Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DU PROCESSUS D'AUTORISATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE

CONTENTS

Wednesday 30 October 1996

Environmental Approvals Improvement Act, 1996, Bill 57, Mr Sterling / Loi de 1996 sur l'amélioration du processus d'autorisation environnementale, projet de loi 57, M Sterling

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Chair / Président: Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce PC)

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean PC)

Mr JackCarroll (Chatham-Kent PC)

Mr DavidChristopherson (Hamilton Centre / -Centre ND)

*Mr TedChudleigh (Halton North / -Nord PC)

*Ms MarilynChurley (Riverdale ND)

Mr DwightDuncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)

*Mrs BarbaraFisher (Bruce PC)

*Mr SteveGilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)

Mr PatHoy (Essex-Kent L)

*Mr Jean-MarcLalonde (Prescott and Russell / Prescott et Russell L)

*Mr BartMaves (Niagara Falls PC)

Mr BillMurdoch (Grey-Owen Sound PC)

*Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)

*Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre PC)

*In attendance /présents

Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:

Mr MichaelGravelle (Port Arthur L) for Mr Hoy

Mrs LynMcLeod (Fort William L) for Mr Duncan

Mrs JuliaMunro (Durham-York PC) for Mr Carroll

Clerk / Greffièr: Mr Todd Decker

Staff / Personnel: Mr Doug Beecroft, legislative counsel

Mr Bob Shaw, assistant director, central region,

Ministry of Environment and Energy

R-1603

ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DU PROCESSUS D'AUTORISATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE

Consideration of Bill 57, An Act to improve the Efficiency of the Environmental Approvals Process and Certain Other Matters / Projet de loi 57, Loi visant à améliorer l'efficience du processus d'autorisation environnementale et concernant certaines autres questions.

The Chair (Mr Steve Gilchrist): Good afternoon. If I can call the committee to order on what was to have been our second day of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 57. Moving right into clause-by-clause consideration, are there any amendments to section 1?

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"0.1(1) Clause (g) of the definition of `sewage system' in section 74 of the Environmental Protection Act is repealed and the following substituted:

"(g) a drainage works under the Drainage Act or a sewage works where the main purpose of the works is to drain land for the purpose of agricultural activity.

"(2) Clause (h) of the definition of `sewage system' in section 74 of the act is amended by striking out `the Drainage Act.'"

This motion amends the definition of "sewage works" and "drainage works" in section 74 of the Environmental Protection Act to mirror the definition of the Ontario Water Resources Act. Subsection 53(6) is amended by subsections 5(1) and (2) of Bill 57, the provision in the Environmental Protection Act, to be the same as those in the Ontario Water Resources Act which are being amended by Bill 57 and thus should also have been amended. However, due to an oversight during the drafting of Bill 57, amendments to section 74 of the Environmental Protection Act were not included.

The Chair: Any further comment? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the section carrying? Contrary? The section is carried.

Are there any further amendments to section 1? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour that section 1 carry? Contrary? Section 1 is carried.

Section 2, any amendments or comments? I believe we have two identical motions. Ms Churley, you had the attention of the Chair first.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): We've just agreed that I would introduce this motion. I'll read it.

I move that clauses 175.1(a) and (b) of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out.

This is an issue we've discussed here before. Both the Canadian Environmental Law Association and Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy brought up the issue that it permits the Lieutenant Governor in Council to exempt any person, any thing, and we find that very problematic. For that reason, given that the scope is so wide and it's giving that kind of authority to the Lieutenant Governor, we think that is not a good way to protect the environment. It's not evenhanded and transparent for all. Therefore I move this, I'm sure, with the support of my Liberal colleague.

It really is problematic in that it limits the rights of Ontarians to protect their environment and know they can trust their government to be going by the same rules. I hope the members here will support this amendment.

Mr Galt: Really the two clauses that are being referred to here are what this bill is all about, and by striking them out we don't have a bill. This is the purpose of the bill. I should point out the provisions already exist as set out in these two clauses in the Environmental Protection Act.

This allows for conditions to be applied to exemptions, which can't be done now. The only thing we can do now is exempt outright, and by putting this in the bill we'll be able to add the conditions. If we went ahead with striking this out we'd no longer be able to regulate things like recycling or prohibit discharges. It's just not acceptable to have this struck from the bill.

Ms Churley: As a lawyer from CIELAP points out, and I think this is very important: "...particularly troubling in the light of the lack of clarity regarding how the authority which is sought through these proposed amendments to the EPA and OWRA is to be used. It must be assumed" -- because that's not clear at all -- "that the government intends to use this authority to implement the proposals made in the July 1996 document entitled Responsive Environmental Protection. This" could "include the establishment of `standardized' (permit by rule) systems for some types of approvals, and complete exemptions for others. However, many of the proposals contained in the Responsive Environmental Protection document were so vague and imprecise that it was impossible to comment on them meaningfully."

I would like to ask Dr Galt if he would give me his comment and the concerns that have been expressed around the fact that it's not clear.

Mr Galt: I point out that the paper that was released in July is a consultation paper. It's not a position taken by the government. They are ideas and thoughts that have been brought to our attention by various stakeholders. We're putting them out for further discussion and gave 75 days for response to that particular paper that was put out.

I point out that what was going on here was actually more restrictive than in this legislation. We'll be able to scope through regulation by putting conditions on when exemptions are made. Right now the legislation allows exemptions, and when an exemption is made it's just wide open and total. What we're proposing here is that conditions will be applied when those regulations are written and therefore will be scoped down and narrower.

Ms Churley: I don't agree with that, but in the interests of time, because I did say we'd finish today, I'll let it go. But I want to be on the record very strongly opposing that explanation. I don't think it's going to work that way and I think this sets a very dangerous precedent.

The Chair: Any further comment? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The motion is defeated. For the record I indicate that there was an identical motion from the official opposition.

Any further amendments to section 2 of the bill?

Mr Galt: I move that clauses 175.1(c), (d) and (e) of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(c) governing and requiring the payment of fees to the crown or to any other person or body specified by the regulations, including prescribing the amounts or the method of calculating the amounts of the fees, and governing the procedure for the payment,

"(i) in respect of a certificate of approval, provisional certificate of approval, permit, licence or renewal of licence, examination, inspection or certification,

"(ii) in respect of any registration or record required by this act or the regulations,

"(iii) in respect of an activity pursuant to a provision of a regulation that exempts a person from the requirement to obtain a certificate of approval, provisional certificate of approval or permit, or

"(iv) in respect of the supply of information, services, or copies of documents, maps, plans, recordings or drawings;

"(d) providing for the retention by a person or body specified by the regulations of all or part of the fees paid, under this act, to the person or body;

"(e) providing for refunds of fees paid under this act to the crown or to a person or body specified by the regulations;"

I have a few comments. This motion broadens the range of entities who, acting on behalf of the crown -- that is, designated by regulation -- may collect, retain or refund fees. This motion also adds inspections to the list of items for which fees may be established by regulation. The omission of inspections from Bill 57 was due to an oversight.

The extent of the rewording required to accommodate these changes makes it more practical to strike out the existing wording and substitute new ones. I believe we have a sheet we can pass around showing what has been struck out and what is new, if that would be of some assistance.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I'd like to ask from some clarification of where this came from. What made the government decide to bring forward this particular amendment? What representation to the committee would have led to the proposed amendment? As I understand it, this would allow the minister to rebate or not collect fees from certain individuals, but there doesn't seem to be any indication of why, under what circumstances, who'd pay and who wouldn't pay.

Mr Galt: Some of it was simple oversight, such as leaving out the word "inspections." We wanted to have that added and broaden the thinking in terms of collection of fees.

Mrs McLeod: I'm particularly interested in clause (d) and would like some clarity on who will pay and who will not pay fees under this section. Is there anything at all to limit or define the determination of who pays the fees?

Mr Galt: I'm sorting out what was an oversight to begin with. It's designating people to collect fees, able to designate what amount they are able to retain. If a third party is collecting fees on behalf of the government, there will be the ability to leave some of that fee with them.

Mrs McLeod: I'm sorry, but the wording in the original bill provided for that, so the amendment presumably, as I read it, is to broaden the powers given under the bill to allow a person or body to retain fees. There was the power providing for refunds of fees to the crown or municipality or person acting on behalf of.

Mr Galt: I'll call on counsel to see if he can explain the technicality for you.

1550

The Chair: Perhaps he could introduce himself for the benefit of Hansard, prefacing his comments.

Mr Bob Shaw: My name is Bob Shaw. I'm assistant director of central region. The wording change that has been made in (d) by the addition of "by a person or body specified by the regulations of" and then it goes on to read, "all or part of the fees paid, under this act," and then the insertion again, "to the person or body" is to reflect the changes that were made in 175.1(c). It used to read, "requiring the payment of fees to the crown, a municipality or person acting on behalf of the crown." When that was broadened so that it now reads, "fees...to the crown or to" any other "person or body specified by the regulations," a comparable change was required in (d) to mirror the wording.

Mrs McLeod: So basically throughout the entire piece, whatever cabinet decides goes with no clarification up front in the act; there's no limitation, no restriction in terms of decisions that are made about who pays and who can be exempted.

