Mr Ramsay: But what does it mean?
Ms Hopkins: LAH are my initials.
Mr Ramsay: And 6?
Ms Hopkins: The 6 is the number of the document.
Mr Ramsay: Okay. Over the last couple of days this has changed. My colleague Mr McGuinty had asked at the beginning of clause-by-clause yesterday, did the government have any proposed changes to this amendment, and your answer yesterday at about a quarter to 4 was no. How did this change happen?
Mr Galt: At the beginning of the hearings yesterday I was unaware that there would be further amendments, further discussion, listening, looking at the amendment. We've seen fit to change the amendment and present it in this form.
Mr Ramsay: You didn't envision this problem, obviously, because now we have an amendment after the act was tabled. What was the concern? You've explained that in the hearings you had heard some concern about the placement of waste by a private contract. I'm just trying to get at what has really provoked this amendment.
Mr Galt: It was brought to our attention that it could be interpreted very broadly in the areas of collection, the three Rs essentially, to transfer stations. We wanted to tidy it up, so it's been written in this form.
But I think you should be aware that up at the top it says "may be prescribed," which is really saying "may write regulations." That's what this is all about: stating that this regulation may be written based on the content in this amendment.
Mr Ramsay: As I'm sure you're aware, this motion, I believe even in its revised form as of today, is causing a lot of concern with municipalities in this province. I take it that you have been in communication with a few of them. I have a copy here, for instance, of a letter dated October 8, from Joan King, Metro councillor. I take it that you've received this letter addressed to you?
Mr Galt: I have received correspondence from Ms King. Whether it's that one or not --
Mr Ramsay: I think it's the same. She says:
"Dear Mr Galt,
"Please find enclosed the motion that Metro council adopted on Sept. 26, 1996, regarding the amendment to Bill 76.
"In my opinion, this amendment will be problematic for Metro's short-term disposal requirements. I estimate that the time that will be needed for Metro to complete an EA will force a lift at Keele Valley.
"I sincerely hope that this concern has been duly considered by your minister and government.
"Yours sincerely,
"Joan King."
Is Ms King right about that?
Mr Galt: Essentially that's Metro's decision, as I understand it. This is about disposal and it's about allowing the writing of regulations. That's what this amendment's all about. Any regulations that will be written will be out for consultation, will be on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry and will be in discussions with people like Metro, AMO, the waste management association etc.
Mr Ramsay: What would be the time frame on this, because as you know and I think why this is causing uncertainty is that Metro very shortly is going to be making some decisions, and it looks like maybe now some short-term decisions, about the disposal of waste. It is uncertain by this amendment what would be required and by whom, because in the first part it said, "This section applies with respect to an undertaking by such municipalities as may be prescribed," so we don't know what municipalities yet. Do you have Metro in mind for this?
Mr Galt: We're just concerned about environmentally significant disposal projects. The regulations, in consultation with the public, will be written and we're looking at this bill for early next year.
Mr Ramsay: Are you concerned about the environment in Utah, for instance?
Mr Galt: We're particularly concerned about the environment in Ontario.
Mr Ramsay: So does this section apply to a municipality that wishes to export waste out of the province?
Mr Galt: This amendment applies to the writing of regulations that will relate to this particular legislation.
Mr Ramsay: But I think what's causing a lot of grief and heartburn at AMO headquarters right now as we speak is that municipalities do not understand how this may apply to them. I see that you have, as of today, started to delineate a little more clearly, because there were concerns about the three Rs, as you mentioned, and I appreciate that this is an ongoing piece of work. I certainly applaud the changes that you've made within this today, but it still raises a lot of uncertainty as to what municipalities this may apply to and, for instance, to a project that involved a foreign jurisdiction.
Mr Galt: We're still discussing contracting third-party involvement and we're talking about developing regulations, which will be through consultation at that time.
Mr Ramsay: Let's just be hypothetical then, though it's not really too hypothetical because Metro now has a short list, and they're all private sector contractors. They are dealing right now with four proposals that involve the private sector. So this would include them. Three of them involve the United States and one involves Ontario.
