Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

CONTENTS

Wednesday 21 October 1992

Ministry of the Environment

Hon Ruth Grier, minister

G.H.U. Bayly, chairman, Niagara Escarpment Commission

Nars Borodczak, director, Niagara Escarpment Commission

Jon Grant, chair, Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy

André Castel, assistant deputy minister, corporate resources

Bonnie Wein, director, legal services

Jim Merritt, director, central region

Gerry Ronan, assistant deputy minister, environmental sciences and standards

Drew Blackwell, assistant deputy minister, waste reduction office

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

*Chair / Président: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC)

*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)

Bisson, Giles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)

*Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)

Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)

*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)

*Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)

O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND)

Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND)

Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)

Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:

*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND) for Mr Ferguson

*Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex ND) for Mr Bisson

*Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND) for Mr Perruzza

*In attendance / présents

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes: Cousens, W. Donald (Markham PC)

McClelland, Carman (Brampton North/-Nord L)

Murdoch, Bill (Grey PC)

Clerk / Greffier: Decker, Todd

The committee met at 1539 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

The Acting Chair (Mr Gary Carr): Let's call to order the standing committee on estimates. We're going to continue with the Ministry of the Environment. It's my understanding that in the rotation now we will be going to the Conservatives, the third party, and that we will have 40 minutes.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Are you going to bring the Niagara Escarpment Commission people as witnesses?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): Yes, we have representatives here from the Niagara Escarpment Commission, for whom Mr Cousens had indicated you had some questions. Terk Bayly and Nars Borodczak are here and can both perhaps come forward.

The Acting Chair: Would you come forward and, just for Hansard, identify yourselves, names and titles and positions, if you could.

Mr Terk Bayly: I'm Terk Bayly, the chairman of the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

Mr Nars Borodczak: My name is Nars Borodczak. I'm the director with the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

Mr Murdoch: It's nice to see you both here today. I have some questions we could start off with. I noticed that last year you had a budget of $3 million and you spent somewhere around $2.4 million. This year you have a budget of around $2.6 million. I wonder if you can outline just a bit what that budget will be used for.

Mr Bayly: It's mainly for staff. We have a staff of 35 full-time people, mostly planners. We have some additional expenses, of course. We have some vehicles and we have 17 commissioners who get a per diem and travel expenses. That rounds it out pretty well.

Mr Murdoch: How many offices does the NEC operate?

Mr Bayly: Three offices: one in Thornbury, one in Grimsby and the main office in Georgetown.

Mr Murdoch: So you have a staff of 35. That's where most of our money is spent, then, that the NEC is using. In your own mind, justify to me why we need that many planners when every either region or county has its own planners. I find here we are spending $2 million to $3 million on more planners. It seems that the cost just seems to escalate. How can we justify this to the people out there that we're spending this much money, that we have overlap with all this planning?

Mr Bayly: In a typical year we have about 1,000 applications for development permits, a dozen or so applications for plan amendments and, I forget the number, a very considerable number of comments on official plans and other government requirements. That, divided among our small number of planners, is quite a big load.

Hon Mrs Grier: I suspect Mr Murdoch's question is more directed at a policy approach as to why the Niagara Escarpment plan is required. I don't know whether he wants us to go into some of the background and perhaps share with the committee some of the planning and studies that went into the creation of the legislation and the role of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, but essentially the staff who are currently showing in the estimates of this year are those who have been there to implement the Niagara Escarpment plan, which I think is the province's only environmental land use plan and one that has acceptance from all three parties in this Legislature.

Mr Murdoch: That may be so. I wouldn't want to make quite that broad a statement, that it has acceptance from all three parties, but I don't think that's why we're here, to get into that. If people want some background, I have no problem with your laying out some of the background. But if we want to go into the Niagara Escarpment plan and the way it was set up originally, that it was to be disbanded, we wouldn't need all this extra staff and planners. That was the original idea of this whole plan.

So that's what I'm getting at, that now we're still overlapping, what is it?, 10, 15 years later, with all this extra staff and extra payroll, and it amounts to around $2 million to $3 million that could go elsewhere in a government that's cash-strapped. That's what I'm saying: Where's the justification, when originally we shouldn't even be into this now? We shouldn't have a Niagara Escarpment Commission at this time.

Hon Mrs Grier: I think that's certainly a long-standing debate that I and others from all sides, as I said, have carried on, and I couldn't disagree more fundamentally with Mr Murdoch. We have, in the Niagara Escarpment plan, a plan that has been recognized by UNESCO as a world biosphere and as an example of planning that other regions of the province are attempting to emulate and that we're trying, through a royal commission, to implement in planning and development.

The legislation very clearly spells out an ongoing role for the Niagara Escarpment Commission and a function with respect to the planning and protection of the Niagara Escarpment that does not overlap and is not in fact similar to that of any other entity. But perhaps Mr Bayly would like to talk about the specifics of those areas and regions where in fact official plans are being brought into conformity, which may be part of the particulars with respect to planning applications Mr Murdoch is stressing.

Mr Bayly: I think it's fair to say that the three southern regions in the plans have been brought into conformity with the Niagara Escarpment plan. That really does not reduce the workload on the staff of the commission very substantially, because the development permit applications must still be processed.

I think a further answer to Mr Murdoch's question is that there is provision in the act, as he knows, for delegation of development control to the upper level of municipalities. At the present time there has only been one application that I know of, and that was the region of Niagara a number of years ago. That was subsequently withdrawn. So the power of the act does provide for that possibility.

Mr Murdoch: That's what I was saying right from the very start. That's what I said: The act did set up that we could actually be out of this. Now, as you mentioned, three regions have conformity. Why then hasn't the commission pushed to give them the authority to do this? If the conformity's there, then we wouldn't need all the planners or all the staff we have right now, and it wouldn't cost all this kind of money if it's turned back over to the local regions that have come within conformity. Can you explain to me why the commission doesn't do this?

Mr Bayly: I think I could say that the commission has never viewed it as the commission's responsibility to try to persuade upper-tier municipalities to take on development control. On the other hand, the commission has never tried to avoid it, never been against it. It's a matter that we believe has to be stimulated from the upper-tier municipality rather than from the commission.

Mr Murdoch: Yes, I can see where the commissioners wouldn't want to lose their jobs, but I think they would if they were going by the act and properly wanted to save money in a province that is cash-strapped; they would be proceeding with this. Okay, we can go around the table on that all the time. It's just a different philosophy.

I guess it gets to the point then that we have a five-year plan that was supposed to have been here last year. Maybe either Ruth or Terk, or someone, can explain to me where the five-year plan is and what's happened to it.

Mr Bayly: Do you want me to tackle that?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think perhaps Mr Bayly can explain the response to the hearings and the time frame the commission is now working to.

Mr Bayly: The act requires a review of the Niagara Escarpment plan every five years. When the five-year period was up, the then government instructed the Niagara Escarpment Commission to undertake the five-year review. This is now two years ago, and the process has gone through all the public hearings, the presentation to the hearing of the proposed changes by the commission. It's gone to the hearing officers, and we now understand that the hearing officers' report will arrive by the end of this month.

Mr Murdoch: We look forward to seeing that in the House. There'll be consultation with the committee?

Hon Mrs Grier: Perhaps it would be helpful to the committee if Mr Bayly or Nars outlined the process that occurs once the hearing officers' report is received by the commission.

Mr Bayly: It's simply this: When we receive the hearing officers' report, which will no doubt be lengthy, the commission staff and the commission must go over it very carefully to search out what proposals the hearing officers are making that are not in line with the proposals made by the commission. The commission must then consider those changes and comment on them. Then the commission's comments are forwarded to the minister. The next part of the process, of course, is that the minister has to consider them, and ultimately they go to cabinet.

Mr Murdoch: So it's almost like a five-year review, and it takes five years to get the review, so we're going to be about 10 years before we ever get through this. As you said, it's taken two years now since we initiated the five-year review.

Mr Bayly: That's why we hope it'll be done in under five years.

Mr Murdoch: Would this be the reason there are some recommendations the commission has sent to the ministry pertaining to the act that have never been acted upon? Maybe this question could be to you, Minister.

Hon Mrs Grier: Yes. I think these are administrative and changes in the legislation that have been under discussion even before I became the minister. Part of our consideration is whether we have the opportunity to introduce legislation twice or whether, in reviewing these suggested amendments, they are in fact more appropriately dealt with at the time cabinet and the House considers whatever emerges from the five-year review.

So you're right; we have been considering whether we should proceed separately with some amendments or whether, in view of the fact that the hearing officers' report is anticipated shortly, it would be preferable to deal with it all together.

Mr Murdoch: I don't know whether you can or not, but could you guarantee maybe the House or the people here today that if you proceeded with the amendments the commission has sort of put forward, rather than the five-year plan, we will be given, as opposition, adequate time to discuss those in the House before you just all of a sudden bring them down?

1550

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Murdoch, you know very well that I'm not the House leader, and any prediction on my part with respect to timing -- time in House, time before committees -- would be merely that: a prediction. I couldn't give you any sense of how long might be available for that should the legislation be introduced.

Mr Murdoch: I appreciate that, but I'm asking you as the minister in charge of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, would you recommend that there be full discussion on anything like this, that come from the commission to you?

Hon Mrs Grier: If legislation is required, then obviously the legislation would have to be introduced for first reading, there would be an extensive debate at second reading and extensive debate at third reading. The House will determine the length of time for each of those stages and the process of review that would be undertaken. But if it's legislation, then the schedule is fairly clear. How long each of those stages takes, as I've said, is not for either you or I to determine.

Mr Murdoch: One more thing before I go. I know Don and other people here have questions, and I don't want to hold the place up.

This is getting back to estimates and to the money that is spent on the NEC, which I have some concern about, when we're spending over $2 million a year. It is a practice of the commission that when someone decides to go ahead and build a building or something without a development permit, the commission will take these people to court over this. This has happened, and it's fine up to this point. But after the person who has built something without a permit has turned around and applied for a permit and received a permit, why does the commission always proceed to go on to chastise this person, take him on to the court to get its ounce of blood, you might say, from him?

This is something that's bothered me, and it bothers a lot of people in my area and all over the commission, that you continue on even though they've got their permit. They may have started to build, and maybe they knew and maybe they didn't, I don't know, in different cases; some people, I know, probably disregarded the law and just went ahead. But you must continue on then to extract your ounce of blood from them, and that's costly, because as you know -- and I've been at many hearings -- you'll supply all kinds of lawyers and planners and things like that, which cost the province money, which is in that budget. There are ways of saving money and I think the commission has to look at things like that.

Can you explain to me why you proceed that way?

Mr Bayly: I think Mr Murdoch has asked quite a few questions, the first one being that we take an applicant to court who proceeds without having received a development permit.

Mr Murdoch: Fair.

Mr Bayly: Normally, what we do -- we understand that many people aren't conversant with the law and the requirements of the act, and they may proceed, let us say, to build a structure not knowing that they are required to do that. Our staff are instructed to go to the applicant, or the non-applicant, in this case, and say, "You need a development permit for what you're doing." They may even advise them that what they are doing is totally within the requirements of the plan or that it is not. But they certainly don't take them to court at that stage.

For that matter, the Niagara Escarpment Commission doesn't take people to court. That is not what we do. If the person ends up in court as a result of a contravention, it's done by the Ministry of the Environment's IEB, investigations and enforcement branch, and we are at arm's length from that process.

The other thing you said, or seemed to be implying, is that the Niagara Escarpment Commission -- and I presume you meant the staff rather than the commission itself -- in effect follows after successful applicants' redevelopment permits and somehow or other give them a hard time, take them to court and do a number of things, which I suggest is not true.

Mr Murdoch: You're suggesting that's not true. Well, there are cases -- and I guess we don't have time to get into those -- where you have followed through. Maybe we should bring them up with you at a later date, because there are some cases where your staff, or the Ministry of the Environment staff, have followed on through with recommendations --

Mr Bayly: I would be happy to discuss those with you at any time that's convenient.

Mr Murdoch: If you want to discuss them with our member for Grey, I'm sure he certainly would like to discuss them, because he said he has tried to and has not always succeeded.

Mr Bayly: He does an excellent job.

Mr Murdoch: I know. So he is really concerned about some of those cases that are going on. That seems to be the problem. I can just address this to the minister. At least in our area, there seems to be a strong force built up against the Niagara Escarpment Commission, and I was at a convention in Burlington, which is in Halton, and it's the same thing; I didn't know about it until the weekend. It seems to be the extra bureaucrats we have trying to run the province; they overlap, and there seems to be a lot of money.