Mr Shaw: No, this does not pertain to who pays and who is exempted. This pertains to the fact that if the government chose to set a regulation in place that said a fee must be paid for this service -- such as, if I can use an example, our paying a fee for the licences for our car -- and the choice was made that rather than have government employees collect all that money, the private sector was going to collect the money, then (d) makes provisions that whatever third party the government has said is empowered by regulation to collect the money; (d) allows by regulation again for that party to retain part of the money that is collected.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chair, we have an amendment that we will place and support that proposes that the fees go into a consolidated revenue fund, and from that fund they can be directed for environmental purposes. That would be our preference. We think it's a limitation, a clear direction for any fees, so we will not be supporting the government's amendment, nor would we be supporting that section of the bill.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Shaw. Any further comment? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the motion? Contrary? The motion is carried.

Further amendments to section 2?

Mrs McLeod: I move that section 175.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Limitation

"(2) A regulation made under clause (1)(c) shall not authorize the charging of fees for any service or for the supply of any documents or material for which a fee is provided under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act."

We place this amendment because we believe it should be absolutely clear that there should not be fees chargeable under this act that would exceed those that are already in place under other acts.

The Chair: Any comment? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the motion? Contrary? The motion is defeated.

Further amendments to section 2?

Mrs McLeod: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"2.1 The act is amended by adding the following section:

"Separate account" --

The Chair: Excuse me. There are others that come before that. There's another one from you and one from the NDP, both referring to section 2.

Mrs McLeod: Which would you like me to place first?

The Chair: The one that amends (f.1) would appear to be next in order.

Mrs McLeod: That's fine. It's not as relevant to the immediate discussion, but I'm happy to do it in whatever order you would like, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Okay. We've done it in strict sequence in the past, but I will take direction from the committee.

Mrs McLeod: I didn't determine the sequence. Did you want to do the NDP motion first or should I place this motion?

The Chair: If you wish to proceed and place (f.1).

Mrs McLeod: I move that section 175.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:

"(f.1) requiring applicants for approvals, permits or licences to maintain liability insurance for environmentally sensitive work, defining `environmentally sensitive work' for the purpose of this clause and prescribing different amounts of insurance for different classes of applicant and different types of work."

This is our response to what we anticipated to be the elimination of the environmental compensation fund, which I understand has just been passed. We believe there needs to be some recourse for individuals who are facing environmental damage. It should not deplete their own funds. I think the presentation that was made by Jim and Mary Field of Port Dover was a very compelling one, and there are other incidents where people have been dependent on the environmental compensation fund to ensure that they were not, through no fault of their own, financially penalized. We believe that at the very minimum there should be a requirement that there be liability insurance by companies undertaking work that could be environmentally damaging.

The Chair: Further comment? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the motion? Contrary? That motion is defeated.

Further amendments to section 2?

Ms Churley: I move that section 175.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Limitation

"(2) A regulation made under clause (1)(c) shall not authorize the charging of fees except from holders of or applicants for a certificate of approval or a provisional certificate of approval."

The reason I've made this amendment is that there are concerns about provisions in the bill that would allow the ministry and municipalities or persons acting on behalf of the ministry who supply almost anything -- "information, services, or copies of documents, maps, plans, recordings or drawings" -- to charge fees for the delivery of these services or materials. The concern here is that members of the public who want to get involved and try to protect the environment, whether in their own backyards or overall, could be charged to have access, and lots of these things are provided under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act already, which is also a problem. The public should not be constrained in this way in terms of trying to participate in protecting the environment and being a part of environmental decision-making and of course holding the government accountable for its actions.

It's absolutely imperative in this bill that the government make it very clear to the public at large that the MOEE is limited to charging in situations where professional service or advice is provided by MOEE staff to people holding or applying for certificates of approval. That would make it very clear to the public that they won't be shut out of the process if they can't afford to pay the fees.

The Chair: Further comment? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the motion? Contrary? That motion is defeated.

Is it the favour of the committee that section 2, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Contrary? Section 2, as amended, is carried.

Further amendments -- I will ask for them since I see them in front of me -- to section 2.1?

1600

Mrs McLeod: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"2.1 The act is amended by adding the following section:

"Separate account

"123.1(1) All money received by the crown under this act from fines, penalties, fees and levies shall be held in a separate account in the consolidated revenue fund.

"Payment

"(2) The minister may direct that any money in the account be paid to the minister or to a person specified by the minister for such environmental protection purposes as the minister shall specify."

We think that there is ample precedent for governments designating fees that are collected for specific purposes. We believe that with the breadth of fees the government is now proposing to levy under this act it would be entirely appropriate to ensure that those fees are designated for environmental protection purposes.

Ms Churley: I can support this amendment, although I have an amendment on the same section that is more comprehensive. I'm not sure they contradict each other; I don't necessarily think they do.

The Chair: We'll get to yours. Unfortunately I'm going to have to rule that the amendment is out of order for the simple reason that the assessment of fees and the direction of fees is a motion that can only be made by a minister of the crown.

Ms Churley: So you're not going to allow me to read mine?

The Chair: No, the one that's on the floor right now.

Ms Churley: Oh, I see. Sorry.

The Chair: It speaks to the direction of funds, the allocation of funds, and that can only be done by a minister. Not even the parliamentary assistant could make a motion to that effect.

Mrs McLeod: May I ask, if it's in order, that at the conclusion of the afternoon the committee make a recommendation to cabinet that the moneys collected under this act be directed into a special fund?

The Chair: We certainly have a precedent. At the end of Bill 49 we had an agreement that we would stay long enough to have a discussion about that. The conclusion was the successful carriage of a recommendation not unlike the nature of the one you're introducing here today.

Mrs McLeod: Would it be in order to place it orally at the end of the session?

The Chair: Absolutely.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you.

The Chair: Moving on, are there any further amendments? Ms Churley.

Ms Churley: I move the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"2.1 The act is amended by adding the following section:

"Separate account

"175.2 (1) All money received by the crown under this act shall be held in a separate account in the consolidated revenue fund, including all fines, penalties, fees and levies paid under the act and regulations.

"Special purpose

"(2) Money standing to the credit of the separate account is, for the purposes of the Financial Administration Act, money paid to Ontario for a special purpose.

"Minister's direction

"(3) The minister may direct that money be paid out of the account to the minister, or to any person specified by the minister, for environmental protection purposes such as responding to spills or other environmental emergencies, restoring or rehabilitating the natural environment where it has been adversely affected by the discharge of a contaminant or pollutant, decommissioning contaminated lands that have been abandoned by the persons responsible for the contamination, funding programs that encourage or facilitate pollution prevention or waste reduction, reuse or recycling, or providing participant funding or intervenor funding to facilitate public participation in environmental decision-making under the act.

"Report

"(4) The minister shall submit the annual financial report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall table the report in the Legislative Assembly by April 1 of each year."

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Churley. Having given you the opportunity to read it into the record, I must make the same ruling, because it provides for the direction of funds, that such an amendment is out of order unless it's introduced by a minister.

Ms Churley: I'll have to take your word for that.

The Chair: Feel free to ask legal counsel.

Ms Churley: No, in the interests of time. I'm sure they'll win. They know more about it than I do. Given that this is ruled out of order, am I permitted to ask a question around this particular item?

The Chair: If the committee has no opposition to your doing that.

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): I wonder if it would be appropriate, since it addresses the same question we just talked about and we know we're going to be discussing it at the end, to do it at that time because then we'll be --

Ms Churley: Sorry?

The Chair: Mrs McLeod already had requested an opportunity to fashion a recommendation on this subject after the conclusion of the actual debate.

Ms Churley: Oh, I'm sorry. I was reading. Thank you. I didn't hear her say that.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Churley. We're moving on to section 3. Are there any amendments or comments relating to section 3 of the bill? Two hands went up simultaneously. Ms Churley.

Ms Churley: It looks like the NDP and the Liberals have the same amendment here.

I move that clause 176.(1)(h.2) of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in subsection 3(1) of the bill, be struck out.

This is the section dealing with deeming. It refers to deeming a certificate of approval to exist in respect of the plant etc. Several people who spoke before the committee questioned them on the meaning of the deeming power in conjunction. I believe some industry representatives brought up that as a concern as well.

Again I refer to the document from the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy. I don't know if people have it in front of them. On page 5 of that article they bring up some of the problems:

"Furthermore, serious problems have been identified with the legal and policy implications of `deeming' certificates of approval to exist under `permit by rule' systems." They point out, and I think this is a very important point, "that the granting of a certificate of approval provides `statutory authorization' to the proponent. This provides an effective bar against common law actions directed at the proponent by occupiers and owners of neighbouring or downstream lands which may be harmed by the proponent's operations covered by the authorization. These common law rights of the owners and occupiers of lands potentially affected by industrial and other activities should not be removed unless there is adequate provincial oversight of the approval and operation of facilities to ensure that they do not cause damage to the environment, property or human life."

It raises questions about the potential for unfair decision-making and that's why (1) I don't think it's necessary in the context of what the government is trying to achieve in here, and (2) I think it is extremely arbitrary and gives unfair application to the law. In terms of the public being able to protect their environment, their land, I believe it should be struck out of the bill.

Mrs McLeod: I add to that, in the hearings I sat in, and I read the Hansard from the hearings that I did not attend, I didn't hear one representative to this committee who understood what the deeming provision was there for, how it might be used, why it was necessary, and I certainly didn't hear anybody support it. It seems to me this act provides such broad powers to the minister that this additional power of deeming, which further confuses the issue, is really inexplicable.

I would appreciate it, even before the amendment is placed, if some member from the government would speak to why deeming is here. It was a question repeatedly raised by presenters to the committee and never answered.