What I'm asking is, if Metro decided that they would pick one of the American projects, what do they have to do? The prohibition says, "No municipality shall proceed with an undertaking to dispose of waste unless the municipality obtains approval to proceed under this act." I guess the question is, what sort of approval would Metro need if they decide to ship Toronto waste to Utah, for instance? What would be required?
Mr Galt: Certainly there have been various opportunities Metro has had in the past -- there have been stops and starts etc, and you're dealing with something that's hypothetical when you started out, and we're back to the consultation. They'll be thoroughly involved in the consultation in the development of these regulations. To get into that aspect, what we're doing here is writing legislation that will give the opportunity to write the regulations when the opportunity or the time is there.
Mr Ramsay: What's the time frame of this legislation? I guess what Metro is wondering now is, what happens if they make a decision in the next few months? At this time their activity falls under the present legislation, but some time in the future, depending on when this is given royal assent, and also then depending afterwards, if you decide to make your regulations to this act, Metro is concerned and other municipalities are concerned about when and if they may be caught up by this. You've produced a lot of uncertainty here, especially with the biggest municipality in our province, being our capital, Toronto. Did you understand the uncertainty that this amendment is creating with Metro at this time? They are on the eve of making a decision as to the disposition of their waste.
1640
Mr Galt: We're certainly concerned about environmental protection in the province of Ontario, and this is part and parcel of that. The regulations will be written as soon as possible. They're looking at timing of royal assent for the early part of next year. I come back to, consultation will be carried out with as many parties as are interested in discussing it when the regulations are written.
Mr Ramsay: The question is then, does this amendment apply to protecting the environment in a foreign jurisdiction?
Mr Galt: We're all about protecting the environment in Ontario to the very best ability that we can.
Mr Ramsay: In other words, what you're saying is you would not require Metro to undertake some sort of process under this act if it chose to export waste to a foreign jurisdiction.
Mr Galt: What I'm saying is it would depend on how the regulations are written. You would have to look at and discuss and debate in the development of those regulations what they would contain. At this point in time, it's hypothetical for me to say what's going to be in those regulations. This amendment is all about setting out the opportunity to write those regulations having to do with third-party contracting.
Mr Ramsay: Wouldn't it be clearer if we said "in Ontario" then? Every time you answer me, you say, "This amendment is about protecting the environment of Ontario," and I certainly applaud that, but why don't we state that in here somewhere, that that's what this is about? I'd certainly support that.
Mr Galt: This is about the natural, social and cultural protection of the environment in the province of Ontario.
Mr Ramsay: Could we have that in there then?
Mr Galt: That's what the act is all about.
Mr Ramsay: But it didn't say, "Ontario," that's all.
Mr Galt: That's already in the act.
Mr Ramsay: Then you're saying that this would not apply to the exportation of waste.
Mr Galt: No, I haven't said that.
Mr Ramsay: Then I think we seem to have a problem here, because on the one hand you're saying the act only applies to Ontario, but when I ask you, would this particular amendment affect in any way a decision by a municipality, for instance, to contract with a foreign recipient of Ontario waste, you're saying yes, it might apply.
I'm waiting for an answer.
Mr Galt: My apologies.
Mr Ramsay: Do you have a further clarification on this for me? Do you see the problem I'm having?
Mr Galt: I follow your problem. You understand the act goes back to -- right at the very beginning of the act, I can read it to you, the very last line is, "in or of Ontario (environment)."
Mr Ramsay: I like that and that's fine and I support that, but when I ask you, could the regulations that could be drawn from this amendment affect the exportation of waste to another jurisdiction, you're saying it could.
Mr Galt: This will apply to any third-party contracting of the disposal of garbage. Again, what we're debating really is an amendment to allow regulations to be written. How the regulations are written is what you're getting into, and that's really not debatable today. What's debatable is about this part of the legislation to allow regulations to be written. You're going down the road to the consultation part of the regulations and the development of those.