As you know, your government is strapped for cash. I'm just suggesting that there are ways you can save some money with the commission. Some of the staff members seem to get overzealous in their job. I'm not blaming it on the chairman; he can't be in control of all 35 of them. But there seems to be some problem that way. If you looked into that, I think you could save yourself some money.

Hon Mrs Grier: I'd like to respond to that by saying to Mr Murdoch that if he has some specifics and some instances, I would be more than happy to investigate and to assure myself that there is neither unnecessary expenditures of public funds nor harassment of people who are proceeding in accordance with a permit. I can assure you, we have a lot of enforcement obligations and more things to examine than to go after somebody who's operating in conformance with any regulation or law of my ministry.

Let me respond to your comment, Mr Murdoch, about people who don't like the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I have to agree with you that certainly there are a number of land owners throughout the area covered by the Niagara Escarpment plan who would much prefer to have the right to develop in a unfettered manner within what is a particularly important and precious part of the environment of the province of Ontario, a part of the environment that has been designated as a special part that needs to be protected by an act of this Legislature, which was introduced by your party and government long before I became the minister, and supported by the current official opposition and certainly supported by the New Democrats.

So there is widespread public support, and I receive indications of that constantly from people all around the province about the value of the work of the Niagara Escarpment Commission to the environment, to the ecosystem, to tourism and to the recreational facilities of the people of this province. What the commission is charged with is a very delicate task of balancing the rights and aspirations of people living within that area to enjoy the use of their property while at the same time protecting the environment which they have a part in. If somebody comes from a municipal background and has dealt with the committee's adjustment and planning, I know that sometimes those decisions are very difficult ones which certainly tend to leave somebody happy and somebody unhappy.

So if you go to a meeting in Burlington and find a lot of people who are unhappy about the Niagara Escarpment Commission, I suspect they are, in many cases, people who have been denied a permit because what they wanted to do was not in conformity with the protection of the escarpment or who have aspirations to do even more development than is currently likely to be permitted by the plan. The five-year review will address all of that.

Mr Murdoch: Some of the things you've said may be true, and I certainly would not want to ruin the Niagara Escarpment. But there are some problems. I can tell you that it wasn't set up properly, and some people have paid for their sins in the past. I don't know if too many people who originally worked on that plan are still sitting here; maybe that's why they're not. I'll tell you, whichever government put it in, it will certainly pay for its sins. As I say, a lot of them aren't here any more, and that's probably the reason they aren't.

Certainly we want to protect the escarpment, but unfortunately it has gone too far in some areas. I suggest that all of those people who do not like the escarpment commission are not people who have had things turned down. There are a lot of people out there concerned about other people's rights too. Madam Minister, the rights of people are being trampled on because of the Niagara Escarpment plan and the commission that enforces it. In the future, I think we will have something to say over that, and I will bring you some cases and we can look into them and see where we can go from there.

Hon Mrs Grier: I'd be happy to do that.

Mr Murdoch: Thank you, and I thank you two for coming here.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I don't have any questions for the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I appreciate very much their coming today, and I thank my colleague Mr Murdoch, who's really helping us a great deal in understanding the problems in the Niagara Escarpment Commission and representing the interests and concerns of all the people very well. I appreciate very much, Mr Murdoch, your assistance on this part of the estimates from our caucus.

1600

I know Mr Grant is tight for time. I have three questions I'd like to pose, if I may, to the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy. I appreciate very much the fact that he's been able to come.

The Chair (Mr Cameron Jackson): Mr Grant, please come to the table and introduce yourself and get comfortable. Mr Cousens has several questions to ask you.

Hon Mrs Grier: Perhaps we could ask Mr Grant to introduce himself for the record.

The Chair: I did that. I might add that as Mr Grant's time is tight, if there are any supplementary questions when Mr Cousens is finished, the Chair will entertain that and ensure that time is allocated fairly. But with respect to your presence here today, sir, if there are any supplementary questions from the other committee members, we will entertain them when Mr Cousens has completed his line of questioning. I just thought I'd advise the committee of that.

Mr Jon Grant: I'll introduce myself to the committee. I'm Jon Grant, chairman and CEO of the Quaker Oats Co in Peterborough. I also wear another hat as the incoming chair of the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy.

Mr Cousens: I'm most grateful that you'd find time to come. We politicians have our little processes, and for as busy a man as you are to take the time to come and share some of the background information, I say sincerely a very big thank you. I realize the sacrifice that people like yourself are making, and I encourage it.

If my questions are taken the wrong way, it's not that they're meant that way. The concern I have about the report of the round table on the economy is the failure to address the cost analysis of the recommendations. My whole series of questions falls under that umbrella. I think there are many concepts that are very good regarding a sustainable economy. I'll put to you my three questions; they all tie in so well together that you can then weave your answer as best you can.

I'm looking for some kind of cost analysis on the proposals. If I saw that, I think it would begin to make it somewhat more plausible because then you could begin to show an implementation program in certain areas that may be more tricky than others, particularly with regard to the metal resources industry. I know Bill James personally, and I know he was also on the round table. How did his industry reacted to the findings and the statements within your report? Because should his industry have to implement the kind of recommendations implicit in the report for the continuing production and smelting of ore and the production of a product, that would cause some concerns, so I'd be interested in their feedback.

I would also like to have some information on the respective job losses or job gains, the effects on investment. I guess I'm asking, what do you see as the effect on the economy? It has certain far-reaching implications to the whole economy as to loss and gain for jobs and investment in Ontario. I think investment in Ontario is one of the overriding things as well. To you.

Mr Grant: Let me lead back into the discussions we had at the round table. As you know, it was very much a multisector group, people from a variety of disciplines, including the environmental groups and education and the political side and business, and the native people too, who were on right from the start.

We sent out to what we called our task forces -- for instance, there was a task force on forestry, a task force on mining and resources, a task force on agriculture -- and asked them to work through with us and come back with some points of view that they were prepared to put into the process. In fact, in many cases a lot of the recommendations emanated from what we called the task force reports. Just to give you a kind of editorial comment, I know I was pleasantly surprised, having a foot in both the environmental side and in business, at how what I would call defined and far-reaching the task force reports were on both the mining side and the forestry side. Obviously people in those industry groups had already thought through some of the implications.

One of the real problems about doing cost analysis, because we spent a whole day with the Ontario Securities Commission and a number of the major pension funds trying to talk through some of these issues, is that you end up trying to analyse each individual item. At the same time that we were dealing with that, we were facing some realities around the world. For instance, to give you an example, Germany now has by far the toughest packaging regulations of any jurisdiction there is, which are going to float through Europe very quickly. That is also true in a number of the resource industries in which we in Canada are suppliers to these other places. We are coming up against customer requirements or requests that are going to set the tone in many cases in terms of the kinds of environmental standards that I suspect will creep through certainly the developed world.

With regard to the job losses, my argument -- and I think a number of us came to this as we looked at various industrial organizations -- is, basically, that the companies that seem to be the leaders in individual industries tend to be more environmentally conscious. I used the words "environmentally conscious"; let me take it on a broader scale and indicate that from a conservation point of view, whether it's water, energy or resources, they tend to watch their figures a lot more closely. That likely is as a result of being where they are in the industry.

One of the great concerns we had is we looked at these companies and we said, "Look, there is not necessarily a net cost, but there is a net cost, and the net cost is in those companies that are seen as not as efficient and up to speed in terms of the leaders in the various industry groups." They're the ones, I think, that caused a lot of discussion in there. What we came up with is a suggestion in the report by the full body was that companies at the top of their industry, within industry groups or industry associations, become mentors to those companies that are having difficulty coping with some of the environmental changes, not only in Ontario but also around the world.

Looking at what we called restructuring for sustainability, my view is that at this stage of the game we would have found ourselves in an awful lot of what I would call very subjective detail, getting into cost-analysing the various pieces. This is not to suggest that it doesn't have to be done. The water issue is a very good one. We first started talking about what is the real price of water by the time you get it through the system and by the time you put it through the sewage process and it goes back out in the rivers. If you're an industrial user that uses a great deal of water, you have a huge problem with that kind of thing if that's what you're talking about.

We said, "What we're really saying is for the consumer side, the household side," and in fact not even move that far, but say, with some kind of phantom bill that you might get, "By the way, did you know that the price of your water is this and you're really paying this?" It's an educational process so people develop more of an understanding, but not in any way, I think, to suggest that that industry would not be competitive.

I think in the final analysis, when you get people like Ted Boswell from E.B. Eddy and Bill James, whom you know well, and Dick Thomson, who of course as a banker watches all of our pocketbooks, saying: "Okay, we've come a long way into understanding this. We're prepared to sign off on this basis," the next step is to try out some of these in terms of what is the real price of water or what the phantom pricing of water is. I think that none of us would be in a situation where we would say to you as the government, the Legislature, that we would put ourselves in a non-competitive Ontario situation. In fact, the reverse might be true, that we would want to attract companies into Ontario that have high standards, the people at the top of their industry, who can lead the way. I've talked a long time. I apologize for that.

1610

Mr Cousens: You're very helpful. That was a consensus approach?

Mr Grant: Yes.

Mr Cousens: When you came to that general conclusion you've just enunciated, that's the feeling that came out of the --

Mr Grant: Yes. When we came to the final day -- and it was an interesting approach, because round tables take a long time and an awful lot of debate. You get 21 people around the room and we say, "Okay, has everybody bought in?" We start around and people put up their hands. People did and I think we're prepared to follow through.

Mr Cousens: Does the minister accept the approach that has been expressed by Mr Grant as the kind of direction the government would want to take with the report that has been submitted?

Hon Mrs Grier: Oh, I think entirely. What has been encouraging throughout this phase of the round table has been to see some of the concepts at the round table we're discussing begin to appear in the work of other agencies and independent organizations.

The whole question of full-cost pricing of water, for example, and water efficiency has been very much part of the consultations the Ministry of Natural Resources has been undertaking around the province. Some of the work of the government in developing an industrial strategy, talking about green industries and the whole question of encouraging environmental industries has been very much consistent with the discussion and thinking occurring at the round table. The approach of the Ministry of Energy with respect to energy efficiency, again, begins to put in place some of the principles Mr Grant is talking on.

Mr Cousens: What kind of feedback have you had from resource industries? Have you had anything back, or have you had a chance to assess it?

Mr Grant: We certainly haven't had any negative feedback, which is likely a plus in itself as it stands. Usually, industry associations will react pretty quickly if we're away off base. The report was received, I guess, better than I would have expected, certainly through the media, which is encouraging.

The challenge now is to go out and talk to the associations. What we've suggested here is that members of the round table are going to get out around the community. A lot of us get a lot of invitations to speak at association conventions and meetings, and that's really where the rubber hits the road. If you go into a mining association meeting or a Canadian Bankers Association meeting in which they invite you to speak on the round table -- and these are now getting piled up a little bit -- then you get the questions from the floor and you really know, then, what some of the real issues may be. So far, things are fine and in fact I hope we get some controversy and discussion. It's the only way, I think, we keep ourselves aware of what's going on.

Mr Cousens: What do you see as the next part of your agenda on the round table?

Mr Grant: I think we have a couple of things: One is to get out and talk to a lot of people about restructuring for sustainability. That is, here we are; we came out with the challenge paper, the six principles. What encouraged us a lot at that time were companies picking up the six principles and talking about them in their annual reports and what not.

Now we've come to restructuring for sustainability; getting out and talking to people about the report; getting some feedback. But more important than that, the key to the round tables is getting people involved, whether they're community round tables, cities or towns, of which there are about 13 now in Ontario -- they were actively going -- and also industrial round tables. No better way can you bring groups together within an industrial situation than in discussions about conservation and the environment. They have been tried, a number of the companies -- I'm on two boards where they have industrial round tables now, working well. It's a concept that we want to get more embedded into what I call the Ontario experience. It doesn't cost any money and it provides a platform for a lot of people to get involved in a non-confrontational subject.

Mr Cousens: Madam Minister and Mr Chairman, I thank Mr Grant for his input. It's like one of those situations: A lot more is gained when you see a person eyeball to eyeball than you do in reading a report. You wonder sometimes what the agendas are and, had there been better communication along the way, I might have had some kind of different response --

Mr Grant: That point's well taken.