Mr Galt: I point out that this is certainly not new in the act. It already exists in part V of the Environmental Protection Act. We're standardizing its use as it was brought in by the previous government. I can quote you where it was brought in at 176(4)(s), "deeming a certificate of approval to exist in respect of a waste management system or waste disposal site other than a site in respect of which subsection 30(1) applies." That was brought with Bill 143, the Waste Management Act, by the NDP government in 1992.

It's also required for certificates of prohibition. In this case it would only be used for standardized approvals regulations. It's not all that new. It's been used and it's working.

1610

Mrs McLeod: My question is, why would you need this when you've already got these incredibly broad powers of exemption?

Mr Galt: That's part of the problem. They're too broad and too open. Once they're exempted there's nothing there; there are no conditions. The reason for the bill is to be able to put conditions on exemptions. That's the whole thing this bill is about.

Ms Churley: The obvious question is, why make those exemptions? Make exemptions but put some rules around the exemptions. You have the ability to exempt any thing from both acts. Now I suppose you're digging the hole that could cause all kinds of problems and you're trying to put some protections around some of those exemptions. I assume you know there could be massive problems in allowing those kinds of blanket exemptions to be given to anything.

Mr Galt: It seems to be difficult to explain this exempting and the reason for it because it's already there. Yes, they can be exempted, you're absolutely right, but with those exemptions, as it's now laid out there's not the ability to scope or put conditions on those exemptions. That's the basis of this bill, to be able to put those conditions on the exemptions, which we're not in a position to do. I would think you'd be very supportive of writing more regulations as we move with standardized approval. That's really what this is about: getting rid of some of the bureaucratic difficulties of issuing certificates of approval and establishing very specific regulations that people can go ahead and do things with. Here we are exempting with certain conditions and that's how the regulations will be written.

Mrs McLeod: Our concern with the bill is that it doesn't really deal with a streamlining in terms of time lines of greater efficiencies. The essence of this bill is to give absolutely unlimited, broad, arbitrary powers to cabinet through regulation without due hearing, without due public consideration. This adds to those powers.

I suspect, Mr Galt, that when people who came forward supporting this bill in the belief that you were doing what they hoped you would do to streamline the process realize the arbitrary ability of the minister on the one hand to exempt them but on the other hand, without any real consultation, put limits on that exemption, they are going to have some real concerns about just how arbitrary this is.

Ms Churley: That was my point as well. I just wanted to ask a question of Dr Galt when he has a moment. I want staff to sit by me too and give me all the answers. Can I borrow one of your assistants?

I wanted to ask a question about the comments Ms McLeod made about public consultations around this. Will there be any? There's no provision in the bill to make sure there would be public notice, public consultation. Are you willing to provide the public with notice?

Mr Galt: Anything and everything the ministry will be doing is subject to the Environmental Bill of Rights registry. It will be published and there will be ample opportunity for public participation and consultation.

Ms Churley: Given the latest rather unprecedented and interesting report from the Environmental Commissioner to the Legislature, there is great concern about lots of environmental -- I would use the word "deregulation"; she didn't -- changes being made throughout the government in terms of environmental protection that are not showing up in the environmental registry. Over the length of time this government has been in power we have seen that implement for consultation and at least public notice weaken further and further, so I don't feel that's even a guarantee any more. That's one. The second one is that the environmental registry is there for anybody who can make their way to a computer and look it up, and I just don't believe that that's adequate. So I have those two concerns about that. I don't necessarily require an answer but that's my concern.

The Chair: Any further comments? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the motion? Contrary? The motion is defeated. Again, just for the record, there was a duplicate motion introduced by the official opposition. Any further amendments to section 3 of the bill?

Ms Churley: I move that subsection 3(6) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(6) Clause 176(4)(g) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

"(g) requiring the reduction, reuse or recycling of hazardous waste, or any class thereof."

I understand from our discussions about this earlier that the minister may already have ability to provide the 3Rs in hazardous waste, but I would like it to be clear in this bill. The reason I say this is that I would support getting rid of the Ontario Waste Management Corp. But under the existing bill all it's doing is getting rid of it. There's nothing in the bill that talks about what happens to all the hazardous waste programs. Our government, after the final EA hearings, said no to the hazardous waste facility that had been reviewed for quite a long time, and we're all aware that it took a very long time, a very complex subject, and we still don't have complete answers to how we deal with our hazardous waste.

We know that from the early days, when those hearings started, the big megaproject looked like a good idea. I think that pretty well everybody has changed their tune on that. As technology has advanced and there are new ways to deal with hazardous waste, there are more micro ways of dealing with it. We also know that prevention is very important. We don't have any programs in place now under your government, so I would like to see that this section be amended to make sure that we have provisions that the reduction, reuse or recycling of hazardous waste be clarified for people, that the government will be bringing in those programs.

Mr Galt: We already have the regulation-making authority that exists in 175.1(b). I can go through it and read it but I don't think it's really necessary. It's already in the bill.

The Chair: Any further comment? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the motion? Contrary? The motion is defeated. Further amendments to section 3?

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I move that subsection 3(12) of the bill be struck out.

When I look at the possibility that power will be given to municipalities relating to odours, noise and dust under the EPA, we have experienced in the past that municipalities, through municipal or political pressure, would turn around and approve those concerns to the people in the area surrounding especially farming communities. By going to this clause, it would give municipalities the power to give the authority. There is definitely a danger. I really believe that the environment people should be taking care of it, as they are at the present time, after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture.

1620

The Chair: Any further comments?

Ms Churley: I believe we have the same amendment.

The Chair: Yes, you do.

Ms Churley: I would just like to speak in support of the Liberal amendment for similar reasons.

The Chair: Any further comment? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the motion? Contrary? That motion is defeated.

I now put the question on section 3. Is it the favour of the committee that section 3 carries? All those in favour? Contrary? Section 3 is carried.

Any comments or amendments to section 4 of the bill?

Ms Churley: I move that subsection 177(6) of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be amended by adding at the end "and such materials shall be posted in the registry under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, and the text made available to the public free of charge."

I make that amendment so that at least there is some clear provision in the bill that the public be made aware of this particular section.

The Chair: Any further comments? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the motion? Contrary? That motion is defeated.

Further amendments to section 4?

Mrs McLeod: I move that section 177 of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Public availability

"(7) Despite subsection (4), a code, formula, standard, protocol or procedure shall not be adopted by reference unless that which is proposed to be adopted, including a clear statement of how and where the text of what is to be adopted will be generally made available to the public and the cost to the public of access to the text, is published in the registry under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993.

"Same

"(8) Any code, formula, standard, protocol or procedure that is adopted by reference and that is not published in the Ontario Gazette shall be made available free of charge, during regular business hours, to the public."

The Chair: Would you like to speak to your motion?

Mrs McLeod: I think it follows the motion placed by Ms Churley that was just defeated, unfortunately. It's really in essence ensuring that there is due public notice. That was one of the concerns heard from presenters to the committee, that with the powers given to the cabinet under this, obviously there'd be many situations in which there would not be public hearings and due process followed because of the exemptions, and that there should at the very least be adequate public notice and access to information.

Mr Galt: Again, the Environmental Bill of Rights certainly sets out the legal requirements with regard to giving notice, and certainly we do if it falls within those requirements, and it certainly has been the practice of the ministry to advise those persons and stakeholders who are directly involved. Therefore, I cannot support this motion.

Mrs McLeod: It appears there are to be no limits of any kind, even in terms of access of the public to information about what the government has done. I find it increasingly frustrating that even the most basic proposals for public awareness of what the government is doing, as it takes these powers unto itself, are simply being ignored pro forma by the government members.

The Chair: Any further comment? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the motion? Contrary? That motion is defeated.

Further amendments to section 4? This time, in the case of a duplicate, Ms McLeod, perhaps you wish to go first.

Mrs McLeod: I move that section 177.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be struck out.

We place this amendment because we see no legitimacy in the crown being exempt from any liability and are particularly concerned about this being in a bill in which the minister is giving himself and the cabinet incredible powers to exempt, to place limitations on his exemptions. There is potential for harm in the proposals before us in this bill, and at the same time the minister is seeking to exonerate himself and the crown from any liability at all.

There is precedent in law that if a government makes a new regulation that harms someone, the public can take the government to court. I believe that precedent should stand and that it is unconscionable for a government, at the same time as it gives itself these kinds of broad exemption powers, to exempt itself from any liability.

Ms Churley: I will speak to this because the NDP has the same amendment. I couldn't agree with Ms McLeod more fully. This is really fundamental to people's civil rights, and it's just fundamental to fairness and government accountability that the public not have those civil rights taken away from them. The public should not end up having to foot the bill for government mistakes like this. We disagree all the time. I say you're deregulating; you say you're not. Time will tell, and I'm sorry to say, time will tell that I am right. Unfortunately, that's going to be a legacy of this government down the road, and that's a fact.

As you deregulate and take away people's ability to participate and be consulted and to protect their environment, the government pulls away from taking responsibility for its actions. It seems to me that the government must be aware that there are going to be problems, there are going to be liabilities as a result of this; otherwise it wouldn't be in there. I think this is absolutely shocking, beyond the pale, and I'm going to ask for a recorded vote on this. It is fundamental to people's rights, and I would urge all the members of the committee to at least support us on this motion. It's fundamental.

Mr Galt: I certainly have some empathy for the opposition and third party in their comments. As I read this, I struggle with legalese to interpret and appreciate what is there. But there's no question that courts and the law have been evolving and government has found itself in positions of liability that really hadn't been there before. Certainly a number of jurisdictions are adopting similar legislation to protect the government from that kind of excessive liability, such as BC and Alberta. It seemed logical to be putting it into the legislation in this particular bill.