Mr Ramsay: But putting in this amendment that allows you to, some time down the road, write some regulation to this bill could have a profound impact upon Ontario municipalities as to the disposition of their waste. It's germane to talk about it today because in a sense you potentially have put up a roadblock here to the municipalities of Ontario to freely make the decisions as to how they dispose of their waste.
I remember in the campaign -- and I must say you quickly fulfilled this promise you had made -- you did not feel it was the part of the province to interfere with the municipal responsibility of waste disposal. You amended the previous government's act and brought it back into the municipal domain.
The concern municipalities across the province are having is that you have now opened a door potentially for your getting back into that business again of making decisions as to where or how Ontario municipalities can dispose of their waste. It's really central to this bill and not something just theoretical down the road.
The question that I want to ask specifically is, how could this amendment have an effect on the export of waste? You said it may. How could it? Are we just talking about the way it's transferred between the municipality and the border? Is that what you would be concerned about? What is the potential impact of this on a decision to use a contractor out of province?
Mr Galt: The government supports local decision-making and consideration of all waste disposal methods. We also believe there should be accountability for environmentally sound decision-making and a mechanism to ensure public input.
Mr Ramsay: The "undertaking by such municipalities" concerns me. Which municipalities do you mean?
Mr Galt: We would be looking at which ones later on as regulations are developed. That's something in the regulations. We're not interfering with their right to contract. What we are ensuring is that Ontario's environment is protected.
Mr Ramsay: I agree with that. The only thing I'm concerned about, and I share this concern with the municipalities -- there are many of them across the province, and I've used Metro as the example -- is that on a daily basis they deliberate on this issue and are near to making some decisions. You're not giving any certainty. What you have done here is injected a tremendous amount of uncertainty into the waste debate in this province by this amendment. I just wish you would find some way to clarify this. Would Metro be included in this, for instance? Is the export of waste a part of this and what is required from your prohibition? I don't quite understand what is required. "No municipality shall proceed with an undertaking to dispose of waste unless the municipality obtains approval to proceed under this act." What sorts of things would they have to get approval for under this act?
Mr Galt: The first part of your question relates to what they can do, and as of today the present legislation is in effect and won't be changing until this receives royal assent. Until the end of this year they can act according to present legislation. By the time this receives royal assent, we will have regulations written, and while they're being written there'll be consultation carried out. There really shouldn't be that great a confusion, because the present legislation is there and they understand that. It's going to be there for the next two and a half months and then we'll be looking at this legislation and the regulations relating to it.
1650
Mr Ramsay: There could be a problem there. For instance -- let's keep with the Metro example -- they may not be in a position to make a final decision in the next two and a half months. Say the act is proclaimed January 1; I suppose they can still proceed until your regulations are written and given as orders in council.
You see, my thinking is that you must have some regulation in mind to bring the amendment. I mean, why would you bring forward an amendment that would allow you at a later date to write regulations to this act if you didn't have something in mind? What is it that you have in mind that you want to have this here today but that you can't tell us about?
Mr Galt: It's all about the protection of environment, whether it be natural, social, cultural, whatever. It's there, as we talked about earlier. Any regulation that's going to be brought in will be involved in consultation, will be on the Environmental Bill of Rights. It will be in front and we will listen as we have been with this bill. This is an amendment to allow that opportunity to write those regulations.
Mr Ramsay: Let's take an example of today. Today a municipality decides to contract with a company. You just can't go and get any company. The company has to have an approved site. I'm a municipality. We'd like to contract with a company for the disposal of waste. Obviously, I can only entertain those tenders from companies that have an approved destination. What would be different here from what we have today? We can't just dump garbage anywhere in Ontario; it has to be an approved site. It's passed either an EA or a class EA. We have so many sites that have certificates of approval issued by the ministry. What's the difference? We have the protection today, because we just can't put our garbage anywhere. We can use a private contractor today, but it obviously has to be to an approved site. What additional protection does this give us that we wouldn't have today?