Mr Cousens: I have nothing further of Mr Grant, unless someone else does, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: Are there any other questions for the committee members while Mr Grant's -- Mr Lessard?

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): I don't really have any questions, but I just wanted to thank you for taking the time out to attend before the committee today and taking the time out to get involved with the round table. I've read some of the accomplishments at the Quaker Co and I think they're impressive and they show leadership for other companies in Ontario to follow as well, and I hope you keep up the good work.

Mr Grant: I think thanks go to a lot of people who are volunteers on the round table. The attendance was superb, and that, I think, was a real credit to its work. I thank you.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Madam Minister, I just wondered about outreach and establishing round tables in other communities. Is that a role of the ministry or is that a role of the round table, that they're encouraged to do that? I imagine it happens by word of mouth.

Hon Mrs Grier: It began to happen. That was one of the exciting things during the work of the round table, that communities came and said: "Hey, we think is a good idea. We'd like to do it in our community." During the first phase of my chairmanship we were able to pull together for a couple of days representatives from round tables across the province, which I think proved very valuable both to the round table and to them to share what was happening.

The work of the task forces of the round table was an outreach approach and some of the community round tables sprang from that. As Mr Grant has said, the next phase of the work of the round table, which Mr Grant is going to chair, is going to concentrate on doing that. I'm not sure we're at the point of saying what the resources are and what the formulas will be, but that's again open to approaches.

If you want to start a round table, we've got all sorts of documentation about how to do it, and perhaps Jon can comment on how it would go.

Mr Grant: Sure, I'd be delighted to. You've asked a great question because we're having a get-together in Peterborough, of all places, which will be great for me, on Saturday, November 7, for the community round tables which are not only established, but those which want to establish themselves. We're going to go through some of the good experiences we've had and the learning processes and try and broaden it to more communities. It's a great way to get people from different sectors in a community together.

Hon Mrs Grier: So if you'd like more information on that, we'd be happy to make sure that we get that to you so that you're aware of it for your community.

Mr Eddy: Thank you very much, and keep up the good work.

Mr Cousens: Mr Chairman, I have other questions. There doesn't seem to be any --

The Chair: Let me offer a quick suggestion, and normally I would do that. Are there any additional questions for Mr Grant? Thank you very much, Mr Grant.

Given that we were delayed untoward yesterday in the process of starting, there has been a suggestion that perhaps we might make an effort to complete our estimates today, if there was agreement, if the time was shared a little more equitably.

Mr Cousens: How much time do I have left, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: Your entitlement is 70 minutes, both you and the Liberals each have 70 minutes, and we only have, as you can see, about an hour and 40 minutes. But if we could work some arrangement, if the government party wishes to yield the balance of its time and if the minister might be agreeable to staying for a few minutes after 6, we might be in a position to complete today.

It's very clear to me, as the Chair, that our start next week would be a partial start, so we'd be starting one estimates, finishing, and then having to start a second estimates in mid-meeting. I will only entertain discussion for a brief period on any kind of proposal. Normally I do not do this during committee time, but it has been suggested. Is there any interest? If not, I will be proceeding on straight time allocation and each of the caucuses have had their time allocated fairly and you each have about 70 minutes apiece.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I just want to comment. I'm interested in accommodating the members of this committee and the function of this committee to any extent that I can help that. I think that if we could move ahead today, we can cover things fairly well.

The Chair: I need a signal from the government.

Mr Lessard: We don't have any objection to that suggestion.

Mr McClelland: I'm just thinking in terms of the logistics of you trying to get this --

The Chair: I'll worry about that.

Mr Lessard: That's fine.

The Chair: My two key elements are if the government's prepared to yield, if the two opposition critics could shave a few moments of their 70-minute allocation and the minister extends perhaps to a quarter or even 20 after the hour. Would that be a fair approach?

Mr Cousens: Just to add to it if that's the case, because I'm interested in as large a block as I can have. But if it turns out that we need to cut it back, we might refer some questions back to the minister for a written response if there isn't enough time to finish it today.

1620

Hon Mrs Grier: I certainly would rather try to do it in verbal response. I think it's more helpful for all the members of the committee. It's certainly more helpful for ministry staff. I have a real problem in that I've an engagement at 6:30 in my riding with respect to the referendum campaign, so I'll have to leave at 5 or 10 minutes past, assuming the Metro police aren't giving tickets.

The Chair: Okay. In fairness, the verbal responses are not allowing us to cover much ground. I think what Mr Cousens is suggesting is if it's acknowledged that, when questions are put on the record, we're able to treat them as estimates questions and they'll be responded to forthwith.

Hon Mrs Grier: I'll try to be brief in my answers and we'll see if we can cover all the ground Mr Cousens wants to do.

The Chair: That's what I was hoping to hear. Thank you. If that's the case, then the Chair will proceed under those general guidelines and we will be extending our sitting time by 10 or 12 minutes, and the Chair will deal with that if there's no difficulty. Is that --

Mr Cousens: How will we accommodate the minister if she's rushing out?

The Chair: We're accommodating everybody. Proceed now with Mr McClelland.

Mr McClelland: Pardon me while I --

Mr Eddy: May I, just in the interim, ask a question then of the minister about the Niagara Escarpment Commission? Minister, I'm wondering about the future. I realize it's a five-year review and it's every five years; it's an ongoing five-year review. The conservation authorities are active, I expect, in all these areas as well. I wonder if we've ever looked at the possibility of having either the municipalities, where there are upper-tier plans -- it was mentioned that there are three -- take on the work, or indeed having the conservation authorities look at assuming the role of policing or responding to the escarpment's policies. Is that something that could be looked at in the future, or is that not a good idea?

Hon Mrs Grier: There's very close collaboration between the conservation authorities and the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Certainly, in the protection and a lot of projects that have been funded in respect to wetland restoration or woodlots, the conservation authorities are partners. The difficulties then become areas of jurisdiction, because conservation authorities are sort of on a watershed basis and the escarpment cuts across watersheds, so you get into all that.

I think what we all try to do is work together. There are a lot of good examples of that. If everyone is clear as to what their jurisdiction is, then it's easier to put it all together and get on with the project -- who's lead and who's funding.

I think the other critical question I'd like to respond to is that the role of the Niagara Escarpment Commission is unique. If we share the will to protect this unique resource, then the cumulative effects of development are very critical and will only be known if we look at the entire escarpment. We're now beginning to try to collect some data that would enable us to see -- one development permit here and one here perhaps doesn't seem like much. When you put it all together, then you've whittled away at a lot of areas. That's never been done, looking at the cumulative effects. You need one entity that covers the whole escarpment to do that.

Mr Eddy: Thank you.

Mr McClelland: Minister, I want to discuss with you, if I could, one of our -- we've already had about five favourite topics. I guess it's a grouping of them.

Hon Mrs Grier: My whole ministry's a favourite of everyone.

Mr McClelland: Yes, it is, and there are so many interesting and important areas to talk about. I want to touch base for a brief while, at least, in the area of the often talked about and bandied about and political fodder issue, quite frankly, of refillable bottles, and the realistic attainment of the quotas and what's happening with that. I don't need to run by the numbers, and I don't do this in a sense to be confrontational. But the fact of the matter is, as you well know, that we're way off our numbers in terms of refillables, going back over the summer. I know it's cyclical in nature, but we're running below 6% for a couple of months in the summer, as low as 5.4% of soft drink industry refillables in July, 1992.

I know your interest and your first principle is one of refillable as opposed to recyclable. I also know that in terms of convenience, consumers feel very much that they're doing their bit, if you will. I think that's a psychological reality. I have no authority to say that other than just a sense that people feel generally, "We're doing our thing because we've put our containers into the blue box," and so it goes, and the fact of the matter is that the recyclable materials make the blue box viable.

We have, if you will, competing interests. We have a tension that exists in terms of the desirability of refillable and the desirability of recyclable to make that program, the blue box program, among others, viable.

You have an interest, and I think appropriately so, and I think quite frankly you're to be commended on it, in terms of advancing refillable as the first priority in terms of your hierarchy. You have some proposals forthcoming. I'd be interested in knowing what your position is with respect to enforcing or moving towards a refillable preference, with a tax structure you are now empowered with under the Waste Management Act, looking at, among others, the New Brunswick model, which is certainly one which came into place as of June or July -- I believe it might have been June of this year -- and the opportunity to study that, to look at the impact that has had on a year's cycle.

I guess in short what I am asking, Minister, is, what are we doing in terms of looking at the proposal for differential deposit or half-back deposit or however one wants to term it and what plans might your ministry have in that area, and how do you mesh that with the dynamic tension I referred to that you're well aware of in terms of the refillable versus recyclable issue?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think, Mr McClelland, you've captured the essence of the problem very well. There's only one point you've made I think I would take issue with, which is that recycling is required for the viability of the blue box.

Mr McClelland: Let me correct that.

Hon Mrs Grier: That was certainly the initial hope with aluminum containers and they've then moved back to steel and that didn't happen.

Mr McClelland: Let me say it's an important part.

Hon Mrs Grier: But I think you're absolutely right in your contention that for consumers, they feel if they've tossed the container in the blue box, they've done their bit, so the impetus to do the best for the environment by moving to refillables has not been there because the blue box has been it.

It's also important to note that the blue box of course only captures -- I think the last time I looked it was one out of three or two out of five refillable drink containers, so there's an awful lot of non-refillable containers that are in the garbage, on the roadsides, and the whole litter issue has not been addressed.

As you know, I have tried ever since I became minister -- and I've bedevilled two ministers before me, if not more -- to come to some resolution of this. I think where I'm at is recognizing that regulations 622 and 623 that came into effect in 1985 have not done the job.

You know all the reasons the industry says: Consumers won't buy. Many others say the industry hasn't tried to market its product in a way that reflects the need to live up to those regulations. But everybody seems to agree that regulations are not the way to do it. So looking at a deposit system as a way of achieving a higher percentage of refillables became a priority for me when I realized that all the discussions we'd had and the proposals back and forth were not leading to a resolution of this.

We met with the soft drink industry and everybody concerned and talked about the various deposit systems and whether it would be a deposit on everything or whether it would be, as you've said, the New Brunswick system, which is a differential deposit. That means that if you charge a deposit of 20 cents on a soft drink container, if it is a refillable, when you take it back, you get the full 20 cents. If it's non-refillable and only recyclable, when you take it back, you only get 10 cents. That seemed to have the advantage of a deposit which would ensure recapture of all containers, refillable or non-refillable, as well as an incentive to the consumer to buy refillable containers.

Mr McClelland: And a little bit of revenue for the government.

Hon Mrs Grier: Well, there could well be some revenue for the government, but that was not a primary aspect of this.

Mr McClelland: No, I understand that.

Hon Mrs Grier: The revenue would probably need to be spent to set up collection depots and whatever other system you were going to have in place.

What we have done is ask for a study to be implemented to look at that scheme. It came into New Brunswick in June. I was there on vacation later this year and was pleased to see that it was generally accepted and nobody was complaining about it. How much it works and what happens we don't yet know, so we asked consultants to do an examination of that for us, and other aspects of a deposit system: the impact on the retailers, the impact on the small corner stores, how best we might set up the infrastructure to begin to put it in place. We haven't yet had that work completed. When we do, that will be a very useful set of data to help us make a decision around this.

1630

Mr McClelland: My understanding is that is a study somewhere in the order of $250,000, commissioned by the ministry. Is that correct, somewhere in that order?

Hon Mrs Grier: I don't know whether Mr Castel can give some costs.

Mr André Castel: It's a study Price Waterhouse is doing for us, and from memory I believe it is approximately $90,000, but I stand to be corrected and I will check that out for you.

Mr McClelland: If you could check that, I'd appreciate some confirmation on that.

The question I have that flows from that in part, Minister, is that you mentioned you have met with the soft drink industry. We know the nature of the soft drink industry is cyclical in nature. Obviously, the peak period is the summer and I guess they get a little blip at the vacation season in mid-December and through the new year. But I guess part of the question is, when is the study due, and will the study take into account the annual cyclical nature of the industry?

Hon Mrs Grier: Oh, certainly. We've done extensive analysis of the industry. Cyclical: There's some of it but I'm not sure it is that cyclical. But yes, the study will be looking at all aspects of the industry to enable us to make some decisions and draw some conclusions from that. I think it's due -- November?