Ms Churley: I don't know exactly what Alberta's doing, but they do have a special environmental fund, which in a way ties in with this. I don't know if you're aware, but when we -- I'm sorry. Good thing there's no TV camera on me.

Mr Galt: But that black box is up there.

Ms Churley: I wouldn't be surprised.

The Chair: It is. I should have warned everyone on the committee. That's the black box on top of the TV.

Ms Churley: I think this ties a lot of pieces together. What the government is saying here is that they're trying to do what other jurisdictions are doing. At the same time, they're unwilling to even consider, as they increase their fees ability throughout the public and industry -- there's going to be extra money made; we all know that, that this is a hidden tax, a user fee, whatever you call it -- they refuse to do like Alberta did; that is, take that extra money and put it into a special fund for the environment. Here would be a good place to put some of that money.

And at the same time it is -- which we'll be getting to later -- taking away the environmental compensation fund, which is another attack on people's right to enjoy their own property, and if, through no fault of their own, they end up with an environmental hazardous situation on their property, there's some kind of compensation. That's going to be gone. It's really surprising for a government, especially under Bill 20, the new Land Use Planning and Protection Act, that puts such emphasis on individual rights and private property and all of that, to now say in this bill that it's taking away this last recourse.

1630

I think it really does have something to do with the budget cutting that's going on for the tax cut and to develop the budget, and the government doesn't want expensive court cases. If the government can stand behind the argument, which they keep trying to do, that this is not deregulating -- "We're actually doing more with less," is what they say; "It's going to be better regulation" -- then it should put its money where its mouth is and prove to the public -- this is going to come back to haunt the government. It's incredibly fundamental.

Mrs McLeod: I could not disagree with Mr Galt more in terms of it being appropriate for this clause to be in this bill. This is the very bill that this clause should not be in, because of what else the bill does. I just simplify it in three ways.

This is the bill that takes out the Environmental Compensation Act, so if you are an individual who suffers environmental damage through no fault of your own, you have no recourse to compensation. You have to pay for the damage done to you out of your own pocket or you have to go to court and pay the court costs out of your own pocket. We've proposed an amendment today that would at least require companies to have liability insurance so that there could be a source of compensation through the private sector, which is what the government keeps harping on. That was defeated without any consideration of the proposal at all, so this bill is leaving individuals without any recourse to any financial support for dealing with environmental damage that has been caused through no fault of their own.

This same bill then goes and gives the minister and the crown powers to exempt from due process, from public hearings, environmental projects that are beyond anything any government has ever sought before, let alone anything any government has.

And then they give themselves the power to be exempt from any liability. If the government really believed this act was in the public interest, they wouldn't feel the need to exempt themselves from liability. They must feel there is potential harm to the public or they wouldn't have felt the need to include this clause in this bill.

The Chair: Further comment? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the motion?

Ms Churley: I asked for a recorded vote.

The Chair: Forgive me, Ms Churley. You did request that.

Ayes

Churley, Lalonde, McLeod.

Nays

Chudleigh, Fisher, Galt, Munro, Ouellette, Tascona.

The Chair: The motion is defeated. Again, for the record, there was a duplicate NDP motion similarly worded.

I'll put the question on section 4. Is it the favour of the committee that section 4 carries? All those in favour? Contrary? Section 4 is carried.

Are there any amendments or comments to section 5? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Is it the favour of the committee that section 5 carries? All those in favour? Contrary? Section 5 is carried.

Section 6 of the bill. Are there any amendments, comments?

Mrs McLeod: I move that subsection 6(3) of the bill be amended by striking out "Clauses 75(1)(s) and (t) of the act are" and substituting "Clause 75(1)(s) of the act is" and that clause 75(1)(t) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in subsection 6(3) of the bill, be struck out.

Basically, this is a revisiting of the deeming provision. The same debate that applied to the concern of ourselves and the New Democratic Party on the issue of deeming provisions applies to the changes made to the Water Resources Act.

Given the exemption powers that the minister is giving himself and the crown under this act, we do not see any relevance for there to be a further deeming, and the explanation that's been given to us on the Environmental Protection Act, that this allows the minister to place limitations on something which is already exempted, just adds to our concern about arbitrary powers being held by the crown.

Ms Churley: Again the NDP has the same amendment and for the same reasons. If I may, because it's an issue we covered earlier, I'd like to ask Dr Galt a question on that. There are many concerns about deeming and I raised some of them earlier, but there is a real concern about the number of staff layoffs in your ministry. I believe that many people are concerned about enforcement and compliance. How are you going to make sure, with I would say the purely inadequate staff you have, that you're going to be able to monitor carefully these proponents or industries that are so-called "deemed"?

Mr Galt: Mr Chair, the amendment, as proposed, is quite different from the question that's being asked by Ms Churley.

The Chair: It's certainly your right not to answer it, but it's quite appropriate for Ms Churley to pose the question to you.

Ms Churley: I am concerned about compliance monitoring. It's okay if you don't want to answer. I just think it's an issue that's been raised by some of the public. There are concerns about the implications of deemed approvals and the fact that when you have standardized approvals there could be more problems out there. I just think it's a legitimate question for the public to be asking.

Mr Galt: There's no question that the priority has been given to monitoring, ensuring that inspection compliance is there. I don't have the figure at my fingertips, but it's in the neighbourhood of 270 or thereabouts staff who are still employed in that area. That's literally no reduction and it's something like three to four times the number that Environment Canada has for all of Canada. We're looking after that area very well. I don't think Ms Churley needs to be all that concerned about how the monitoring is being carried out.

The Chair: Further comments? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the motion? Contrary? The motion is defeated.

Any further comments to section 6? Seeing none, I'll put the question if it is the pleasure of the committee that section 6 carries. All those in favour? Contrary? Section 6 is carried.

Section 7, any amendments or comments?

Ms Churley: I move that clauses 76(a) and (b) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be struck out.

This is the same subject as an earlier amendment under the other act. It deals with the same problem. It permits the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations essentially prohibiting, regulating, controlling any thing or any matter or any pollutant, any discharge, any spill, and it goes on and on and on. The same concerns that I expressed earlier apply here to the Ontario Water Resources Act. I'm sure people appreciate that. That's the purpose of the amendment. I won't repeat what I said before. It's in the record. I have grave concerns about this open-ended provision.

The Chair: Any further comment? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the motion? Contrary? The motion is defeated.

For the record, there was a duplicate motion from the official opposition.

Further amendments to section 7?

1640

Mr Galt: I move that clauses 76(c), (d) and (e) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(c) governing and requiring the payment of fees to the crown or to any other person or body specified by the regulations, including prescribing the amounts or the method of calculating the amounts of the fees, and governing the procedure for the payment,

"(i) in respect of an approval, permit or renewal of permit, licence or renewal of licence, examination, inspection or certification,

"(ii) in respect of any registration or record required by this act or the regulations,

"(iii) in respect of an activity pursuant to a provision of a regulation that exempts a person from the requirement to obtain an approval, permit or licence, or

"(iv) in respect of the supply of information, services, or copies of documents, maps, plans, recordings or drawings;

"(d) providing for the retention by a person or body specified by the regulations of all or part of the fees paid, under this act, to the person or body;

"(e) providing for refunds of fees paid under this act to the crown or to a person or body specified by the regulations."

This motion essentially reflects the one we made earlier under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Chair: Further comment? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the motion? Contrary? The motion carries.

Further amendments to section 7?

Mrs McLeod: I move that section 76 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Limitation

"(2) A regulation made under clause (1)(c) shall not authorize the charging of fees for any service or for the supply of any documents or material for which a fee is provided under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act."

As on the Environmental Protection Act, we do not believe there should be a fee higher than what is already set out in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Chair: Further comment?

Ms Churley: My amendment is a little different. I will be moving that. I haven't had a chance to really look at this. This doesn't in any way contradict the NDP one in front of us, does it?

Mrs McLeod: If yours were to pass it would make ours unnecessary. We're not optimistic that either of us is going to have any success, Marilyn.

Ms Churley: I think they're very similar.

The Chair: Further comment? Seeing none, all those in favour of the motion? Contrary? The motion is defeated.

Further amendments? Ms Churley. I guess it's academic.

Ms Churley: It's similar enough.

The Chair: Ms Churley, if you'd like to go first. Oh, excuse me one second.

Mrs McLeod: There is a Liberal motion that precedes it.

Ms Churley: Yes, I think there is.

The Chair: I beg your pardon.

Mrs McLeod: I move that section 76 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:

"(f.i) requiring applicants for approvals, permits or licences to maintain liability insurance for environmentally sensitive work, defining `environmentally sensitive work' for the purpose of this clause and prescribing different amounts of insurance for different classes of applicant and different types of work."

I recognize the fact that this is a --

The Chair: Excuse me. You said "environmentally sensitive work."

Mrs McLeod: "Environmental sensitive work." It's been drafted by legal counsel. I won't get into a grammar lesson with legal counsel.

The Chair: I'm just saying it differed from the wording on the page.

Mrs McLeod: Yes, it did.

The Chair: You read "environmentally" instead of "environmental."

Mrs McLeod: Yes. I assume you would prefer that I placed it as it was drafted by legal counsel, which is fine. It's not grammatically correct. I'm an old English teacher.