Mr Galt: It's giving us the opportunity to write regulations, back to having concerns over environmentally significant activities which have to do with the disposal of our waste.
Mr Ramsay: Under "Prohibition" it says, "No municipality shall proceed with an undertaking to dispose of waste unless the municipality obtains approval to proceed under this act." What does that mean? What approval would they have to get? What would be the process for this sort of approval?
Mr Chuck Pautler: If I could respond, the municipality that would own or control the waste would have to comply with the content requirements of the bill for an environmental assessment. That municipality would consider the alternatives involved in selecting the preferred disposal technique, whether it's through a contract to a third party, incineration or disposal at another facility. They would also consider the effects to the environment, as broadly defined in the act, associated with the transportation of the waste to the final disposal location.
In general, that would mean an assessment of rail versus road transportation if the final disposal site already has an approval under the Environmental Assessment Act and has a valid certificate of approval to accept from the municipality that is proposing to enter into the contract. I would also expect that if the site has no environmental problems associated with it, if it's an integral site, the municipality's treatment of that approved site in the environmental assessment would be extremely cursory. There would not be double jeopardy associated here.
Mr Ramsay: Would this include a site in a foreign jurisdiction?
Mr Pautler: The purpose of the act and the scope of the application of the act apply to the boundaries of the province of Ontario. If it were a site outside of Ontario, I would expect the environmental assessment to document the impacts or the environmental effects to the province of Ontario of the final site, wherever it is. Again, those environmental effects would be broadly defined as per the definition that's contained in the current act, which has not been amended by this bill.
Mr Ramsay: Then Ontario, through this amendment, would not be making a judgement of a site in another jurisdiction?
Mr Pautler: I believe that's correct. But a proponent would be required to document the effects, as required by the act, to the province of Ontario of that other facility.
Mr Ramsay: Obviously then in this particular case, where we're talking about a site in a foreign jurisdiction, that would be the mode of transportation, the transfer stations, whatever it would require to get it to that site?
Mr Pautler: In part it would depend on the location of the site. If it were immediately adjacent, on the border of Ontario, one would have to look at the implications. But transportation would certainly be a factor. I would remind you that "environment" is broadly defined in the act. It includes the social, the economic and the cultural as well as the biophysical, the natural environment.
I'm just reminded that Ontario has intervened in waste disposal sites in other jurisdictions, the Niagara frontier being one, as well as --
Mr Ramsay: The incinerator in Detroit.
Mr Pautler: -- Detroit.
Mr Ramsay: Because there's an impact on Ontario.
Mr Pautler: So there is some practice already and some precedent. The implication is to protect the environment of Ontario. That's what this is about.
Mr Galt: Earlier I emphasized concern about the environment of Ontario, but don't get me totally wrong; I also have some values as far as outside of Ontario is concerned. I do not want to see our garbage going to a site someplace in the US or Timbuktu that's going to cause environmental problems for someone else. Whether it says it in the act or not, I think we have some responsibility there; at least, I personally see that.
Mr Ramsay: Sure, and I agree with you in that case. When you keep harking back that you are looking at a very broad definition of the environment, so you're talking about the socioeconomic impact, is it then the intention of this, to look at it another way, to say that one of the choices Metro may have might have a beneficial economic impact on a region of Ontario and therefore you would require Metro to revisit such a decision that might not have, in your mind, taken that into account?
Mr Galt: I think all those aspects could be written into regulations.
Mr Ramsay: In other words, if Metro Toronto had the opportunity of entering into a contract with a private sector agent that could dispose of garbage, for instance, in northern Ontario, which that person might be able to prove has a beneficial impact on the economy, yet Metro ignores that and decides to send it to an American destination, in a sense you could use this amendment and the potential regulations coming from it as a roadblock to say, "You have ignored the economic impact of your decision in a positive way to Ontario by deciding to enter into a contract in a foreign jurisdiction." Is that following your logic?