Mr Castel: End of November and it will also examine various options.

Mr McClelland: I'd be happy to try and fill in from my knowledge, such as it is, recognizing that it's probably not as extensive as yours since you're involved in it much more deeply. The soft drink industry is certainly conducting its own studies in an area of the province of Ontario and wants to bring the results of those studies to you at the conclusion of those studies.

I suppose what I would like to know is, are you going to await your decision in terms of how you proceed pending the study and the market survey and the market analysis the soft drink industry wants to put forward, or are you going to make the decisions solely on the basis of the Price Waterhouse study?

Hon Mrs Grier: I can assure you we've had extensive studies from the soft drink industry. The one they presented and was widely publicized in the summer of 1991, their waste minimization action plan, was the subject of a three-day multistakeholder meeting that we pulled together to examine their work and look at how it would take us towards more refillables.

Since then, certainly some of the companies have constructed a study in Barrie about how they can increase the proportion of soft drink containers that come into the blue box. They announced during Waste Reduction Week just last month that they were now going to do another study to look at refillable containers and the proportion of refillable containers that perhaps could be collected through the blue box as opposed to going back to the suppliers.

There's ongoing work by the industry. They certainly share their information with us. I don't know the timing of their current study, but I think I can probably safely say to you that if we get the Price Waterhouse study back by the end of November, we're not likely to come up with a conclusion within a month.

Mr McClelland: I know this is not an opportunity for me to share my opinion or musings but rather to hear yours, but I'd be interested in your response. My understanding of the study that's being conducted is that it is one that is really, in effect, not only a study but a market test, if you will, of a container that is not only refillable but also recyclable -- in other words, the best of both worlds -- a container that is put in to recycle that is tagged, and there's a market survey, an actual confined geographic area market survey, that would test the consumer's willingness to buy a product in a container that had been recycled and refilled.

That, it seems to me, opens up an opportunity for the best of both worlds. I think it's important that the study be given very, very careful consideration. It's not just an extrapolation of numbers, it's actually a practical test of whether the product will meet and begin to solve the tension that exists between refillable and recyclable.

Quite frankly, I'm very concerned that the test at least be given the full hearing I think it deserves. I say this in all candour. I hope your mind isn't made up. I'll just tell it as it is. I think you and I enjoy a relation. I hope we can be candid about that. You've indicated you're prepared to listen to that, but I hope you'd really be careful, because it seems to me you did two things: You closed the door on a greater potential for giving the best of both worlds and, potentially, refillables for other products. From there, I launch into my second question. You may want to respond to --

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me respond to that. I think if I've demonstrated anything, I've demonstrated my recognition that there are no simple answers to this particular issue and that any information studies, data, examination tests, are grist to our mill as we try to wrestle with a conclusion that will be good for the environment as well as being good for the economy. Whatever studies are out there -- and I'm sure the people in our waste reduction office are more familiar with the details than I am -- we are only too anxious to see them and will take them into account before we come to conclusions.

Mr McClelland: It all ties in, Mr Chairman; I'll wrap this part of it with this question. Certainly the soft drink industry has been singled out in some respects, in terms of the refillables. What are we thinking of doing with other products, for refillable requirements in the province? In other words, if you were contemplating some sort of differential tax deposit system, would it be strictly in terms of the soft drink industry? Would you be looking across the board in terms of product? It seems to me that a container of fruit juice or a container of other consumer products creates the same problem as does a soft drink container. I'd be interested in your comments on that, Minister.

Hon Mrs Grier: I think some juice containers do, something like this. But the big difference with soft drinks is that they're essentially often bought just one at a time and consumed away from home. Therefore, the disposal of the container is sometimes different from something consumed mostly in-home or elsewhere. Anyway, in looking at a solution to how we can move people towards more refillables than disposables, I was fascinated just last week at the Recycling Council of Ontario conference to meet with a dairy in Ottawa. It's been selling milk in refillable containers for ever and hasn't ever changed, and there's a market for it, which confirms work done by the Recycling Council of Ontario that consumers want to buy their beverages in refillable containers. They can't buy carbonated beverages in a single serving in a refillable, but they can and are showing that they want to buy juice and milk, in at least the Ottawa area. That particular enterprise is looking at ways of using a refillable plastic bottle that is widely in use in Europe and in the US, which the soft drink companies here have chosen to ignore.

So there are all sorts of options out there that I don't think the industry here has taken advantage of. In designing a scheme, one of the considerations I have is, is that scheme applicable to a wider range of containers than merely the carbonated beverages that were covered by Mr Bradley's regulations 622 and 623? But I have not reached a conclusion with respect to that. Mr Cousens: I wanted to ask some questions with regard to the Waste Management Act. On a statutory issue, why is the Ministry of the Environment responsible for the administration of the Waste Management Act, while the Interim Waste Authority reports to the office for the greater Toronto area?

1640

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm going to ask Bonnie Wein, who is the head of legal services in our ministry, to discuss that. Well, let me answer it. The act is an act of the Ministry of the Environment that deals with both a wide range of waste management issues and the creation of an authority within the greater Toronto area to deal with the waste of the greater Toronto area. So in the legislation that was known as the Waste Management Act, 1992, a provision was made that the Interim Waste Authority would report to the office for the greater Toronto area. I don't know of any legal reasons why that had to occur, but perhaps Ms Wein can respond on that aspect.

Ms Bonnie Wein: Bonnie Wein, the director of legal services. I think that's the correct answer. All of the attention has focused on the greater Toronto area because of the particular initial issues that have arisen there, but the act itself has a broader application and for that reason is properly within the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment.

Mr Cousens: How are the duties and responsibilities related to the application and execution of the provisions of the Waste Management Act being delegated between the Ministry of the Environment and the office for the greater Toronto area?

Hon Mrs Grier: The responsibility for the Interim Waste Authority is with the office for the greater Toronto area. All other aspects of the Waste Management Act are the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment.

Mr Cousens: Were there any regulations or any guidelines established within the Ministry of the Environment to define various responsibilities at that stage?

Hon Mrs Grier: There was a memorandum of understanding between the minister and the Interim Waste Authority, but with respect to regulations and the implementation of the Waste Management Act, those are the regulations for waste reduction that I think we've discussed on other occasions and which are in the process of being developed.

Mr Cousens: Can I get a copy of that memo of understanding?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think that was made available during the time of the debate on Bill 143. If you'd like another copy, I'm sure we can get it for you.

Mr Cousens: That would be great. Thank you very much.

When in estimates back in 1991, we had an opportunity to ask the minister a number of questions to do with criteria for the selection of a landfill site. On page E-174 I asked:

"What are some of the specific criteria that you are looking at for a selection?

"Hon Mrs Grier: The environmental criteria? Well, as I say, the exclusion of class 1 to 3 agriculture, areas of natural scientific interest, areas of wetlands, a number of -- I would be happy to provide you with those specific environmental criteria."

I was really interested in the fact that in your environmental criteria, you excluded class 1 to 3 agricultural lands, areas of natural interest and wetlands. Could the minister explain the differences between the criteria you had in estimates 1991 and the criteria now being used by the Interim Waste Authority?

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Chair, I'd be happy to get into all of that, all of which I think we did at length under Bill 143. I don't have much of my background on that, because it's not part of the estimates before the committee today, as that's a function of the office for the greater Toronto area; we'll have an opportunity when its estimates presumably come before committee. But I'm more than happy to get into that debate subject to your ruling.

The Acting Chair (Mr Gary Carr): Mr Cousens, you had some comments?

Mr Cousens: The problem I have is the inconsistency of your establishment of strong criteria which -- if you take just one of the examples, class 1 to 3 agricultural land would be a major criterion. Of the 57 sites, close to 50 of the sites selected by the Interim Waste Authority -- your ministry developed the legislation -- are class 1 to 3 agricultural land. How can we reconcile the difference between what was said then and what is being done now?

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Chair, let me try to set the record straight on this. As I've tried to explain to Mr Cousens on a number of occasions, in August 1991 the Interim Waste Authority published its approach and criteria document for the environmental assessment. In that, steps 1, 2, 3, 4, all the way down to the identification of a site, were explained and laid out for the first time ever in a landfill site search.

In step 1, the preliminary screening, lands were screened out, and under the agricultural heading, areas of long-term agricultural importance, prime farm land and areas in which speciality crops such as orchards and extensive field vegetables are grown, were screened out at step 1.

When they got to step 2, a second set of criteria was applied to screen out or remove even more land. With respect to agricultural land there, the agricultural land that was screened out was agricultural land with medium to high crop sales located within developed or developing urban areas. That was screened out as least suitable for a landfill site.

The criteria of agricultural land -- biology, heritage, land use, social, transportation, all of these various criteria -- are being examined by the Interim Waste Authority, and a balance between those various criteria is precisely part of the consultation ongoing now.

For example, in your own area last week, I was told by some people that landfill ought not to be close to a built-up area. I was told by other people that a landfill ought not to be on agricultural land. So the decisions with respect to how to balance those opposing points of view are what is now being discussed and where ultimately the Interim Waste Authority will make a decision, which will then be subject to the Environmental Assessment Board decision.

Mr Cousens: Having clearly defined strong environmental criteria and now, two years later, with many of those properties being considered for landfill sites fully complying with the criteria you did not want, is what causes me great concern. What you're really saying is that the criteria you talked about then were not really criteria; they were considerations. That basically is what we have now. We get caught into words. The expectations the public as a whole has is that the government is going to respect certain things such as prime agricultural farm land, yet in the actual consideration of IWA sites, it'll just be one of many things.

Hon Mrs Grier: As Mr Cousens well knows, 57 candidate sites are being examined, and in some cases, the community feels this is an important agricultural area that will continue in agricultural for ever. In its initial screening, the Interim Waste Authority in its examination felt that this was in fact not land that was going to remain agricultural and therefore met its criteria. That debate is ongoing.

As shortly the Interim Waste Authority announces its short list of sites and then moves to a preferred site, I think it is preferable not to speculate about the weight that will be given to those criteria until we see the results of the work currently being done.

Mr Cousens: I had a question on February 18, 1991. At that time, the Kirkland Lake proposal was still being considered. The minister stated: "As part of our work, we had asked Metro Toronto to continue to keep its options open, and as a result, it had renegotiated or re-signed its agreement with Kirkland Lake."

Furthermore, the minister stated in response to a question from us that, "The agreement that exists between Metropolitan Toronto and Kirkland Lake is still valid."

I would just like to ask the minister: Would you explain what happened between February and April 1991 to suddenly exclude Kirkland Lake from the options?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm very glad to have an opportunity to explain this, because Mr Cousens made this point the first day, and when I went back and looked at the Hansard, I thought it was important to also show on the record that in response to that question, and as the Hansard continued, I said, on that particular date, 18 February 1991:

"I have neither confirmed nor rejected that" -- ie, Kirkland Lake -- "as one of the possible sites, but it will not be I who selects the sites. It will be the authority that is going to be put in place. What I am developing are a set of criteria that will be given to that authority in order to guide them in their search and in their site selection."

As I and the government developed those criteria, we enshrined those criteria and principles in Bill 143, which came before the House, was debated before the House and on which public hearings were held, and that legislation specified that in fact the Interim Waste Authority site selection area would be that of the greater Toronto area.

Mr Cousens: The minister did say, "The agreement that exists between Metropolitan Toronto and Kirkland Lake is still valid." What caused you to invalidate that agreement?

Hon Mrs Grier: I don't know whether it's valid at this point or not. That is, frankly, irrelevant to the decision.

Mr Cousens: What caused you, then, to legislate it out of consideration in Bill 143?

1650

Hon Mrs Grier: What I did was legislate out of consideration a province-wide search for landfill sites for the greater Toronto area. The reason for that is that I believe, as does my government, that any new landfill site should be selected under the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Environmental Assessment Act is a planning process by which you develop the criteria you consider important in the selection of a landfill, you apply those criteria and, by a process of elimination, you arrive at the best site within the area of search. If the area of search was to be the entire province, as Metro and York embarked upon and what led them to Kirkland Lake, then you would have to be doing what the Interim Waste Authority is now doing within the greater Toronto area on a province-wide basis and find the best possible sites in the province.

The Environmental Assessment Act does not allow you to say, "We happen to have an agreement with whatever township or private land owner and therefore we will do an environmental assessment of that site." That's not how the Environmental Assessment Act works.