The Chair: If you would prefer that we amend the written copy, I agree with you it's probably more appropriate. Fine, "environmentally" it is.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the fact that legislative counsel is extremely overloaded and has had difficulty in responding to all the requirements for drafting of amendments.

The Chair: It's all these duplicate amendments.

Mrs McLeod: It's a bill that needs a lot of work. Unfortunately there's not a lot of receptiveness to that.

I appreciate that this amendment parallels the amendment we made on the Environmental Protection Act, so I'm not optimistic that it will receive government support. But I want to highlight our very real concern with the elimination of the environmental compensation fund and that there is no recourse for individuals. This is damage experienced by individuals that is totally beyond their control.

I don't think it should be a principle of any government that there are costs imposed on individuals. This legislation opens up the potential for a government to make laws and regulations that have a direct impact on individuals and then gives the individuals no recourse for financial support at all. If the government is determined, as it appears to be, to eliminate the environmental compensation fund, we feel very strongly that there must be an alternative put in place.

The best we could suggest is that at least private companies be required to have liability insurance. If it is deemed to be inappropriate to include it in the act at this time, I request strongly that the committee bring this to the attention of cabinet for future action.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs McLeod. Ms Churley.

Ms Churley: The NDP has a similar amendment to section 10, and it's the same issue. We heard from the farmers who came before us and told about the terrible situation they are in, and there are several other cases across the province. I strongly advise the government to support this one.

I also ask for a recorded vote on this amendment. I will be supporting it. I ask Dr Galt if he is going to support this amendment, if not, why not, and what his answer is for people who are in the same situation as the Fields.

Mr Galt: I would point out to Ms Churley that there are already provisions in the act to provide insurance or assurance, however you want to look at it, to environmentally sensitive areas; for example, certificates of approval given for the handling of pesticides, pesticide licences. The things we're going to be doing with the standardized approvals would not be considered as environmentally sensitive. Consequently, for those two reasons I will not support this amendment.

Ms Churley: I would say that Dr Galt's clarification indicates to me again the total lack of understanding about environmental protection. How can he say, "Don't worry, what we're doing here is not going to be environmentally sensitive"? How can he know that? Sometimes the most innocuous-looking project can blow up and you can have an environmental disaster on your hands. I think it's the height of arrogance to say: "We know everything. Don't worry. Trust us. None of this is environmentally sensitive, so it can't happen." We've heard that many times before. We've had communities all over the province with environmental disasters and problems, and taxpayers often end up having to pick up the tab; people like the Fields end up having to pick up the tab and cover it themselves, which just is not fair. I can't understand why you wouldn't support this, Dr Galt.

Mr Galt: We're talking about issues such as have been mentioned before. We do not feel that the installation of something like a restaurant fan is an environmentally sensitive activity. Maybe Ms Churley feels that kind of thing is. I feel it's an awful lot of bureaucracy, and by setting the proper regulation, restaurant fans -- if you look at the legislation and read it in great detail you'd be into having to give certificates of approval for bathroom fans, fans in livestock barns, and I don't think that's practical. This is why we're bringing in standardized approvals.

She made reference to Jim and Mary Field, and since the hearings last week -- a week ago now, as a matter of fact -- the next day I had an extensive half-hour discussion on the phone with them. I have followed up. When you examine the problem there, it does not come under this ministry; it comes under the Ministry of Natural Resources and the drilling for gas and oil, and proper insurance should be in that particular ministry. I really don't know the legislation in that ministry to quote if it is or isn't, whether or not these people were breaking the law, but I've certainly enquired and have passed the message on to that ministry.

Ms Churley: The whole question is a really interesting one. I don't know if anybody on the committee heard on CBC Metro Morning some discussion about the plant in the east end that recently had a fire. Of course this is not new to any government, the so-called orphan sites, and I've had it with Canada Metal.

Am I confusing issues here? I think they are all connected because it comes down to us as society and governments having to figure out how to protect the taxpayers and how to protect local land owners when you have these kinds of situations where you have environmental catastrophes and when you have abandoned sites and that kind of thing happens. The discussion this morning was around who should be responsible: federal government, provincial government? I know I'm talking about orphan sites more, but I think these are connected in that we have to start finding ways to ensure the taxpayers don't end up completely -- it looks like more than likely this site in the east end of Toronto, the taxpayers are going to end up having to pick up the tab on it.

1650

Mr Galt: I would just like to bring us up to date, because I did not understand from the Fields, and it might be of general interest to the committee, what had actually happened there, if I could just have 30 or 45 seconds to explain. What happened was they came in and drilled and they went down roughly 900 feet through a salt layer and then they apparently pulled the casing out. This allowed water to mix and it came up to the 135-foot level where the deep well was for their livestock. They were watering their livestock from this 135-foot level which became mixed with the salt. They were about a mile away. The water for their home came from a dug well and consequently they were unaware of this increased salt level. Pigs are extremely sensitive and I'm surprised they would have survived as long as they did under these conditions.

The well driller did not seal the well properly, or actually took the casing out, as I understand, which really allowed all this mixing to occur. Had the well driller -- gas well, that is -- properly sealed that well, none of this would have happened, and had there been any kind of bonding. The end result was that these people ended up suing an elderly lady who owned the land and it was a very messy affair. Until I chatted with them on the phone, I was unclear on what the real problem was.

I don't think we need to go into any discussions on the recent fire, but I just thought that for general information people might appreciate being clarified a little bit on that particular instance.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you. I appreciate the clarification because I think it underscores the problems that the Fields were facing and that they were problems not within their own control. I remember a part of their presentation saying they had no idea what to do until somebody told them about the environmental compensation fund so that at least they could get not only some financial support initially, but also some direction as to what other alternatives they could take. The fact that you've clarified that there was a very real problem is helpful to that. I think we could go on and give other examples. It's not just the Fields who have had this experience.

I realize the debate about the environmental compensation fund has taken place, but the fact that there are examples like that -- there was another one in the paper, the McIntyres from Orléans. We could on and cite examples of people who really need some help. If the government is not going to be responsible in providing adequate protection up front, they should at least feel some responsibility in providing some financial compensation when they're damaged.

I again would strongly recommend that if this resolution is not appropriate, the committee consider a recommendation to cabinet to look at what would be appropriate alternatives.

Ms Churley: I appreciate the clarification of what happened to the Fields. It seemed to be clear from their presentation that there were two possible sources of the problem: the company and then the person who dug the well. It seems to me you're saying that as it turned out, it was determined that it was solely the owner of the well who was held responsible.

I don't know if that's correct or not, but I will say that that's what the environmental compensation fund is all about. It was, and still is, until this bill goes through, the payor of last resort. Mrs Field sounded like she had a terrible time, and I don't blame her, suing her elderly neighbour. It sounds as though her elderly neighbour was in no position to pay. I certainly support polluters having to pay. I believe that in situations like the neighbour of Mrs Field, that's again a situation where it in a humane way can click in to help people, because it seems like both these people were victims here for a different reason. That is a very good reason why the environmental compensation fund was set up in the first place.

Now you're saying no to insurance and you're saying no to the compensation fund, which leaves people like Mrs Field and her elderly neighbour extremely vulnerable. That's a fact.

Mr Lalonde: Again, I'd just like to go on the compensation fund, why I still think it should be left in there. I'm just going to give you some examples of what I've gone through lately. In the village of St Pascal, where the whole thing was supervised by the environmental people, the THM, for which the allowed parts per million at the present time is about 150, they had reached 3,300 THM per million. This was a pilot project put in place by the Ministry of Environment. At the present time, you're talking of removing the compensation fund.

I'm going to go to another instance that is going to happen very soon in my district. Vars, Embrun, Russell and Marionville spent millions and millions of dollars; they're on the same aquifer, and still the ministry is giving the approval for those municipalities. I'm talking of over 20,000 population that are serviced by those wells over there. The government is not doing absolutely anything, and given the fact that we are going to remove this compensation fund, I don't know where the people are going to go. For the town of St Pascal, 240 families, the cost was over $3 million, and they just can't use the water. I attended one of the water expositions they had in the Macdonald building. It does affect the animals; it does affect the quality of milk from the cows. The people had paid up front $26,000 to connect to those wells. Now they're paying $4,000 a year and they just can't use the water. The government is not doing anything at the present time. I wonder what's going to happen after this.

The Chair: Any further comment? Seeing none, I'll put the question.

Ms Churley: Recorded, please.

The Chair: That's right; Ms Churley asked for a recorded vote. All those in favour?

Ayes

Churley, Lalonde, McLeod.

Nays

Chudleigh, Fisher, Galt, Maves, Munro, Ouellette.

The Chair: The motion is defeated. Any further amendments to section 7?

Ms Churley: I move that section 76 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Limitation

"(2) A regulation made under clause (1)(c) shall not authorize the charging of fees except from holders of or applicants for a certificate of approval or a provisional certificate of approval."

This is the same as our amendment to the EPA, 175. I am putting forth the amendment for the same reason as under the EPA, and that is that the public should be allowed and be guaranteed access to information they need from the government to protect the environment.

The Chair: Any further comments? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the motion? Contrary? The motion is defeated. Any further amendments?

Ms Churley: I move that section 78 of the Ontario Water --

The Chair: No.

Ms Churley: Where are we?

The Chair: You missed one.

Ms Churley: Did I miss one? I probably have it here. I thought that's the one I just did.

The Chair: You missed 77(6).

Ms Churley: Just give me a second here.

I move that section 76 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Limitation

"(2) A regulation made under clause (1)(c) shall not authorize the charging of fees except from holders of or applicants for a certificate of approval or a provisional certificate of approval."