Mr Galt: You're zeroing in on one aspect, being economic, and it's got to be a well-balanced one. Remember, this bill we're putting through is developing the terms of reference up front. It's getting the public involved again. We may be getting into the itty-bitty detail in this discussion when in fact we're looking at giving the public an opportunity for input. We are concerned that it is environmentally significant.
1700
Mr Ramsay: You talk about a consultation. I really appreciate that, because I think that's important. The bill would probably come into force, as you said, on January 1, something like that, of next year, and then you anticipate some sort of consultation with the public and municipalities about this. How long a consultation process do you anticipate?
Mr Galt: I do not have a specific at this point in time as to whether it would be written between now and January 1 or whether it would be after the first of the year. The usual time with the Environmental Bill of Rights registry --
Mr Pautler: Is 30 days.
Mr Galt: A 30-day announcement is standard.
Mr Ramsay: So the writing of regulations could be simultaneous with the passage of this bill?
Mr Galt: Sorry?
Mr Ramsay: What you seem to be implying there is that it's a possibility -- I didn't understand this at first when you said that some time in the new year, after the bill has passed, potentially you might write some regulations based on this amendment. Now you seem to be saying that you could be starting to write some regulations simultaneous with the passage of this bill.
Mr Galt: I'm trying to say that there's not a specific time that regulations would necessarily be written because of this amendment. I do not have a time frame when regulations might be written. They could be written two years down the road.
Mr Ramsay: No, and that's a good point.
Mr Galt: It doesn't have to be for January 1.
Mr Ramsay: No, and because of this, and we're using Metro as an example, we've got an ongoing situation here that this amendment is causing them a lot of uncertainty. Could you do something to give some certainty to Metro that there would be some sort of time period before any such regulation comes into place? Right now you're wreaking havoc with their particular process by this, because they really don't know what, when and if anything could come out this that could impact their present situation. Is there some way you could give us some certainty to say, "While we obviously reserve the right to write regulations based on the passage of this amendment, we're certainly not going to do so in the next six months"?
What do you do with ongoing processes? As you know and you've alluded to, there's been a process going on for about seven years now with Metropolitan Toronto. After seven years of study and discussion, they're on the brink of making a decision and all of a sudden this appears, which is bringing a lot of uncertainty to that. Is there anything you could say today that could bring some certainty to, say, Metro Toronto, that no regulation is going to come out of this amendment that's going to disrupt a timely completion of this particular process?
Mr Galt: With your experience as a minister you'd be aware that regulations can be written at any time, and that's what this amendment is about, to give the opportunity to write those regulations. To give you some time frame when they might or might not be written, I think you're quite aware that they could be written to come into effect at the time of royal assent or they may come in X number of months or years down the road.
Mr Ramsay: Can you assure me today that there will be no regulations written under this amendment until those regulations are thoroughly aired and discussed through a consultation process with Ontario municipalities?
Mr Galt: What I can assure you is that there'll be no regulations prior to January 1 coming into effect, and what I can also assure you is that there'll be extensive consultation with Metro, with AMO, with the waste management association, and it will be on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry certainly for the 30-day period. Usually there's consultation prior to that to write them and then it's on the EBR registry for the 30-day period for further comment. That I can assure you.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Further debate? I'll call the question. Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion is passed.
That completes section 3. Shall section 3, as amended, carry? Could I have a show of hands, please? Those opposed? The section carries.
We now begin with section 4, and the first motion is a Liberal motion.
Mr Ramsay: I move that subsection 4(1) of the bill be struck out.
This amendment reinstates the wording of the current act, which requires that the EA board members not be ministry employees. The reason for having a quasi-judicial board is to have a decision-making process independent of the ministry, as is the case with other boards such as the OMB. Allowing ministry employees as appointees limits the independence of the board. So it's just a matter of having some certainty that we would have full independence on the EA board from the ministry.
The Chair: Debate?
Mr Ramsay: Dr Galt, do you accept that that's a pretty sound principle, though, that you would want to have --
Mr Galt: No.
Mr Ramsay: Then why would we have an EA board as a quasi-judicial agency to study these matters separate from the ministry?