Mr Cousens: Did you have any scientific data that caused you to exclude further consideration of the rail haul option?

Hon Mrs Grier: Rail haul is an option to any site. The issue is, within what area will the site be located?

Mr Cousens: Did you have any scientific data that caused you to exclude consideration of the rail haul option?

Hon Mrs Grier: I have not eliminated the rail haul option. I have eliminated a search for a site beyond the greater Toronto area.

Mr Cousens: I don't know how you're rotating questions, Mr Chairman. Do you keep time for what each of us is doing?

The Chair: You have six minutes left in this part of the rotation, Mr Cousens. If you're comfortable to move to another area, please do so.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Maybe I can jump in. Minister, the question I have relates to air emission standards. As you know, in my riding I've had correspondence -- I think I had the pleasure of being the first person who contacted you the day you were sworn in, October 1, 1990.

Hon Mrs Grier: The first, but not the last.

Mr Carr: No, I was at the bottom, the first one in; I remember that.

You were kind enough to set up a meeting with some of the policy people about what you would be doing with the standards. We're still in a situation now where there is some concern in my community, particularly over the Petro-Canada facility. What is your plan with regard to the standards, and where are we at in terms of the process of looking at the standards in the province today?

Hon Mrs Grier: Do you mean over and above the discussion we had yesterday about the air management strategy?

Mr Carr: Yes, just basically in terms of dates that you're specifically looking at.

Hon Mrs Grier: I don't think I can give you a date with respect to the establishment of the revisions to regulation 308. As I said yesterday, a seminar and discussions about that are scheduled for early in the new year.

What we have done with respect to the particular problem in your own constituency is to try to work with the industry to see if in fact capture of fugitive emissions and improvements in their own system can occur to deal with that problem, which I'm not sure a revision to the regulation would in fact deal with. But I know that Jim Merritt or Gerry Ronan, who are here from the ministry, are familiar with the Petro-Canada, Oakville, situation and might want to respond to it.

My information, and Mr Merritt can add to it, is that Petro-Canada has developed an air abatement program which will deal with the actual reduction of odorous emissions, and it is expected that a thermal oxidizer will be in operation by May, 1993, which will reduce the emission of black smoke and odours from the flaring of gases.

Mr Carr: Any additional comments?

Mr Jim Merritt: Let me just add that the community has been very concerned for some years now about the odour problems.

Mr Carr: At least 10.

Mr Merritt: Our Oakville office has been very active and, I think, has attended a number of public meetings.

We have advised Petro-Canada that we are preparing an order for it, and I think there's been a public meeting recently on the essence of that order to hear what the reaction is and what the company's views are on that. Our intention is still to proceed with that order unless we hear very soon from the company that it is prepared to take some other actions. But as of this date we haven't heard that response, so I believe that in the next few weeks or a month an order would be proceeding.

Mr Carr: I personally think that in many cases you do need to have an order, notwithstanding the fact that there have been a lot of meetings. It's been very frustrating.

The problem we've got with the situation, as you know, is that in a lot of technical ways they are meeting the present standards in spite of the fact of the odour. I happened to be out there not long ago next door to the park at a soccer game where the odour is absolutely terrible. The problem the community has is, it's saying the standards right now won't capture them.

I guess I'll ask this of the minister: In the new process with some of the air quality, will we be able to have standards that will capture a lot of the concerns that are coming out of particular refineries? The essence of this problem is the refinery problem.

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm not sure that I can respond, because we haven't reached the point of making some decisions about a revised regulation, but the proceeding by way of a control order on a specific industry is probably at this point the most effective way to go. That's why we're pursuing that. Maybe Mr Merritt can comment on the long term. I'll leave it up to him.

Mr Merritt: You've been involved in the meetings and are aware, I should tell everyone here, and Mr Ronan might have more information, that odours are a very difficult thing to regulate and set standards for. People's sense of an odour and the degree of objection are very different among people.

To try to place numbers on that and establish a level has been a difficult effort for us, but I know that our technicians have been trying to work with it. They've been in touch with people from other jurisdictions, and I think from the United States as well, to try to see if there are better numbers that you can put in a regulation to make this firmer and at the same time appreciate individual sensitivities. There are hypersensitivities that have to be looked at as well.

The Chair: If I might interrupt just for one moment and the committee will allow the Chair a small prerogative, by preamble, I simply wish to state that when I stand in my daughter's bedroom and look out her window, I am less than three quarters of a mile away from the smokestack. Okay?

I personally want to say that it's not just an odour problem, but in fact we know that this company is breaking the law and that this company at certain points is blowing off and burning off tonnes of this fluid. When we call, we do not get a very pleasant response from the ministry because it all happens in a matter of minutes, and when we get our neighbours organized to phone, eight or nine or 10 of us, you can see the jet turned off because of the Ministry of the Environment. That's a system that should not be occurring in this province.

It's not just the general release. We're talking about a company that's actively breaking the law, a company that is waiting under the cover of darkness till midnight and blowing off tonnes and tonnes, and you know the processes involved here.

I'm sorry, but the Chair gets a modest opportunity. I want to tell you that --

Mr Cousens: You can use some of my time for that.

The Chair: I had to throw out my mailbox. It lasted two years. It has been eaten, and all the brass on my front door has been eaten. It's gone. All my neighbours have to get rid of them.

This is a serious problem. My children are breathing it. It's in their clothes. It's not simply odour, is what I'm trying to stress here. There's a process the company's following, and the Ministry of the Environment lacks the will to go in and monitor it to that degree. Yes, it responds; I'm not saying you're not doing your job. I've got lots of praise for the office that deals with this, but there's no secret in the community of what is going on at that site.

I'm sorry. I wanted to get that on the record, at least for my kids.

1700

Hon Mrs Grier: I'd sure like to have it on the record. If you're aware that the company is breaking the law, then I think we need to know precisely what that information is, so that we can investigate whether in fact charges should be laid.

The Chair: Your ministry knows. You don't, Minister, but your ministry has been told.

Hon Mrs Grier: Have we incidents of infractions that we have followed up on?

Mr Merritt: We have had a large number of complaints. Many of them are followed up on legal bases, and we go through our legal process of having the enforcement branch investigate to see if a charge is available. Some of them are difficult.

We certainly are not looking to avoid this problem. I think it's of great concern to us. That one incident consumes a large portion of our staff time. If we could bring it to the ground, it would certainly free us up to deal with a large number of other problems in the area. It's in our interest, as well.

One difficulty we do deal with though, and that is with blackened smoke emissions. At the startup period -- and this may have been explained in the public meetings, as I think it was -- for a few minutes of starting up and converting processes, under the current rules and regulations, this is allowed, but it's not allowed to continue for very long.

The Chair: Even the community's aware of what you just shared with us, but for half an hour, that's when we start screaming and start phoning, and we organize a neighbourhood plan to call, to put pressure on the ministry, then the ministry calls. They simply are turning the jets on and, when the phones don't ring, they keep it open. As soon as the phones start ringing off the hook, then they turn it off. That works in Kuwait, but it shouldn't be the standard in Ontario.

Hon Mrs Grier: Is that not what the oxidizer is designed to prevent from happening for any extended period?

Mr Merritt: That should help part of that process, and that would decommission one of those stacks, I believe.

The Chair: Please proceed, Mr Ronan.

Mr Gerry Ronan: I was just going to explain a little further the complexity of the odour problem, and I believe it relates to total reduced sulphur. The extraordinary thing about this kind of rotten-egg smell that you perhaps are familiar with is that the human nose has a tremendous capability of detecting low levels, even lower than any of the instrumentation we have. We pick up at the parts per billion, well below the standard. Consequently, it triggers an immediate reaction.

We looked at the standard and we looked at all the other sectors in Ontario, and this is complicated in that many of the northern towns have this sulphur smell and the populace welcome it. They think it's an indicator of a healthy economy, and they've just got used to it. I'm not trying to justify it.

The Chair: Mr Ronan, please: This is not a pitch for the chamber of commerce of Sudbury. Please answer the question as it relates to Mr Carr's riding.

Mr Ronan: The point is, if you went the regulatory route, it would impact on a lot of sectors across the province, and it's linked to land use. If some communities do not have builtup communities adjacent to them, there's absolutely no requirement to have a much more rigorous standard. Based on health and impact, you cannot get any kind of threshold effect that would give you a health justification for ratcheting down.

The control order approach that was first touted here, site-specific, having that as your means of trying to enforce and make a company go after all these fugitive emissions, and also to have good practices and also good community liaison, all those things, I think, are the most effective ways of addressing the problem, because the larger question was asked, are we looking at the standards, and we have looked very carefully at this particular issue of the total reduced sulphides.

Mr Carr: We won't be changing the standards for the refineries?

Mr Ronan: We are looking as part of the whole review of regulation 308. That's one of the standards we will be developing a strategy for, and it is on the table to attempt to ratchet it down.

Hon Mrs Grier: I think what Mr Ronan is suggesting is that where that might emerge, it's not likely to resolve the issues in an area where there is a residential area in such close proximity to a plant as exists in Oakville.

Mr Carr: Just one quick one to finish up, then. What I'm hearing, just so we can be clear, is that even the standards that you're looking at probably won't affect it, and that probably the only way it will get rid of the smell is if that company doesn't produce there.

Hon Mrs Grier: Sorry, I didn't hear that.

Mr Carr: If that company isn't there producing their product.

Hon Mrs Grier: No. I think what I was attempting to suggest was that a change in the regulation, which would have to apply province-wide, might not resolve your issue, which is why the approach the ministry has taken is to work to develop a control order for that specific plant.

Generally, I don't favour the control order approach. I'd rather have a standard that was province-wide, and I think industry would prefer to have that, but this is a particular problem. It has certainly been a problem for a very long time and failure to work to get it to a level that the community will accept is not good enough, so a control order is the way to do it.

Mr Carr: Thank you.

The Chair: Actually, we were a little bit over. I'll adjust the time accordingly. Please proceed if you wish. Mr Cousens -- with his support?

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: Go right ahead.

Mr Carr: Just one short one again with regard to the process with the draft orders and the circumstances. What I would like to do is be able to say to the community -- as has been mentioned, it's been going on at least 10 years. The question I get is that they're very frustrated, not with the individuals, because Bob Adcock has worked long and hard on this and has been at all the meetings and has been a saint through this whole process, but the problem is there's a tremendous amount of frustration out there. What I think I'm hearing is that even if you changed the standards, we're not going to be able to affect this particular plant because of the unusual circumstances with regard to refineries. That, to me, means that there probably won't be a solution even if the standards are changed.

Hon Mrs Grier: No, I think what I said was that the way to attack this problem is through a control order, not by changing the standards, and that, as Mr Merritt has said, is the approach we're taking.

Mr Carr: Just one last quick question regarding the control order: If we do it and we implement this plan -- and it's probably not fair to ask you, but I don't know if anybody else knows the answer -- is there a date we would be looking at where we can say we think we will have this problem solved?

Hon Mrs Grier: Can I ask Mr Merritt for the timing on the control order?

Mr Merritt: I don't have the specific times.

The first phase of the control order, of course, is to require that the company come forward with the specific plans. It is very difficult for us as a ministry, and perhaps a little bit dangerous for us, to tell them technically exactly how to do it. It tends to let them off the hook. The route we take is a phased control order.

The first phase is they have to come to us within so many days -- and we're prepared to be very strict on this because they've known the terms of the control order -- to tell us exactly what they are going to do, to put in place. They bring that to us. Then we put the time lines on them to do the civil work, the engineering work in place, to make those changes. Depending on how extensive they are and what has to be done in the ground, the time would be set according to that.

The Chair: When is that actual date that your control order says they must respond to you by?

Mr Merritt: I don't have a copy of the draft control order.

The Chair: Will you share that with Mr Carr, a complete copy of that and send one to me as well?

Mr Merritt: We've circulated the draft control order, I think, to the community.

Mr Carr: In terms of the cost that the company would spend, that would be included as well, details of what they will spend?

Mr Merritt: They would bring us those numbers. I'm sure they'd be the first people to tell us what they think this is going to cost them.

Mr Carr: Yes, because the big question as I see it is that I actually truly believe a lot of the problems could be fixed. It is a tremendous amount of investment, and I personally believe that the company doesn't want to spend the money and is going through a lot of these processes. That's why I'm hoping that if we have dates and we have amounts being spent, the community will then say that there is a commitment. To this point there's been a lot of discussion but no actual money spent. Until the money is spent, I think the community is very sceptical that the company is really trying to work to improve it.