The Chair: I'm afraid we just dealt with that one, Ms Churley. Subsection 77(6).

1700

Ms Churley: Somebody just handed me -- it did all sound very familiar. That's your fault.

Mrs McLeod: That's my fault.

Ms Churley: Oh, oh. Now they're coming at me. Okay.

The Chair: You shouldn't shuffle and deal your papers. Let's start over again.

Ms Churley: Stop me early if I'm not on the right one.

I move that subsection 77(6) -- yes? -- of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding at the end "and such materials shall be posted in the registry under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 and the text made available to the public free of charge."

Mrs Fisher: The discussion we had regarding that motion was the discussion -- the argument was out of context to the motion that was being read, because Ms Churley did make --

The Chair: Ms Churley hadn't spoken to her motion yet.

Mrs Fisher: No, but she did prior. For the record's sake, just putting things in order, the argument you gave a few minutes ago to the past motion was the argument you're now going to give to this one, and I think you probably have another argument over there for the one we just defeated.

The Chair: We'll let Ms Churley put on the record whatever she chooses to.

Mrs Fisher: Yes, I agree.

The Chair: Do you wish to speak to the motion, Ms Churley?

Ms Churley: Yes, I do. I didn't quite understand Mrs Fisher's point, however.

Mrs Fisher: I'll explain it if she wants me to. You were talking about access to information and the public not -- and that is the argument that supports the motion we are now dealing with?

Ms Churley: Yes.

Mrs Fisher: I was just saying that I think maybe we got out of context of what debate you were giving in terms of support of your motion. That's all I'm saying.

Ms Churley: Oh, I see. You don't want me to say it again.

Mrs Fisher: You can say it again. Be glad to hear it.

Mrs McLeod: The motion is actually out of order.

Ms Churley: Yes.

Mrs McLeod: The motions are so similar that the two motions back to back --

Ms Churley: Yes.

Mrs McLeod: That's why I thought that if the one that was coming up was the one on the fees, because we hadn't spoken to the fees as yet --

The Chair: Well, let's let Ms Churley speak to this one, even if it is a duplicate.

Ms Churley: In the interests of time, because I have something important to say a little later on, I've given my amendment and let's just vote on it unless somebody else would like to speak to it.

The Chair: Thank you. Any further comment? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the motion? Contrary? The motion is defeated.

Further amendments to section 7?

Mrs McLeod: I move that section 77 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Public availability

"(7) Despite subsection (4), a code, formula, standard, protocol or procedure shall not be adopted by reference unless that which is proposed to be adopted, including a clear statement of how and where the text of what is to be adopted will be generally made available to the public and the cost to the public of access to the text, is published in the registry under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993.

"Same

"(8) Any code, formula, standard, protocol or procedure that is adopted by reference and that is not published in the Ontario Gazette shall be made available free of charge, during regular business hours, to the public."

This is complementary to the amendment which was just defeated, placed by the NDP, and again just speaks to our concern that given the arbitrary powers being taken unto the cabinet, there be some reasonable process of public notification so that there can be some hope of a measure of public accountability being introduced to this process.

The Chair: Further comment? Seeing none, all those in favour of the motion? Contrary? The motion is defeated.

Further amendments to section 7?

Mrs McLeod: I move that section 78 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be struck out.

I'm not sure that we need to revisit the debate other than to say I still feel as strongly as I did 15 minutes ago that there is no excuse for government seeking to exempt itself from any liability whatsoever even as they give themselves incredible power to unilaterally regulate environmental issues.

The Chair: Is there further comment?

Ms Churley: Just for the record again, the NDP has the same amendment for the same reasons. I reiterate again how out of all of the problems I have with this bill, how shocked I am in this one area that the government is supporting such a draconian amendment that is really going to hurt the public.

The Chair: Further comment? Seeing none, all those in favour of the motion? Contrary? The motion is defeated.

Any further comments or amendments on section 7?

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, I believe that the further amendment that we have would be ruled out of order, as it was on the Environmental Protection Act, so I'll defer to a discussion of a resolution to cabinet. So we'll withdraw the amendment.

The Chair: Any further amendments or discussion of section 7? Seeing none, I'll put the question: Is it the favour of the committee that section 7, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Contrary? Section 7, as amended, is carried.

Are there any amendments to sections 8 or 9 of the bill? Seeing none, is it the favour of the committee that sections 8 and 9 carry? All those in favour? Contrary? Sections 8 and 9 carry.

Any amendments to section 10 of the bill?

Ms Churley: I move that section 10 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Same

"(2) Nothing in this act limits or affects the right of any person to obtain interim or final compensation for any claims accruing before June 3, 1996 for which notice of loss was filed with the Environmental Compensation Corporation before June 3, 1996.

"Same

"(3) In the absence of the Environmental Compensation Corporation, any person undertaking environmentally significant activities that could result in spills or other environmental harm is required to obtain environmental liability insurance in an amount specified by regulation."

I am going to go over this ground again. It's not just for the record but because I still don't think we have received a reasonable explanation from the government as to why it's getting rid of the Environmental Compensation Corp. The minister made reference to the fact that the ECC cost more than $3 million over the past decade but hasn't paid out that amount to spill victims or spill creditors. I find this incredibly misleading in terms of trying to justify why you get rid of it.

The ECC has operated at or below its allocated annual budgets, and of course it isn't supposed to be awarding lavish amounts of money. I would say it's to their credit that they haven't been putting out much money. It shows that they are doing their job, that they really are the payor of last resort. I find that what's happening is that the government is criticizing ECC for doing a good job, for doing its job well. That's number one. I should say that there's a way to revamp the ECC so that you're not spending so much money on the administration. But it clearly is doing a good job in protecting the environment, protecting people and keeping costs down.

The other thing that is important to remember is that the large majority of ECC payouts have been to cover cleanup costs. We're talking about two things here. We're talking about protecting people like Mr and Mrs Field, who through no fault of their own may be financially wiped out, but we're also talking about a situation like perhaps what happened in the east end of Toronto recently had that been on somebody's private property or even where it is now.

1710

The situation in the past has been that municipalities have often ended up having to clean up spills, and they had the reasonable expectation that at the end of the day, after going through all of the processes, if they couldn't find the money from the polluter, there would be this fund so that they could recover their costs. I would say that with the cuts to municipalities that have already happened -- and we expect more to come -- it's going to be harder and harder for municipalities to find money in their budgets to clean up spills and it's going to be especially harder if they're in a situation where they know there's no backup whatsoever. In the interests of protecting the public, it's important that the government commit to retaining the ECC in some other form at the end of the day, even if it's just to facilitate or encourage the very quick cleanup of spills.

Another issue I'd like to raise that is really important is that the government hasn't released -- I've checked this -- the most recent ECC annual report, for the period of 1995-96. Section 121 of the EPA requires the minister to table the report in the Legislature. Now, it's my understanding -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that the practice is to table the report within six months of the fiscal year-end. That means that the report should have been tabled in September, and it wasn't. I want to request Dr Galt, when he's ready after being briefed, that the government commit to the immediate tabling of this report and that it be done before we carry on with passing the bill in this House, because I think we might get some very interesting information in this report that would benefit government members as well.

My last point on the ECC is that it's a matter of fairness and proper statutory interpretation that Bill 57 be amended to ensure that pending compensation claims are not prejudiced by the winding down of the ECC. That's what I've put into my amendment. My preference is that we keep the ECC, that it be restructured so it doesn't cost as much to administer it, although it's not a huge cost overall. It's doing its job in being the payor of last resort. It's doing it efficiently and it's doing it well.

For the peanuts that are saved for the government's tax cut, in terms of the long-term problems that it's going to cost individual human begins like the Fields and for environmental damage that may happen -- municipalities will be reluctant to immediately clean up spills because this last resort is gone -- I would plead, and I'm serious here, with the government members to accept my amendment on this particular clause and go back to your minister, go back to your government, and say: "Sorry, but there's absolutely no reason except to save a couple of million bucks to get rid of this. It's working well. We have the proof it's working well. For the long-term damage it's going to cause, it's not worth it. This one is going to come back to haunt us big time." I would say in rural areas it's going to be a major problem.

This does not make sense in terms of streamlining, cutting red tape -- none of it. This one is really stupid, and there's no justification for it. I hope and I plead that the government members will support this amendment. You can go back to the government -- after all, it's not a huge expenditure -- with a sheet of paper giving all the reasons why this ECC should be saved; that you're willing to sit down and work to restructure it, but you're going to stand up for the people of Ontario who get hammered by the system, which happens from time to time. This is one of those good ideas that has worked and is working well, and there's no excuse to get rid of it. I strongly urge the members. This is a non-partisan plea. It makes no sense whatsoever to get rid of it, it makes total sense to keep it and it doesn't cost very much money.

Mrs McLeod: I want to add to the comments Ms Churley has made in support of the motion and the amendment. I find it really ironic, and I think it should be noted for the record, that the sole reason that's been offered by the government for getting rid of the environmental compensation fund is that it has not spent very much money. For that very reason it should come back to haunt a Conservative government that a fund that was working effectively as a funding of last resort for individuals is being eliminated because it wasn't seen to have spent enough.