Mr Galt: We just believe that this section is needed to clarify the composition of the board.
Mr Ramsay: But wouldn't it be advantageous to the process to give certainty to the independence of the process, to just ensure that it is completely separate, that we don't have any overlap by having ministry employees on the board?
Mr Galt: The feeling is that it's limiting the people who can sit on there, and we believe there are quality people in the civil service who might be advantageous to serve on that particular board.
Mr Ramsay: So out of nearly 11 million people in the province of Ontario, you don't have confidence that we could find -- how many sit on the board? 12? What's the number?
Mr Galt: It's 16 or 17.
Mr Ramsay: So what you're saying is that out of almost 11 million people now in this province we could not find 16 or 17 people, other than ministry employees, who are knowledgeable enough and concerned enough about the environment to sit on the board.
Mr Galt: Possibly your concerns relate to those who are sitting on the board. There are conflict-of-interest regulations that prevail. We recognize that we have some exceptional people who work in the civil service and we would prefer that they weren't excluded from this process.
The Chair: Further debate? Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion is defeated.
A government motion.
Mr Galt: I move that section 18 of the Environmental Assessment Act, as amended by subsection 4(5) of the bill, be further amended by adding the following subsections after subsection (17.2):
"Hearings
"(17.3) The board may render a decision without a hearing and may do so even though a matter is referred for hearing and decision.
"Validity of decision
"(17.4) A decision of the board is not invalid solely on the ground that a matter was not addressed by testimony at a hearing."
This provision clarifies that a formal hearing may not be necessary for the board to render a decision.
The Chair: Debate? Hearing none, I'll call the question. Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? Motion carries.
Shall section 4, as amended, carry? Those in favour? Those opposed? Section 4, as amended, carries.
Section 5, no amendments. Shall section 5 carry? Carried.
Shall section 6, with no amendments, carry? Carried.
We have amendments for section 7. A Liberal motion.
Mr Ramsay: I move that section 27.1 of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same
"(2) If the minister proposes to issue policy guidelines, the minister shall give adequate public notice of the proposed guidelines and shall ensure that members of the public have an opportunity to comment on them."
This amendment ensures that the policy guidelines are defined and developed in an open process with full public consultation.
1710
Mr Galt: We agree with this in theory. The public currently has the opportunity to comment on the ministry policies and guidelines which are placed on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry; therefore, we believe this amendment is unnecessary.
The Chair: Further debate? I will call the question. Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion is defeated.
Section 7, unamended, shall it carry? Carried.
Section 8, unamended, shall it carry? Carried.
Section 9, as is, without amendments? Carried.
Section 10. We have a government motion for amendment.
Mr Galt: I move that subsection 10(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(2) Subsection 30(2) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:
"Same
"(2) The director shall maintain a record for the following matters:
"1. A proposed order under section 3.1.
"2. A proposed declaration under section 3.2.
"3. An undertaking in respect of which an order under section 16 is proposed.
"Inspection
"(3) Upon request, the director shall make available for inspection any record referred to in this section including any document that forms part of the record and shall make a document available as soon as practicable after the document is issued or received."
This provision rounds out the information to be included in the public record.
The Chair: Debate? Hearing none, I will call the question. Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion passes.
Shall section 10, as amended, carry? Those in favour? Those opposed? Carried. Section 10 carries.
Section 11. A government motion.
Mr Galt: I move that subsection 31(2) of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in subsection 11(2) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Delegation
"(2) Subject to subsection (2.1), the minister may delegate to an employee or class of employees in the ministry any power conferred or duty imposed on the minister under this act and may impose limitations, conditions and requirements on the delegation.
"Same
"(2.1) The minister shall not delegate the following powers:
"1. The power to approve terms of reference under subsection 6(3).
"2. The power to make decisions under subsection 10(1).
"3. The power to refer decisions or matters to the board.
"4. The power under section 11.3 to reconsider a decision. However, the minister may make a delegation to the board as provided in that section."