The Chair: Mr Merritt, can I ask you a further question, please? What is your position in terms of extending the time in phase one, the response time? What is your position? What's your policy if a company notifies you three days from the expiry of their phase 1 that: "I'm sorry. We're not ready. We need another month"? How do you deal with that?

Mr Merritt: We really are not in the habit of extending those time frames.

1710

The Chair: This happens seldom, if ever? Frequently, infrequently, never?

Mr Merritt: Not very frequently and, as I said, in this case, because the company has been very aware of the problems and knows the terms in the draft material, I don't see any particular reason, unless it is completely impossible for it to become part of it and it would have to demonstrate that. At this point in time, I don't see any reason why there would be an extension.

Hon Mrs Grier: In response to Mr Carr's comments about the investment required, I will just make the point that what we're talking about here is an odour problem. These companies have in fact made a major investment in trying to deal with problems that have a direct deleterious effect on the environment. Further investment to deal with what is an odour problem is something that I think they are concerned about and have to consider carefully so that, of course, for them will be part of the consideration, but it's important that the record show that this is not a problem that has immediate and adverse effects on the environment, and there are varying degrees, as we've talked about, of sensitivity to this particular problem.

That doesn't diminish the community's concern or the need to address it, but I think it would be unfair to imply that the companies had not made some attempt to deal with problems that have been brought to their attention.

Mr Carr: With investment, you're talking about the water quality now through MISA? There was a tremendous amount of money being spent -- I believe in the neighbourhood of $10 million -- but that related to the water problem. You're saying that there has been a lot of capital spent regarding the air as well?

Hon Mrs Grier: My understanding is that with respect to major environmental problems -- toxicity, persistent biochemical substances and, you're right, MISA -- there's been a major investment by these companies in dealing with those serious problems first. We're now down to what is an odour problem and I know for them that the further investment is a problem. I suspect that will be their response to the draft control order and that's something we will then have to deal with and discuss with them.

The Chair: I'm in Mr Cousens's hands.

Mr Cousens: Do I have further questions now? I am interested in the Ontario water services secretariat and I have a number of questions on that. What is its official status at this time?

Hon Mrs Grier: In response to your question yesterday, we indicated that funding for the water services secretariat is in the budget of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. But I'm happy to be able to say to you, Mr Cousens, that certainly in any discussions about the future of that secretariat, my ministry has been fully involved. At this time, its status is that it is a secretariat within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Mr Cousens: Was there any announcement made of that? I don't recall seeing any kind of announcement or public release that indicated it had gone to Municipal Affairs.

Hon Mrs Grier: It was in Municipal Affairs when I became the minister so there's been no change in its status.

Mr Cousens: When did that happen?

Hon Mrs Grier: It was in our phone book when I first became minister, but the funding was always in Municipal Affairs.

Mr Castel: The secretariat was established by the previous government.

Mr Cousens: It was in Municipal Affairs at that time?

Mr Castel: It was in Municipal Affairs.

Mr Cousens: I think it would be better to take that through Municipal Affairs, the questions I had on that, so I'll come back to the waste management discussion papers, if I may, a series of waste management planning and waste management powers, papers released by the ministry. Specifically, the paper on waste management powers mentions new legislation on waste management powers, scheduled once the consultations are complete. Madam Minister, when would you expect to see the new legislation?

Hon Mrs Grier: As soon as possible and that too is legislation that will be an amendment to the Municipal Act and that is currently a project of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. We are working closely through our waste reduction office with Municipal Affairs and it is certainly my desire to be able to introduce that legislation before the end of this session.

Mr Cousens: I understand there are a number of papers being drafted on waste management financing and marketing strategies for recyclable material. With respect to that, could the minister provide us with a possible date for the release of that paper?

Hon Mrs Grier: That is one in the series of initiative papers we have been using as consultation documents since the passage of the Waste Management Act: the one for Municipal Affairs on powers, the one for us with respect to waste reduction, and Mr Blackwell, I'm sure, can remind me of the others and their contents.

The one with respect to finance has been a complicated one to prepare, and it was, I think, to be Initiatives Paper No 5. Our expectation at this point is that we will have that ready in the first half of 1993, not before then.

Mr Cousens: The problem you have is that certainly municipalities are looking for that to tie the information within that with the other considerations from the other papers and --

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me be very clear, though, that these discussions about changes in regulations and new approaches have not precluded the ongoing work of the waste reduction office in beginning to address some of the financing problems with municipalities in looking at the development of markets, and in looking at how we can use our funding to encourage new industries and new uses of materials. All of that is ongoing and has been very successful.

The question of powers and finance, you're quite right, was raised in the response to the discussion paper on powers. Many in the private sector particularly, which is worried about whatever conclusion might emerge from the discussions on what's known as flow control, as well as the municipalities, said that it was difficult to divorce the question of who's responsible from who pays. So I think what you will see in the finance papers is certainly recognition of that, and in the amendments that come forward not all of the issues that were addressed in the MMA paper on powers will be addressed in the first stage of legislation to deal with those.

Mr Cousens: I have something, if you could just pass that to the minister. What I'd like to get, and I realize it falls under this general area and is difficult to receive right now, is a list of all municipalities whose landfills sites are scheduled to close within the next year, at least during the remainder of 1992 and all of 1993 and the next three years --

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Cousens, my mouth is falling open because I have --

The Chair: Minister, could you please allow the member to put his question on the record and then you can interrupt --

Hon Mrs Grier: Before I open my mouth?

The Chair: Before you interrupt him, yes, please.

Hon Mrs Grier: I understand, sorry.

Mr Cousens: The next three years, from 1994 to 1995, and the next five years so that it takes it right through. I'd be interested in what's going to fall out of your mouth.

Hon Mrs Grier: What's going to fall out of my mouth is amazement because we have almost a dedicated staff at the ministry dedicated to answering your Order and Notices questions. I sign them and get them back to you as quickly as we can. I remember at least two inches of computer printouts and lists on all landfill sites, when they closed, what their expectation dates were, what their capacities are. If you have any idea of the resources that are devoted to answering these questions, and then to be asked to do it again, is why my mouth fell open.

Mr Cousens: Everything that you've given me then is current? There are no changes in that?

Hon Mrs Grier: I don't know what date we did the last one, but --

Mr Castel: It was quite recently.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- it was quite recent.

Mr Cousens: So we're up to date? If you could be so kind as to just check to see if there's any information to update that, that would be the kind of information I would need.

Hon Mrs Grier: I see some of your staff shaking their heads, which indicates they haven't received that. Perhaps somebody would like to correct what I've said.

Mr Cousens: I'm just assuming that what you've said I've received, I've received. If I haven't received it, I know the spirit of staff will be such that they'll provide it to us.

Hon Mrs Grier: We will check.

The Chair: At this point, Mr Cousens, it is a request to the committee and therefore this material, now that it's been requested through this committee -- the process here is that a copy be given to the clerk and those members of the committee who wish to have it will have it, and that will then include Mr McClelland. I think it is helpful that we get a copy of that, which the minister believes is the response she's given already to it, and at that point you can determine if it's insufficient.

The record will show the complete nature of your question, and therefore the ministry will add to it any information that may be deficient from that which she believes is the answer she's already given. But it has to go through the clerk, and it will be distributed. Please proceed.

Mr Cousens: The regulations for waste reduction as legislated through Bill 143: A recent press clipping from the Kingston Whig-Standard quotes a ministry official as stating, "The regulations will be published no later than the end of January 1993." Is that a fairly accurate time?

1720

Hon Mrs Grier: I think it was a quote from me when I visited the Kingston Area Recycling Corp, an incredibly interesting community initiative in Kingston. I'd be glad to talk about that. I said we were hoping to phase them in, and I would hope we would have the first one before the end of 1992 and the others shortly into the new year. But I could perhaps ask Mr Blackwell to confirm that timing.

Mr Drew Blackwell: Yes, I believe that timing is accurate.

Mr Cousens: The article also notes that businesses and institutions will have six months to prepare waste audits and one year to prepare a waste separation program. Is that generally what you expect?

Hon Mrs Grier: Perhaps Mr Blackwell can describe what happens next.

Mr Cousens: I guess what I'm interested in is, are businesses going to have enough time to make the necessary adjustments to react to the kind of time frames that you may be imposing?

Mr Blackwell: We believe so.

Mr Cousens: What are the time frames you expect to impose?

Mr Blackwell: The exact time frames will be contained within the regulations. They do not differ considerably from what was proposed in the initiatives paper.

Of course, because of the delay in the passage of Bill 143 from what was anticipated at the time the initiatives paper first went out, the dates are different. The dates will run from the date at which the regulations are gazetted, but they will be approximately the same. There will be some adjustments in some of the areas because of comments received from particular industry sectors suggesting that they need more, or in some cases, our estimate, that they don't need quite as much time.

Mr Cousens: I think the worry some of us have is that there are some industries that have done a tremendous amount of work to date, and it would be important that, in any new mechanisms or regulations, you have taken into consideration those who have been pioneers in making this a better world environmentally.

Hon Mrs Grier: We're very conscious of that. I was delighted to find that many industries, once I announced the waste reduction action plan in February 1991, immediately began to respond and say: "Look, we're already doing that. How can we do it better?"

Seven out of 10, I think we're now saying, office buildings in Metro have waste separation and reduction programs, and one of them, Bell, has had a great deal of publicity for its reduction of 97%. What we're trying to do in developing the regulations is build on the voluntary efforts that have gone on. Certainly it is not the intention to require those people who've complied so well to have a more onerous position imposed upon them.

Mr Cousens: The fact that I'm getting people calling about that would indicate that the level of confidence in what the minister's going to do has to be responded to in the kind of way in which this is brought in.

Hon Mrs Grier: Can I just make the other point? It's very important, I believe, that these audits and the submission of plans be made as simple and as straightforward as possible to the industries. I have been concerned to discover that a number of industries that called me have been approached by consultants saying, "For this amount of money, we will help you prepare for this regulation." It's certainly my hope that the regulations will be simple and clear and not create a new industry for consultants.

The Chair: Mr McClelland, you have about 25 minutes in this segment.

Mr Cousens: How much do I have left over?

Mr McClelland: Ten? Twenty-five and 10. Minister, I'm interested in knowing, and perhaps we could have some help here, any increase in allocations projected for the coming year for cleanup of the Toronto beaches.

Hon Mrs Grier: I'd like Mr Castel to respond to that.

Mr Castel: The budgets of the coming year have not been finalized. We're in the process of working on it, and we will have more information on this possibly by the end of December or early January.

Mr McClelland: Minister, I wonder if you could perhaps share with myself and my colleagues your strategy, if you will, and your ideas of how you would like to proceed with respect to the Toronto beaches cleanup.

Hon Mrs Grier: The Toronto beaches are one of a series of areas where remedial action plans are being prepared under the direction of the International Joint Commission. We see the cleanup of beaches across the province as being very important.

In Toronto, the municipality has taken a number of significant steps, with the help of the ministry and the conservation authority and the regeneration trust and all the entities involved, to proceed through a number of points of view, whether it be rehabilitation and expansion of the sewage treatment plants, which of course is a major capital investment and something Metropolitan Toronto is responsible for and is looking at, or the construction of detention tanks, one of which I think is now in place in the eastern beaches and two more are being contemplated, which hold back storm water.

Our ministry, under Jim Bradley and certainly continued by us, has funded extensive work for the separation of storm sewers, and there are also a number of projects that residents, community groups, have initiated with respect to the headwaters of a number of the watersheds. I am delighted to find that the public advisory committee of the remedial action plan, which is really citizen-led, is building on the work done by the Save the Rouge Valley System group or the bring back the Don group or, I can't remember, ARCH in the Humber, to work along the entire watersheds, because the beaches are not going to be cleaned up merely by things that happen on the Toronto watershed, as the Crombie royal commission demonstrated so clearly and evocatively. You've got to look at the entire watershed.

There's not just one reason why the beaches are not swimmable, there are a whole lot of reasons, and something as simple as regenerating by the planting of cattails, which had the federal government, Natural Resources, myself and the conservation authority in Metro all at an event last week, contributes to the cleanup of the area and the reopening of the beaches.