I would also seriously ask each of the members opposite to think about the kind of situation Mr Lalonde described in his constituency and imagine yourself in your constituency office on a Friday afternoon when a constituent comes in with the kind of case Mr Lalonde was describing and how you will feel in having to say to that constituent, "I'm sorry, but we no longer have any recourse we can offer you because our government just removed any possible recourse you could have." That is an untenable position for any individual MPP to be in. I would not want to have to say to my constituent, "I'm sorry but we just eliminated your one source of support."

Ms Churley: I did have two questions for Dr Galt. I don't know, Dr Galt, if you were able to hear me when I was talking about the annual report, which has not been submitted to the Legislature.

Mr Galt: The annual report?

Ms Churley: Okay, you didn't. I'll very quickly repeat it, because I want to ask a question. The minister hasn't released the most recent ECC annual report, for the period of 1995-96. Section 121 of the EPA requires the minister to do that, to table it in the Legislature. It's normal practice to submit it within six months of the fiscal year-end, and that means the report should have been submitted in September. Will you commit to the immediate release of this report? Because it's already late.

Mr Galt: It's my understanding that the annual report of the ECC will be released very shortly. Probably some delay relates to the change in cabinet, a new minister in a new portfolio.

I point out with regard to subsection 2, in connection with notice of loss, in getting rid of the ECC it was necessary to establish a time for application, being up until the time the bill was brought in. That was established, and it's quite common with bills being brought forth on cutoff dates for certain activities.

In connection with insurance, that's already in the legislation. We do not require further legislation.

Ms Churley: I think it's important -- and I will be raising this in the House repeatedly; be forewarned -- that this report be submitted immediately. We're about to wind down a workable corporation that is actually doing its job, and that's what I've been pointing out. There's no justification for getting rid of it. I think it's important, before we pass this bill in the House, that the Legislature take a look and see how it's working. So I would like to have a commitment. I see you can't give me that today, but perhaps you can go back and consult with the minister about this. But I will be raising it daily, or almost daily, anyway.

Mr Galt: I'm just going to point out that I don't think it's a system that works when for every $4 you pay for administration, $1 goes to the people who are having a problem. I would suggest that's a broken system.

Ms Churley: Unfortunately, Dr Galt was consulting a lot during the time I was giving my reasons for why this organization or corporation should be kept in place, because that is just a pat answer. I'm convinced that could be proved if we could see the annual report.

I said, and other groups made this point too, that if you think it's costing too much money, revamp it, restructure it. There must be a way to do that. Keep it in place. It is doing its job. You're firing them, getting rid of them, for doing their job. It could have been helped. Would you feel better about putting out more money? I think we should be very proud of them. They've been actually doing their job -- the payor of last resort -- and they haven't put out very much money. But I'll bet you every dollar they've put out absolutely needed to be put out. So this excuse for $4 for every $1 you put out just doesn't make any sense.

Restructure it. You're saying that you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You're not saying the program's bad, you're not saying it isn't needed; what you're saying is that it's costing too much money to run for the piddling little amount of money they put out. Okay, find a way to restructure it so that it's still there, the fund is still there for the very good reasons it needs to be there that we've talked about today.

1720

I submit, and I said to the members of your government, that would be a reasonable amendment. It's not even a lot of money in the whole scheme of things now. If you went back, I believe, to your minister and said, "Yes, the opposition happens to be right on this one" -- this is not about red tape. This is not about any of that stuff. This is good common sense and you're throwing it out for no reason, except to save a few bucks.

I suggest you support my amendment. I suggest you find a way to restructure it. You're not going to get away with this one. It's going to cause a lot of trouble.

Having said that, my second question is, if you don't accept this amendment, what is going to happen to the people who are now pending compensation claims? Are they going to be out of the system or are they going to be grandparented or what, those who are pending compensation claims at this time or whose claims will still be active when the plan winds down?

Mr Galt: Those whose applications were in prior to June 4 will be processed. When the six months are up for the staff on ECC, that will be transferred into the ministry and the ministry will continue with those claims where the application came in prior to June 4. They will be completed.

Ms Churley: Prior to June 4?

Mr Galt: In other words, June 3 or earlier.

Mrs McLeod: It's exactly that response of government, that reason for eliminating the environmental compensation fund, that I find so incredible. It's equally incredible to me that you would reiterate it as a seeming defence of the action that's being taken here.

Just take a moment and seriously examine the words you've been given to say in defence of what the government is directing you to do here today. You're saying that the fund is costing more to administer than it's actually paying out, and therefore you want to shut the entire fund down. If you think the reason the fund is costing more in administration than it's paying out is because the administration is somehow ineffective or top-heavy, then as Ms Churley has said, you look at restructuring. You talk about restructuring continuously. You look at restructuring the administration so it works more efficiently, so that it has fewer people, if that's what you believe is needed. You get your administrative costs in line.

The other alternative is to believe the administration costs more than the fund is paying out because the administration is spending its resources in thoroughly investigating the claims and is not paying out for any claims it doesn't feel are absolutely legitimate. I think that is the record of the compensation fund, that it cannot be confused of having responded with excess amounts of money or to any kind of frivolous claim. I suspect it takes a fair bit of work and a fair bit of administration to make sure you're not paying out large sums of money on the government's behalf when it really isn't called for. So the fact they are spending less in payouts than on administration is probably a good defence of the fund.

It may also be, and I think this gets closer to the truth, that the fund is not paying out enough because not enough people have heard about it and that the government is concerned that people may become aware the fund exists and may make claims on it and it may escalate in terms of what's being paid out, so get rid of it now, before people can really access it.

The other possibility, and this is the one that worries me most, and I suspect the government in proposing this is really concerned about this, is that there is significant potential for greater environmental damage as a result of the other provisions of this bill, and you don't want to be saddled with any responsibility for any kind of compensation, so get rid of the fund. I totally reject on all those counts the argument that you've offered in terms of a reason to disband it.

The Chair: Further comment? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of the motion?

Ms Churley: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Churley, Lalonde, McLeod.

Nays

Chudleigh, Fisher, Galt, Maves, Munro, Ouellette, Tascona.

The Chair: The motion is defeated. Any further comments or amendments to section 10? Is it the favour of the committee that section 10 carry? All those in favour? Contrary? Section 10 is carried.

Are there any amendments to section 11 of the bill? Is it the favour of the committee that section 11 carry? All those in favour? Contrary? Section 11 is carried.

Is it the favour of the committee that section 12, the short title of the bill, carry? All those in favour? Contrary? Section 12 is carried.

Shall the long title of the bill carry? All those in favour? Contrary? The long title is carried.

Shall Bill 57, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Contrary? Bill 57 is carried.

Shall Bill 57, as amended, be reported to the House? All those in favour? Contrary? Bill 57 shall be reported to the House.

If we can ask the indulgence of all the committee members, Ms McLeod and Ms Churley have requested consideration of a resolution that would be sent, if I'm phrasing your question properly, Ms McLeod, to the environment minister, if you care to fashion that as a formal resolution or recommendation.

Mrs McLeod: There were two areas that I indicated, if it was felt to be inappropriate by the committee to include our amendments in the bill, we would ask the committee to consider recommending to cabinet for some further consideration in another form.

One of those areas was some alternative to allow private individuals some recourse to financial compensation with one possibility being the requirement that companies engaged in seeking certificates of approval for environmentally sensitive work would be required to have liability insurance, and I would be happy to place that as a resolution. The other was in the area that -- this is the one I originally raised with you -- any fees that were collected under either the Environmental Protection Act or the Ontario Water Resources Act as a result of the bill would be directed into a separate fund and would be allocated for environmental protection purposes. Shall I place both of those now as resolutions?

The Chair: Yes. Actually, perhaps my choice of words -- in Bill 49 we did it as a recommendation, which was seen as a friendlier way, and quite frankly, not to interfere in the process, also as a way of perhaps currying greater favour than something as a resolution.

Mrs McLeod: I accept that as guidance. I'd be happy to do it in any way in which we could get some consideration of these issues.

The Chair: If it assists in focusing the debate, perhaps it could be as simple as prefacing one of your formal motions with words to the effect that, "The committee recommends to the Minister of Environment and Energy that he give serious consideration to the requirement that," and then again, if I may suggest, the second half of Ms Churley's motion in section 10 deals with environmental compensation in the form of insurance and your subsection 2.1(3) -- I'm sorry.

Mrs McLeod: Clause (f.i) on section 7 of the water resources bill and we had one under the EPA.

The Chair: I wonder if the more concise definition is your 123.1(1).

Mrs McLeod: On that particular issue, that's different from the liability insurance; however, if that's the direction --

The Chair: Okay. If you are more comfortable with your wording for liability insurance than the NDP one --

Mrs McLeod: I'm quite comfortable because I think the direction's the same. The only thing I would suggest is that -- quite frankly, we didn't know what the best alternative was as the environmental compensation fund is removed and we obviously feel very strongly that the ideal is not to remove the environmental compensation fund. So what we're really looking for is some alternative that would provide some financial protection for individuals.

We came up, and obviously the NDP did -- there was no collusion -- with the idea that requiring liability insurance is one way to provide protection. We would certainly like to recommend that be an alternative that's looked at, but I would be happy if the committee was prepared to ask cabinet to ask the minister to look at some other alternatives. Maybe this is not the best way of doing it, maybe there is some way that could be found that would meet the basic principle of providing some financial recourse for individuals who have been harmed.

1730

The Chair: Dr Galt, we certainly turn to you for some guidance on behalf of the government members whether you would be prepared to take such a recommendation back to the minister, couched in such a way that it is merely -- not merely -- it is requesting that he pay heed to the motions which were out of order, given our rules regarding the direction or allocation of funds, that he give consideration to this in the context of whatever other plans he has.

