CONTENTS
Wednesday 14 October 1992
Appointments review
Emilio S. Binavince
Judy C. Smith
Gerard Coffey
Joan King
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Président: Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East/-Est L)
*Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West/-Ouest PC)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Mr Ferguson
*Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L) for Mr Bradley
*Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND) Mr Wiseman
*In attendance / présents
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)
Clerk / Greffier: Arnott, Douglas
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1010 in room 228.
APPOINTMENTS REVIEW
Consideration of intended appointments.
EMILIO S. BINAVINCE
The Chair (Mr Robert W. Runciman): Come to order. The first matter on the agenda this morning is a half-hour review of an intended appointee as a member of the board of inquiry under the Police Services Act of Emilio Binavince. Sir, would you like to come forward and take a seat, please. Welcome to the committee. Any brief comments before we begin the questioning?
Mr Emilio S. Binavince: Good morning, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. I understand you have received some material already, and presumably you have studied that. I do not really have any statement to make. I think I would like to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: All right, fine. We'll begin with Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Thank you, Mr Chair, and good morning, sir. How familiar are you with the board of inquiry?
Mr Binavince: As familiar as one can make oneself, I suppose. It's just recently been organized. I have attended a training session. In terms of representation that involves the work of this inquiry, I have represented the police association in Ottawa for a number of years. I know more or less the work of those people, I guess.
Mr Grandmaître: These changes or amendments were brought on because of a report that was asked for by the Premier and other people. Do you think minority groups have not been well served by the police board of inquiry in the past? Do you think amendments are needed?
Mr Binavince: I have not directed my mind to the issue you're asking at this time. I think that's probably a more appropriate field for politicians rather than for me, who is going to assume the office of a board member.
Mr Grandmaître: At the present time, not only the Metro police force but others have joined in protest of some of those amendments, and disciplinary action will be taken, I'm told, or as far as the media are concerned. How will you view these disciplinary actions when they come before your board?
Mr Binavince: The way I understand it, what's happening now is a problem that is more appropriate for legislative and political consideration. I do not think it's appropriate for me to express an opinion on it one way or the other because of the likelihood that some of these issues might come before this board. It will at least create a question of impartiality and objectivity and so on.
The way I look at the function of the board is that the Legislature and the government give it the rules. Somebody brings to us a controversy and we put fairness, objectivity and a desire to reach a just decision, and that is probably all we can do. We accept the rules as given to us. I do not really think that the function of the board is such that we should influence the making of rules.
Mr Grandmaître: So what you're telling me is that you're not on the board to make new rules, but to respect the rules in place.
Mr Binavince: That's right.
Mr Grandmaître: Would you view cases involving allegations of racial discrimination any differently?
Mr Binavince: If I were presiding on a case in which an allegation of racial discrimination was made, let's say by a complainant, I would not view it any differently from any other kind of allegation of police misdeeds. I feel that I have probably a greater insight or sensitivity into racial problems than many of us who have not gone any deeper than the skin and would probably be able to contribute a lot better in the consideration of the issues that are involved for the board.
But I can tell you that I am not biased towards anybody. It's not my job to be biased. I do not represent the police, the complainant or the municipalities by being with the board. The function of the board is to make just decisions; that's what I intend to do.
Mr Grandmaître: I suppose the controversy created by one of the amendments is that a police officer has to put in a report every time he draws his gun in public. What are your thoughts on that amendment?
Mr Binavince: Again, I'm very sorry, Mr Chairman. In relation to changes in the law, I would have difficulty responding as a nominee to this board. If I were to express an opinion as a lawyer, and were asked by this committee to do so, I'd be pleased to give my opinion, or even as a member of the public. But I do not feel that I have the freedom to express an opinion publicly one way or the other, because some of these issues might likely come before the board and it would simply be improper for me to express an opinion at this time. One can make his decision a vehicle of expressing views relating to such kinds of questions, but even there, probably it's not a proper place to put one's opinion.
Mr Grandmaître: Some police forces are saying that these amendments are not all that bad except that our police forces in the province of Ontario have not been used to operating that way. Most of them are saying, "We haven't been trained to operate under these amendments or rules." Do you think we're putting the cart before the horse? Don't you think we should be training our people to reflect those amendments, those changes?
Mr Binavince: Those amendments might very well be an improvement of the current system. It may very well be that there is a need for education of the police force and there may be a lot more need than simply training them. I have my personal views on that and I cannot express them to you today because I'm not really here to respond with my personal views on those issues which are, in my way of thinking, irrelevant for consideration in my function as a board member.
Mr Grandmaître: A good answer. I want to go back. Being a member of a minority group in this province, how do you feel -- because I belong to one of those minorities -- about police in general in the province of Ontario towards visible minorities or minorities in general?
Mr Binavince: I think there is a very honest and strong effort on every part of the institutions, including the police, to improve relationships with the community and towards the various races in this country. I have said on other occasions that probably the dominant problem of Canada in this decade and in the coming century will be racial and ethnic conflict, and everybody realizes that.
1020
There's an honest attempt by everyone to resolve those conflicts. This board is one of the more civilized institutions to resolve this conflict, so you are not going to send a message on the street that the only way the minorities can resolve their problems is by violence. Here is a peaceful, civilized way of resolving, and I think there is an honest attempt in government institutions today to do that, and hopefully we will be able to do our job properly.
Mr Grandmaître: Some people are claiming that our immigration laws are too lax and that this may be the cause of a lot of our unrest. Do you agree with these people?