On a number of different fronts, we are tackling this problem, and the weather has contributed to the beaches being open this year more often than in other years. That's not a solution I look to in the long term, but I also think we found that in some cases the counts were down to what they'd been in other years.

Mr McClelland: Do you have any benchmark or sort of a target goal that you would use as a measure, perhaps the number of days open before a certain count? Do you work at all on a formula or a combination of formulae to try and arrive at -- and I know it's almost trying to hit a moving target, if you will, because the target is forever shifting, but is there a sense of some tangible measurement?

Hon Mrs Grier: No. I'm not sure you can say that having the beaches open X days as opposed to Y days is in fact a meaningful benchmark. I know that certainly attention is focused on the beaches, because in the summer that's what people want to do and to enjoy for recreation. Certainly it's always been a desirable objective. But when I look at water quality issues, especially in times when you have to be very careful about how you expend your priorities, I look at the quality issues in a ranking and at the toxicity issues in trying to deal with cutting down on, not the elements that go into the determination of whether or not a beach is open, the E coli and the odour and the bacteria elements, important though those are. What has always frightened me about the prospect of swimming in the lake are the elements you can't smell and don't know about, which are the persistent bioaccumulative toxics, which is why our emphasis on pollution prevention, municipal-industrial strategy for abatement bans and phase-outs I think are less visible and may not result in beaches being open, because the beaches are measured on different criteria. So to say the beaches are open doesn't mean you've really attacked the toxicity problems.

Mr McClelland: On three specific remedial action plans, I wonder if you might have the information available or if your staff could provide it. I wonder if we have a breakdown of funding that will be available, or even a ballpark for the remedial action programs in Thunder Bay, the Bay of Quinte and Hamilton Harbour specifically. Is that information readily available?

Hon Mrs Grier: Are both of those at stage 2?

Mr Castel: It's not readily available, because there are a number of sources that provide funds for RAPs. For example, under the remedial action plans, the water and sewer construction budget can assist. If there's no sewer funding, we'll move into the water resources activity. Eventually we are hoping we can also get funding from other sources, such as municipal contributions as well as federal. I can't provide you with exactly how much money is being spent on these particular RAPs, but we perhaps can give you an estimate in due course.

1730

Mr McClelland: Okay. Is it an incorrect presumption, or is there a chance that there will be comparable support from the Ministry of the Environment as there has been in the past for the continuation of those and other RAP projects?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me answer that unequivocally with yes. But I think you also have to recognize that the support that has been available through remedial action plans up to now has essentially been in the phase 1 and in the planning process. We're now moving with the remedial action plans into the action plans, and that's an entirely different scale of funding, because you're looking at capital investment, you're looking at sediment removal, you're looking at the point sources as opposed to a policy that may look at the non-point sources and the agricultural runoff and all that. How we fund that is a very major concern, and I'm sure it's no surprise to this committee to say that I don't have the resources available to assure anybody that this year or next year we can complete any particular RAP.

For example, in Collingwood, which is a relatively contained RAP but with long-standing problems, both the federal Minister of the Environment and I were there this summer and that community is moving towards, it is hoped, delisting as an area of concern. Funding has come from a variety of granting sources and they've been very creative in finding funding from Natural Resources, the Ontario Association of Anglers and Hunters, voluntary components and the shipyards to do it.

In Hamilton, again, a lot of money has already gone in, and whether it was specifically attributed to the RAP or funding that was done to deal with acquisition and cleanup of a long-standing problem, it doesn't all come under the rubric.

I think what is critical is the current negotiations that are under way between our ministry and Environment Canada with respect to the Canada-Ontario agreement, which is the mechanism whereby the Great Lakes water quality agreement is implemented. To me, what is critical about that is that I see that agreement as being the vehicle whereby we can establish clearly what is federal and what is provincial responsibility, because the Great Lakes and the International Joint Commission and the whole instigation of RAPs was a commitment made by the federal government.

At this point, while there has been federal funding for part of the planning and there have been some allocations to specific projects, we don't have a formula for the timetable by which we can complete the work that is beginning to be identified. So I'll be in a better position to answer your question when we have completed negotiations with our counterparts in Environment Canada.

Mr McClelland: I think it's implicit in your answer that you're moving well beyond just the funding aspect of it; certainly some more comprehensive changes, if you will, in the program in terms of management of the program.

Hon Mrs Grier: As I said, it's not just one easy solution. It's taken a long time and there have been a lot of reasons why our water quality is degraded and you can't swim, fish or drink off many of our lakes and rivers. If that problem is to be corrected, it's not just a solution that lies within the responsibilities of the Ministry of the Environment, and I'm particularly pleased that our government has recognized that and made an explicit commitment to being a green government, which means that whether it's Municipal Affairs in land use planning, whether it's Agriculture and Food working with its constituency, whether it's Natural Resources or whether it's the Ministry of the Environment, we have a consistent approach to trying to prevent further degradation and use whatever resources we have cooperatively to deal with the problems that exist.

Mr McClelland: Again, just to the degree that you have the information available, how many RAPs have reached stage 1 at the present time? Do you know offhand, or have a rough idea?

Hon Mrs Grier: That was on one of the notes I saw. We had 17 RAPs. Can I ask Mr Ronan, how many are at stage 1? Some have submitted their stage 2s. I think five are at the stage 2 level.

Mr McClelland: I just want to get a sense of how many irons we have in the fire, so to speak, just roughly.

Mr Ronan: I think all of the stage 1s are completed and we anticipate during the coming year, 1993, that most of the stage 2, except for the international waters, where we're dealing with Ontario and neighbouring states -- we have a longer deadline in terms of the complexity of the issue and having two different jurisdictions trying to arrive at a rationale and a plan or definition of how the cleanup is going to proceed. But they are progressing fairly expeditiously and we anticipate that during 1993 we're going to be dealing with some of the issues in terms of the remediation action plans and how they can be financed and how all the different players can make a contribution to a very substantive cleanup bill.

Mr McClelland: There was something that was readily --

Hon Mrs Grier: I can give a specific because I've got it here.

Mr McClelland: Thank you.

Hon Mrs Grier: Four draft stage 2 wraps are expected to be completed in 1992; that's Hamilton Harbour, Quinte, Severn Sound and Collingwood harbour, which was the first one submitted I think on August 29, 1992. The remainder, with the exception, as Mr Ronan says, of the binational ones, are expected in 1993-94.

Mr McClelland: If there's more to add in terms of a brief summary of all of the programs, if it's not too onerous just to do a quick sheet, an inventory of them, that would be appreciated, if we're not asking too much.

Hon Mrs Grier: We have that and we can give you that.

Mr McClelland: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Madam Minister, the area of tire recycling -- I know we don't have a whole lot of time left -- I wonder again if we could just touch on some perhaps -- I'm not sure of what value it is, but just to get a sense of what we have, how many tire storage sites are we currently aware of in the province of Ontario? I say that advisedly, understanding there very well may be many that we're not aware of.

Hon Mrs Grier: As I suspect everybody who has been around this issue is aware, there are about 10 million to 12 million passenger tire equivalents generated in the province every year. There are currently, I'm told, fewer than two million tires in storage in the province.

Mr McClelland: Over how many sites?

Hon Mrs Grier: How many sites there are I'm not sure I know because the definition of large sites and small sites has changed and we are, as we speak, nearly at the end of cleanup on the second major one, the P&L Tire one in Hamilton. So how many sites there are, I can't answer, but I can get you that figure.

Mr McClelland: Would a list of those and their locations be available?

Hon Mrs Grier: Yes, I know it would.

Mr McClelland: Thanks. Of those sites, do you know offhand how many would currently be in compliance or, I guess the converse, out of compliance with EPA amendments and the fire code?

Hon Mrs Grier: It's my understanding -- and I don't know whether there's anyone here at this point, because I let some people go home; perhaps Jim Merritt can answer that -- that we were in compliance with most of them at this point.

Mr Merritt: Unfortunately, we don't have the detailed information, but from my memory I believe there are now one or two sites that remain as a problem, that are out of compliance, that we still are maintaining a watch on and have outstanding orders against. I think all the rest have come into compliance now.

Mr McClelland: Any further action, Mr Merritt, other than the orders that have been issued? Are you taking further action with respect to those sites that are out of compliance?

Mr Merritt: The orders become the action and P&L I guess is the best example, if the failure to respond to those orders means that the ministry takes even stronger action. But at this time we're quite confident that the remaining sites will be managed within those orders.

Hon Mrs Grier: In the case of P&L, they refused to comply with the orders and clean up, so the ministry moved in and initiated the cleanup and that is now currently almost completed. That, I think, was the next largest site, was it not, after Hagersville?

Mr Merritt: That's correct. We had a large number of sites out of compliance -- largely out of compliance because we brought in a whole new set of regulations, not to imply that these people went out of their way to be out of compliance. So there's been tremendous activity in the last year and a half, two years, to bring that about.

1740

Mr McClelland: We may be moving with this question a little out of your area, and forgive me if we are. I'm wondering if you have a sense of what's happening with enforcement and investigation -- I'll put that back to you and the minister to direct, as is appropriate -- with respect to the illegal tire storage sites around. Are we fighting that fight with any sense of effectiveness? Is there a sense of whistle-blowers out there who are letting us know where they are and what happens when we find those illegal sites?

Mr Merritt: Yes, it's very hard to hide a large pile of tires. The legislation right now says that anything over 5,000 tires has to fall under the requirements of both our regulations and the fire marshal's regulations. We are seeing some reports that we do follow up on and go through a prosecution route, but there are not that many at this time of that size. Smaller sites are not coming to our attention.

Mr McClelland: Okay.

Hon Mrs Grier: Can I just add a good-news note, though, to the tire story? We are finding that the funding we've invested in developing new uses for old tires is really paying off and I met last week with representatives from a state in northern Italy.

We have a company here in Ontario that has developed a technology that has been marketed around the world. Another company has developed a collar that goes around manholes in the road so that a municipality, every time it repairs the manhole, doesn't have to dig out the asphalt. When they install them they put this collar around it. It was a technology, an idea, developed here in Ontario. We've given it help with funding from the tire fund. If you think how many manhole covers there are around the world, you realize that the market is unlimited.

People say to me, "Why don't you allow tires to be burned?" The fact that we did not allow incineration of tires and put some of the resources from the tire tax into funding new technologies is part of green industries and the spinoffs we see from the 3Rs, and there are some really very exciting projects that have developed as a result that are going to be good for all of us.

Mr McClelland: Good. I've heard of this number and it escapes me -- you may have the information to your immediate left. How much money are we putting into the tire recycling program?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think we put about $9 million to date on tire initiatives and I think our spending --

Mr McClelland: I'm sorry, could you quantify that in terms of annually, when you say "to date" -- a time frame?

Mr Castel: The budget for tires is $16 million annually.

Mr McClelland: Sixteen million, okay.

The Chair: That's the revenue.

Mr Castel: No, that's the budget of the Ministry of the Environment, not the revenue.

The Chair: Okay, all right.

Mr McClelland: What is the revenue?

Mr Castel: I believe it's approximately -- and I'm just doing it from memory. This is something the Ministry of Revenue keeps. It's roughly $35 million.

Mr McClelland: Thank you.

Hon Mrs Grier: Unfortunately, Mr Nixon insisted it go into the consolidated revenue fund, but we get $16 million a year and we spend that.

Mr McClelland: See if you can get Mr Laughren to change.

The Chair: And you objected to it quite a bit, I know.

Hon Mrs Grier: Absolutely, and my Treasurer hasn't been any different from Mr Nixon in his desire to hold on to that revenue.

The Chair: Well, he's not a green Treasurer.

Mr McClelland: It will be interesting to see the first Treasurer, whoever she or he is, who may allow us to envelope money, so to speak.

How many grants and loans has the ministry approved since October 1, 1990, basically since you came into government, Madam Minister -- grants and loans for tire recycling projects, technological initiatives dealing with this matter?

Hon Mrs Grier: I don't think I can answer today, I'm afraid, the exact number of loans, but we can certainly find that. Since when? October 1, 1990?

Mr McClelland: I'm just thinking since the government came into power, if you have the sense of how many different projects have been funded.

Hon Mrs Grier: What happens is that a project often takes a very long time to come to fruition. People make a submission, we look at it, we go back into the debate and all the rest of it, including --

Mr McClelland: So it could have started years ago and come to fruition over the course of time, obviously.