Mr Galt: I appreciate the comments that are coming from the opposition parties and they're certainly welcome to present their ideas and thoughts to the minister, and to cabinet for cabinet's consideration, but I will not be supporting that motion.

Mrs McLeod: Not even a motion to ask him to consider it? That's phenomenal.

Mrs Fisher: If I may speak to it as well, I guess if in sincerity you want the recommendations to go forward maybe we'd better find another way because I personally will be speaking against it. If you want some consideration, maybe another tool might be used.

If I might address it, since we've had an opportunity to hear discussion on both of them already, with regard to the liability side of it, in fairness I heard you, Mrs McLeod, when you talked about if you had a constituent walk into your office. Well, we've been there, we've done it, we have them. I have them. I have them from the time your government was in power and then it went through five more years and we're still sitting on the same case unresolved. I don't call that acting in good faith for the constituent. It's outstanding on my desk right now through two previous governments. This did nothing to help them. All it's doing is making some lawyer rich somewhere. It's not resolving the problems we have and I think there's another way to do that.

If there's a compensation issue, that would be dealt with in a court ultimately in the end as well. As private sector, we have a responsibility to protect ourselves, and you can make a claim for legal costs at the end in the event you're successful. If not, why should government be paying to defeat itself? So I personally have a problem with that. I see your sincerity, and I know it's true, but I don't think the resolve is here.

I have a case in my office right now that's eight years old: infiltration from some asphalt sitting on some farmer's property who did not know it when they purchased it. It's much along the line we have here with salt and water. It went through your government and then it went through five more years and now I've got it, and that didn't help them at all. I am not so sure that the cost-effectiveness is doing anything in favour of the constituent. It hasn't proved that way to me.

I hear what you say: in fact they pay out less than they cost. I'm not so sure that's a reason you do something like this. I think we, on a personal basis, as a society, have to be responsible for ourselves. I liken it to house insurance. If you don't pay, does the government come in behind you and pay it? I liken it to car insurance. I liken it to health insurance, where in fact government does come in in health insurance and pay it, because of the right of health. On that argument, I would vote against it. So I'm not sure that your recommendation will hold water with me.

On the second issue of reserving the funds to an allocated account, in the instances that the precedent's been set to date that I can remember, I would say that where it's a self-sustaining account, and in fact is meant to pay for something, it would never pay for itself. There's nothing in this thing where we take some fees or minimal fees for something that could be charged that could pay for the service ultimately that would be required under the trust fund.

My personal opinion is that I would not be advising any government of any day to start allocating all these special little pots of gold that ultimately never get tapped because maybe there's never an occurrence that bears down on them, or never get utilized because you collect more than you should be doing, and in most cases would never be a self-sustaining account and you'd have to dip into the common coffer anyway to pay the fee.

On those two bases for those two recommendations, I would not only speak against them, and I encourage my committee member peers to agree with me, but vote against them. If there's another way of making your point known, I would open the door for further discussion. I would ask for further discussion on what an alternative mode might be, but I can't see supporting it on those bases.

Mrs McLeod: If all the government members feel as Mrs Fisher does, then there's not much point in pursuing a discussion because our basic principles are fundamentally opposed. I do believe that the government has a responsibility to provide some financial support, guidance and direction for people who are harmed through no fault of their own. I don't believe private individuals should be victimized, and I particularly don't feel they should be left to be potential victims when a government is making it entirely possible for there to be even greater environmental damage caused because of a lack of due process in the environmental approvals process.

I don't know of the specific case that Mrs Fisher is raising. I don't know whether the Environmental Compensation Corp was approached and has been reluctant to pay in this particular case, because they are a payer of last resort. One of the reasons why, as the government has said, there has not been a lot paid out is because they have been very careful to be the payer of last resort. They have not been a free-spending government agency, maybe to a fault. Maybe that's what's causing their demise, and maybe your constituent has encountered their perhaps excessive caution. I don't know the circumstances. I know there are others, like the Fields and I believe it's the McIntyres, who just are two examples we know of where the compensation fund was a godsend at the end of a very long road.

It's never going to be easy for these individuals, but we should provide some hope for them. If you don't believe that, if you believe that the court system is the only way, and a private individual, even though this was not something within their control, has to find the thousands of dollars that it takes to use the court system before they can get any support or guidance at all, then we're at such odds that I don't know what alternative we could come out with. I don't know if you see some way to provide support.

On the issue of the fees, again there is a very basic principle. Our recommendation on the fees, in terms of fees under this act being put into a targeted fund for environmental purposes and then being allocated for environmental protection purposes, is an alternative to not having fees charged for work that is being undertaken in a way which is environmentally valuable. The act is requiring people to undertake cautions in environmentally sensitive work, to be inspected, to get the approvals, and the question is, should people be charged fees for that? The issue for the government is that we should charge a fee in order to recover our costs. We think that's an argument that we can sustain. It's legitimate to have some fees in order to carry out the environmentally important work, but it should be clear that the fees are targeted for that work.

Ms Churley: I'm not going to get into a big argument on this. It's clear to me, and it's been clear for some time, that the member for Bruce, and most of the members, I would say, from the Tory party, have fundamentally different principles than I and my party do about many matters, including environmental protection and who should be responsible for what. I understand there is no point in arguing the case here. I don't think we're even speaking the same language, there is such a gulf.

Having said that, what I will say is, let cabinet decide whether or not -- you've got your opinion, Mrs Fisher, I've got mine, and everybody here has an opinion. All we're asking today, because our motions were ruled out of order, in a friendly way -- and I take your suggestion, it's not a resolution -- is, "Look, these are a couple of areas the committee determined may be," I'm willing to even say "may be" -- "problematic, and we would therefore like, we would therefore respectfully request, the cabinet to look at the possibility of alternatives."

We don't have to agree on this committee today. I think it is reasonable and fair to be able to ask the cabinet, because we cannot deal with it in the purview of this committee, to think about alternatives. They can say no, they can say yes. That's all we're asking here, and I think that is entirely reasonable.

Mrs Fisher: I, with some hesitancy, will speak to this again. To Mrs McLeod: I agree with you that if it's an act enacted upon somebody through no fault of their own, that does not differ from a car accident that happens to a person or a house that burns down through no fault of their own. Because this is the environment, I guess to tie my comment into addressing your point as well as Ms Churley's, no party at this table has a sacred right to ensuring the safety and the preservation of environmental issues. What I'm saying is that I don't disagree with you about "through any act of their own," but it's who pays. The difference I was trying to draw when I made the statement is what might be the difference between being hit by a car through no fault of my own -- the government doesn't come to my rescue with a secret pot of money to protect me. There are means and ways of going about that. All I'm saying is that I guess philosophically we will agree to disagree, that in fact perhaps that's not a government's responsibility.

I don't think it's much different than the same as Ms Churley starts out. I'm not so sure our environmental ideals differ that much. I think perhaps what differs is our governments' approach on how we deal with those ideals, and that's what we're trying to come to, some type of meeting of the minds, if you will. I don't imagine it's going to happen around this table on many occasions, but it's not because anybody sitting here has less understanding or less appreciation of environmental issues, as you say. It's because there's a different way, maybe, of approaching it than in the past.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate your making my argument for me with the two other precedents that you've used. My assumption is that if somebody's house burns down, unless it's been struck by lightning and is natural causes, and I don't expect government to protect against natural causes, then the individual is responsible for having insurance on that house in order to protect themselves against a fire which could be of their own causing or a natural cause.

On auto insurance the government requires by law, a law that you are about to change but to maintain, that there be minimum amounts of insurance coverage. You cannot drive a car without having basic insurance as required by the government, and that is in order to protect other individuals against harm caused by an accident that they were not responsible for. So the principle is established.

If you want to extend it to OHIP, to health insurance, which you used in your original comments, that's one where government clearly says, "We have a responsibility to provide for the insurance for health for individuals, for every citizen." In environmental issues there is a direct correlation with health.

The Chair: Are there any new points to be added to the debate? Seeing none, I don't believe we reach any conclusion. with no resolution on the floor. I thank for everyone for their --

Mr Churley: No, no. I have one last motion. I'm sorry. I should have told you. I move that Bill 57 not be tabled in the House until the annual general report for the 1995-96 period of the ECC is presented to the Legislature.

The Chair: Everyone understands the motion Ms Churley has put forward?

Interjection: We've already moved it.

The Chair: We've moved that we will table it. She's putting a time consideration on that tabling.

Mrs Fisher: The motion's passed.

The Chair: No, no. We have agreed it will be tabled, without specifying the date. Normally it's as soon as possible. It's normally the next day. Ms Churley has made a motion that would now speak to a time qualification for that.

Ms Churley: May I speak to it?

The Chair: Yes, Ms Churley.

Ms Churley: I put forward this motion because I believe it's important that we maintain some form of the ECC. I believe that if we were able as legislators, all of us, to see the annual report before this bill is actually passed, there may be an opportunity to come back to this issue and actually find a way to preserve the ECC in some form.

The Chair: Further comments? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of Ms Churley's motion?

Ms Churley: Recorded vote, please.

The Chair: Ms Churley has asked for a recorded vote.

Ayes

Churley, Lalonde, McLeod.

Nays

Chudleigh, Fisher, Galt, Maves, Munro, Ouellette, Tascona.

The Chair: The motion is defeated. There being nothing else before the committee, the committee stands adjourned until the call of the Chair.

The committee adjourned at 1744.