We have heard concern expressed about the extent to which the bill allowed the minister to delegate certain decisions, and we agree. This provision specifies that the minister cannot delegate the authority to approve terms of reference. Approval decisions, referrals to the board or the reconsideration of a decision have to be made by the minister.
The Chair: Debate? There being none, I call the question. Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion carries.
Shall section 11, as amended, carry? Carried.
Section 12 has an amendment, Liberal and NDP. Ms Martel, would you like to carry this one?
Ms Martel: Can we deal with that after?
The Chair: Okay. We'll come back to that.
The first amendment is to section 12 of the bill, and following that we'll go to the very first page, which was a postponed amendment on section 1.
Ms Martel: I move that subsection 31.1(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in section 12 of the bill, be struck out.
Mr Ramsay: This is similar to our amendment in subsection 1(1) that we would be dealing with next. This amendment ensures that the minister does not appoint directors who are not employees of the Ministry of Environment. For example, it would create a biased situation if Ministry of Transportation employees were to be appointed as directors of highway projects subject to an environmental assessment. That's our concern and that's why we've moved this amendment.
Ms Martel: If I can add to that, the government is doing this in another bill at the same time, which is the resources bill, trying to delegate responsibility to persons other than ministry employees, very important responsibilities that they have. We would much prefer that it be very clear that the people who carry out this important work are going to be public servants.
Mr Galt: We can support their amendment.
The Chair: Let me ask the question. Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion carries.
We go back to subsection 1(1). Subsection 1(1) now would have eligibility. It was postponed. Can I ask, Mr Ramsay, if you'd deal with that one, please.
Mr Ramsay: I move that the definition of "director" in section 1 of the Environmental Assessment Act, as set out in subsection 1(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"`director' means an employee of the ministry appointed under section 31.1 to act as a director;"
I want to take it that this would be consistent with what we've just passed.
Mr Galt: I guess the only question would be, is it necessary? I'm asking that as a question; I'm not debating the issue. Is it automatic?
Ms Martel: That a motion has to be moved?
Mr Galt: That we go back to this item, subsection 1(1). I'm not opposed to it. We'll support it.
The Chair: We'll ask legislative counsel to comment on it, Dr Galt.
Mr Ramsay: Legislative counsel could answer that.
Ms Hopkins: As a result of the motion that you just passed, this motion is not necessary in law. You've already achieved this outcome.
The Chair: All right. So you withdraw that amendment.
Mr Ramsay: Yes.
1720
The Chair: Can we say, because we had waited for a postponed amendment, shall section 1, as amended, carry? Section 1, as amended, carries.
Shall section 12, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 13, as is, carry? Carried.
Shall section 14, as is, carry? Carried.
Shall section 15, as is, carry? Carried.
Section 16. There is a Liberal-NDP amendment. Who would like to move that?
Mr Ramsay: I move that section 16 of the bill be amended by adding the following section to the Environmental Assessment Act after section 37.2, as set out in section 16 of the bill:
"Public notice requirements
"37.3(1) A public notice under this act must provide clear, timely and concise information.
"Same
"(2) Each public notice must meet such requirements as may be prescribed.
"Access to information
"(3) Upon request, a person is entitled to have free and timely access to all documents that relate to the subject matter of a public notice given under this act."
This amendment ensures that there are clear, timely and appropriate public notices to the public on the stages of the project under the EA process. This ensures that those affected have access to all the documents prepared in support of this project.
Ms Martel: If I might just add, as I look at the section that appears in the government bill, it makes it very clear that there is a limitation to who would receive the notice or the document. It limits it clearly to the clerk and lists a number of levels of government. The amendment put forward makes it clear that people who have an interest, who are concerned one way or the other about what is happening, are going to be able to receive any information with respect to that particular project and that it is not limited solely to specific persons within a municipality or other level of government.
Mr Galt: This motion, we believe, is redundant because the public already has access to information under section 10 to the public record of this bill, and through the freedom of information act public notice requirements can already be prescribed. We don't believe it's really needed.