Hon Mrs Grier: Exactly. We're currently supporting more than 20 tire-recycling projects. Spending on tire-recycling projects, not including rubberized asphalt, is expected to be about $8.5 million in 1992-93.

Mr McClelland: I can only hope the answer will be an affirmative, but I put it to you because I have a concern, again, that projects that are funded or loans given are done so not -- there's an attempt, at least, made to ensure that it's not being done in competition to those enterprises putting their own money into the project -- in other words, direct competition. Let me use something, if I can, to --

Hon Mrs Grier: Can you be specific?

Mr McClelland: Yes, I will. I'll try to use something analogous. It doesn't happen to be in tire recycling but in the area of asphalt shingle recycling. I'm aware of a company -- and I'm sure they wouldn't mind being identified: IKO Industries and it happens to be in Brampton, Ontario; I'm sure that wouldn't surprise you -- that has put in literally thousands upon thousands of dollars to work developing technologies to recycle shingle. Just two years ago, we were putting 13 tonnes of shingling into landfill. Now we recycle them and use them for, among other things, asphalt for paving of roads, and doing that quite successfully.

At the same time a company applied for a grant and received -- again, these are my figures; I'll have to confirm them; I don't have them in front of me, for which I apologize -- in the order of $250,000, in Oakville, Ontario, to effectively look for technology that would compete with IKO when the job was already being done. That company has gone into receivership. The receiver now calls IKO and says, "We don't know of anybody who could use the" -- what's the word I'm looking for?

Hon Mrs Grier: The products.

Mr McClelland: Not the products, but the "tools of the trade in our facility. Will you buy from us for X number of cents on the dollar?" I use that only as illustrative, simply to say that where something is being done I have a problem with the government effectively competing and putting money into it. I mean, the program failed when it was being done all along anyway. Those are the concerns I have with tire recycling as well.

Hon Mrs Grier: I certainly share your concern in that particular case. I'm not familiar with the details. Part of the difficulty with many of the projects that come to us for applications for funding or for loans, either through us or through MITT, is that people have very good ideas, people have a great idea for a technology. They may not have a business plan that we believe is going to be viable. We're often criticized for not giving our grants more readily, but we do try to ascertain the viability of a scheme which, I suspect, would involve also looking at what other industries are in business and with which they would be competing, but I don't know whether either Mr Merritt or Mr Blackwell can add to that from some specifics.

Mr McClelland: Let me just leave it -- I think we're basically on the verge of running out of time -- and just simply flag it as a concern.

Hon Mrs Grier: I think it's one with which I would agree. I'm sure it's part of our consideration of grant, but perhaps Drew could just give a sentence on what we do look at.

Mr Blackwell: Very quickly, I would just mention that we are now working through a new instrument we call material utilization strategy teams, trying to gather together all the people in the given sector. We're working very closely with MITT so that the business plan evaluation can be done via MITT and, as the case may be, with the Ontario Development Corp, so that the government, in its various sectors, has a look at the whole industry sector. This is a new development and we're working into it.

Mr Cousens: How much has been raised in taxes through the tire tax all together?

Hon Mrs Grier: Oh, I think we said $30 million to $35 million a year into the consolidated revenue fund.

Mr Cousens: The total dollars that have been raised would be how much, the total since it came into effect?

Hon Mrs Grier: It came in in June 1989. So you're looking at $30 million to $35 million a year.

Mr Cousens: Of that, how much has gone out in grants, total?

Hon Mrs Grier: The portion of our budget that is allocated to the Ministry of the Environment is $16 million a year. Some of that would go into cleanup. Some of it would initially go into providing security, though I don't think we're doing that any more; and then, as I said, we've committed about $9 million to date this year on tire initiatives.

Mr Cousens: Biomedical waste: I understand there's a 60-day consultation period following the release of a joint discussion paper between the ministries of Health and Environment on the management of biomedical waste. What has happened since the completion of that consultation period?

Hon Mrs Grier: The consultation period has, as you say, expired. We were asked to extend it, and it was extended for another 30 days, to the end of August 1992, so that we have not yet completed our evaluation of what came back as a result of that consultation. All I can share with you is anecdotal, response to the effect that many hospitals that began to seriously look at what they were paying -- a large amount of money -- to dispose of their biomedical waste found that in those yellow bags were often things that in fact didn't need to go to an expensive biomedical waste facility. In fact, one found a whole yellow bag full of magazines and realized that its own internal procedures were costing them more money than it ought.

So my sense is that the consultation has been well received, that hospitals, because they were part of developing the consultation paper, have responded positively. I would hope that we would be able to move to implement some of that strategy fairly shortly.

1750

Mr Cousens: I raised initially, in my remarks at the beginning, the illegal transfer facilities that are operating in the greater Toronto area. Could the ministry elaborate on this issue? Is it a problem? Are you looking into it? Are measures being taken to handle it?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think there are. You raised the issue in your opening comments of the illegal transfer stations. I think it's important, because of the sensitive nature of biomedical waste, to make the point that we certainly have not had extensive complaints about illegal transfer stations for biomedical waste.

Mr Cousens: No, I was really going to the whole illegal transfer stations that exist.

Hon Mrs Grier: Of total illegal, okay. There have certainly been complaints given to our ministry about some companies that are operating without certificates of approval under the Environmental Protection Act. We monitor transfer sites and we conduct periodic inspections of transfer sites, both legal and those that are reported to us as being illegal. If we find that the transfer station is in fact operating illegally, or we believe it to be operating illegally, then the investigations and enforcement branch, I can assure you, investigates the complaint and, if appropriate, lays charges.

Mr Cousens: Have there been any charges laid?

Hon Mrs Grier: I don't know whether charges have been laid at this point. Oh, I see Mr Merritt. I had the director of enforcements here all day yesterday and there were no questions about that, so I'm afraid we --

The Chair: Welcome back, Mr Merritt. You heard the question.

Mr Merritt: They left me to answer all the questions. Yes, there have been charges laid; there have been several companies charged. There are several investigations under way too.

As the minister says, this is an area we're taking very seriously. We are not getting what would be hundreds of complaints; we are getting a handful of complaints coming in regularly every month. A number of them tend to be complaining about the same establishment, which is either under investigation or prosecution, but it's something that is ongoing and we're putting a lot of staff time towards following up on any calls or any indications that come to our attention.

Mr Cousens: Could we have a report on the status of that, with some of the details? I mean whether they've been charged or if -- this would be public information?

Mr Merritt: We have to be careful about some of the detail, but we'd be pleased to give you some statistics on the level of activity.

Mr Cousens: That would be helpful.

I had some questions on another subject that was going to relate to the Ontario Waste Management Corp. Since we won't be going into next week when they might have been coming, these questions might be something where you or the ministry could provide answers pursuant to our meeting today. I'll just put them on the record, if I may.

The government phone directory shows a number of people within the administrative structure of the OWMC, personnel employed in the areas of communications, public affairs, marketing. What is the function of these people in relation to the objective of the corporation? Perhaps you could tie in the number of people who are part of that picture, which looks to me rather large and rather expensive. Also, the OWMC received $12.6 million in government funding. Would it be possible to receive a breakdown of how that was spent and what what the priority areas are they're trying to proceed in?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think that annual report was tabled just recently, but we can certainly provide you with more of that.

Mr Cousens: I don't think the kind of question I'm asking is in an annual report. I think I'll just leave it at that, Mr Chairman.

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm pleased to tell you that we hope their hearing will be concluded by the end of the year.

Mr McClelland: Can I just share an anecdote with the minister that I think she'll find interesting, with respect to the yellow bags? It's one of those things that happens in the real world, regardless of which government's in power.

Some poor soul at Peel Memorial Hospital thought they could save money, so went out and bought the orange garbage bags at great savings, apparently, a private hauler -- you probably know who it is, but it's really irrelevant -- and hauled it to Peel landfill site. Of course, somebody came by from the ministry and saw orange garbage bags, did a little bit of inquiry, and ascertained that they had come from Peel Memorial Hospital.

The net result was that notwithstanding the fact that the owner of the hauler and the individuals from Peel Memorial Hospital went to Britannia, walked into the landfill site -- which was good experience for them, I might add -- ripped open all the bags and determined that in fact it was non-biomedical waste, one of your people, zealous and only trying to do his or her job, insisted that they be hauled back out of there and disposed of as if they were biomedical waste.

I thought you'd find that an interesting anecdote, because I think it speaks volumes about the need for all of us in government to mesh reality and the practical application of the things we're trying to do. I look at that and think, boy, all of the effort -- there was a sense of, not animosity, but an adversarial atmosphere that was set up that need not have happened.

I just share that with you because I think you would find that interesting. Not that I suggest for one moment that the minister should be advised of that kind of thing in the day-to-day operation, but I think it's important that we know that those kinds of things happen, have happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future, regrettably. In trying to do our job, it's the sense of majoring on majors instead of sometimes majoring on minors, if you will.

Hon Mrs Grier: I appreciate your sharing that. I do have to say, though, that the sensitivity with respect to inappropriate disposal of biomedical waste is extreme. So if they're going to be overzealous, rather on biomedical waste than soft drink containers.

Mr McClelland: I respect that, Minister. I just thought I'd share that with you as a point of interest.

The Chair: Mr McClelland, thank you very much. You do have 10 more minutes. Do you have any more anecdotes, or did you have any more questions?

Mr McClelland: I have some more questions, but regrettably, as much as I'd like to use them, I have a commitment at 6:30. I'm going to find it very tough to --

The Chair: If you choose not to use the time, that's your business.

Mr McClelland: It's not a matter of choice.

The Chair: We had an agreement that we could extend to this hour, and I was accommodating you.

Mr McClelland: I understand.

Mr Cousens: The one question I'd like to have, if the minister could table it at another time, has to do with CFCs and ozone-depleting substances. What action has the province got in motion to assist with that battle, as it applies to the Clean Air Act that comes out of the States? They've got a specific program. I wondered if there were any activities that are active right now, other than just refrigerants, and I know of some of them.

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Ronan responded to that extensively yesterday, so if you'd look at that, if there is additional information that you'd like, we'd be glad to provide it.

Mr McClelland: In conclusion, there are a number of questions that have come up. Just by way of reminder -- I won't canvass them all, but perhaps we could have answers to the issues I raised with respect to Musselman Lake yesterday, and the number of illegal storage sites for tires --

Hon Mrs Grier: We have noted those, and we'll get you the answers.

Mr McClelland: -- and the commitment of security and the costs related to the commitment of security for those illegal sites. An inventory would be appreciated.

Hon Mrs Grier: And you had a question on research on groundwater. We have some information on that, but perhaps I should give it to the secretary and have it forwarded to you and do it officially that way.

The Chair: The clerk would be pleased to receive that and circulate it to committee. Are there any further questions? Mr McClelland: I wanted to say thank you to the staff of the ministry for making themselves available, because I know it means they go back and spend a couple of hours dealing with details they were called upon to deal with throughout the course of the day. Their sacrifice -- and I use that word advisedly -- does not go unnoticed nor unappreciated.

Mr Cousens: I'm very grateful for the cooperation we have had from everybody. I appreciate the support.

The Chair: And I am very grateful, as the Chair, for the cooperation of the full committee and staff who are in attendance for these hearings.

With the time allocated for the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment deemed to have been completed by this committee, I'd entertain the necessary motions.

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Chair, can I --

The Chair: When I'm finished, Minister, it'd be fine. But I'm inches from a clean getaway here; please don't interrupt me.

Hon Mrs Grier: That's what I'm afraid of.

The Chair: Shall vote 1501 carry? All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.

Shall vote 1502 carry? All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.

Shall vote 1503 carry? All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.

Shall vote 1504 carry? All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.

Shall the 1992-93 estimates of the Ministry of the Environment be reported to the House? All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Agreed.

Minister, you wish the last word.

Hon Mrs Grier: I merely wish to thank you, Mr Chair, and the members of the committee for their consideration and questions, which are always very helpful to me to know which issue is of particular importance to the members. We will try to respond to the answers.

I particularly want to thank my colleagues in the government who have not asked very many questions. I suspect I'll pay for that in caucus on some other occasion when they will have an opportunity to raise their issues with me. But I appreciate the fact that we have completed the estimates with dispatch. Thank you all very much.

The Chair: Thank you. This standing committee on estimates stands adjourned to reconvene on Tuesday, October 27, at which time we will begin the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The committee adjourned at 1802.