Ms Martel: I ask the parliamentary assistant why there is such a limitation as outlined in the bill that you've put forward. While you've just told us that the public can have access under different sections of the bill, clearly there is a limitation here. I'm wondering, if that's the case, why you'd put that in.
Mr Jim Jackson: I expect the member is referring to section 37 of the act, as set out in section 16 of the bill. That doesn't restrict notices to be given to the public. There are several places in the bill that require notices to be given to clerks of municipalities. There is a broad definition of "municipality" already in the act.
What this does is make it clear that you don't have to give notices to the clerks of the broadly defined municipalities: all the library boards, other local boards that might be within the municipalities. You only have to give it directly to the clerk of the local municipality or the upper-tier municipality and not to everybody else. There might be dozens of local boards in the city of Toronto, for example, and it might be administratively difficult to find out who they all are in every case, but it's not difficult to figure out who the upper- and lower-tier municipalities are. I think it's possible that the section may have been misconstrued.
Ms Martel: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Further debate? Seeing none, I'll call the question. Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion is defeated.
Ms Martel: I move that section 16 of the bill be amended by adding the following section to the Environmental Assessment Act after section 37.2, as set out in section 16 of the bill:
"Consultation
"37.4 In circumstances in which consultation is required under this act or is advisable in view of the purpose of this act, the proponent of an undertaking shall consult with the following persons, whether or not they have a direct personal, pecuniary or proprietary interest in the undertaking:
"1. Representatives of first nations communities that might reasonably be interested in or be affected by the undertaking.
"2. Municipalities that might reasonably be affected by the undertaking.
"3. Representatives of unorganized territories that might reasonably be affected by the undertaking.
"4. Such other persons as may be interested in or be affected by the undertaking."
The point of the amendment is to ensure that significant issues that are of public concern will be given due recognition by the public, that a number of groups that may have an interest will be advised and will be consulted and that scope of reference for the proponent not be limited, but we'll try and be very inclusive in order to mitigate against any circumstances or concerns or anything else that might be raised during the time. It does make sure that the concerns are met, you get the public on side and the project hopefully will move forward in a reasonable way.
The Chair: Debate? There being none, I'll ask the question. Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion is defeated. FDoes section 16, as is, carry? Carried.
Does section 17, as is, carry? Carried.
Does section 18, as is, carry? Carried.
Does section 19, as is, carry? Carried.
Does section 20, as is, carry? Carried.
Does section 21, as is, carry? Carried.
I know there's an amendment, as recommended, but it follows the section, so you can still put forward your amendment on this.
Does section 22, as is, carry? Carried.
There is a Liberal and NDP -- they're not the same? Mr Ramsay on the Liberal motion on section 22.
Mr Ramsay: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"Intervenor Funding Project Act
"22.1(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Intervenor Funding Project Act, as it read immediately before its repeal, shall be deemed to continue in force until December 31, 2000.
"(2) Subsection 16(1) of that act shall be deemed to be amended to provide for the repeal of the act on December 31, 2000."
The Chair: I have to notify you that it is out of order in that the Intervenor Funding Project Act does not exist and it's not a part of this particular bill. It's beyond the scope of this bill, so I have to rule on it that it doesn't --
Mr Ramsay: Is this because it involves spending taxpayers' dollars?
The Chair: No.
Mr Ramsay: Then why is it --
The Chair: Because you're referring to an act that doesn't exist and isn't part of this particular bill. It goes beyond the scope of the bill.
Mr Ramsay: Okay.
The Chair: Which applies likewise, Ms Martel, to your amendment.
Shall section 23, as is, carry? Carried.
Shall section 24, as is, carry? Carried.
Shall the title of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall I report Bill 76, An Act to improve environmental protection, increase accountability and enshrine public consultation in the Environmental Assessment Act, as amended, to the House? Good, thank you. All right, that I shall be happy to do. Carried.
Thank you very much for your cooperation, everyone. We stand adjourned until the call of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1729.