Mr Binavince: At the risk of inviting some problems, I can tell you that I appeared before the House committee as well as the legislative committee of the Parliament of Canada offering our views as to what kind of amendments should be made to the Immigration Act. I don't think those kinds of views are going to have any impact on the work I'm going to do before the board of inquiry; that's a different level of policy. All we can do is help them come up with a wiser decision, one that's responsive to the country, and we can probably differ on views on those issues. I have my views on that, and I can express them to you outside, Mr Chairman, but apart from what I'm supposed to be doing today.
Mr Grandmaître: I think your decisions will be wise, as you are a wise man. Good luck to you.
Mr Binavince: Thank you very much.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): How many people are on the board of inquiry, and what is its makeup? Do you have any idea?
Mr Binavince: I don't know exactly, but my understanding is there are approximately 120. There are part-time vice-chairmen. There's a chair, and it's Nora Sanders this year. I'm not exactly sure how many there are.
Mr McLean: How many are needed to hold an inquiry?
Mr Binavince: You would require three members: one who would be the presiding officer, one representative from the police association and one representative from the municipality.
Mr McLean: Do you have any idea how many inquiries were held last year?
Mr Binavince: My understanding is that the inquiries that were held last year have all been held only in the Toronto area, because that's where the act was originally, on an experimental basis, functioning. I don't really know how many were held.
Mr McLean: Do you think the Lewis report will have any effect on the amount of inquiries that there will be?
Mr Binavince: You are referring to Mr Stephen Lewis's report?
Mr McLean: Yes.
Mr Binavince: It may deliver some degree of awareness to those who think they have a problem with the police to come forward. I think this is more an issue of reaching out to the community, that they have a forum now established and they are free to come forward. I don't know the degree of outreach that the various institutions are doing in order to bring this to the attention of the public.
Mr McLean: Are there any police officers on that board of inquiry?
Mr Binavince: Are there any police officers? I am not sure whether there are any, but my understanding is that with the nominees from the police association -- I was in the training session and met a number of them, but I never really asked whether they were from police forces originally -- especially in relation to inquiries that involve the chief of police, it's most likely that there will be somebody.
Mr McLean: How much time do you anticipate spending dealing with what you're being asked to do?
Mr Binavince: I think that's totally driven by the amount of work that will come to the board. If the public perceives this board as a useful vehicle in the redress of their grievances and the police look at it as an objective mechanism of resolving functions, I think it will become a very popular one; there might be a lot of work. But if we do not send that kind of image to the police as well as to the public, I'm not so sure whether we'll make a very great impact.
Mr McLean: How much is the per diem for the board?
Mr Binavince: My understanding is around $293 a day.
Mr McLean: Plus expenses?
Mr Binavince: Plus expenses, yes.
Mr McLean: Boy, a lot more than a farmer makes.
Mr Binavince: I can tell you that people like me who come and serve on this board are not there for the money.
Mr McLean: Okay. I was only kidding. You want to talk, referring to farmers --
Mr Grandmaître: Farmers make this much an hour.
Mr McLean: I know. I had another question. It escapes me at the present time. Regarding the position, did you apply or were you asked if you would sit on the board?
Mr Binavince: I applied voluntarily. Nobody asked me.
Mr McLean: Great. I'm glad of your interest and I wish you well.
Mr Binavince: Thank you very much.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I just have one question, which M. Grandmaître raised, and I wanted to ask it again, because although I understand your reservations in terms of making comments on some of these things, I don't think you necessarily need to be completely reserved on the issue.
If we pass a law that says whenever a policeman is involved in a situation where he has to pull out his gun in public, he has to make a report on that -- I think that was the matter he asked about and I think it's a good point; I would have an opinion on that if I were sitting where you are, and I don't think it compromises you to have one -- do you think that is a good idea? Do you think it's a bad idea? Don't feel compelled because you've been appointed by somebody that somehow you have to feel reserved about it.
Mr Binavince: No, I don't think that my being nominated to this board means necessarily that I have been muzzled in expressing my opinion. I don't take it that way.
What I'm saying is that if you choose to make a rule one way, the function of this board is to apply it and it's not for me to question its wisdom or lack of wisdom. But if you are going to ask me whether what is being proposed is wise or not -- quite apart from why I am here today -- my view is that this is a question of balance.
A policeman is in a very tricky situation. He is the kind of person who has to make instantaneous decisions. Unlike the members of this committee, unlike politicians, unlike judges and administrators, the police do not have a lot of time to think, and their decisions very often are irreversible. It is an execution of justice in one way or the other, depending on how he decides.
I think this is very contextual. It's very difficult for me to really inject myself into the position of the policeman and say, "You did wrong" or "You did right." All you can really do is provide rules for general guidance. But if you are going to generalize a certain rule as if it is going to go over in every situation, I submit to you that you are making something wrong.
Mr Marchese: I understand the point, but the general rule here is that if you pull out a gun in public, you report the incident. That's the general rule. I think, as a rule, that it's not a bad thing to do at all.
Mr Binavince: No, I agree. The question of reporting is probably good to the extent that it provides evidence, instantaneous recording of what had occurred and probably a higher level of credibility to the statements being made. That's not bad.
There are certain issues that are involved which are probably constitutional in character, and I cannot give you, one way or the other, a kind of opinion that relates to that. I just do not want to debate that issue with you, because I think that's your job. You're passing the buck to me. I refuse to take it.
Mr Marchese: I wasn't passing it. We already did this. We're not passing it to you.
Let me ask you another question, because Mr Grandmaître raised another interesting question about some people feeling the rules around immigration are lax and asked you that question.
I have to say, from a perspective of someone who has come as an immigrant, who wasn't born here, I have an understanding of how the Italian Canadians were treated here when they came in the early 1900s. The treatment wasn't very good by the people who were here against the people who were coming. It seems that historically there has been a great deal of discrimination of many, many groups that I don't think could be denied.
Yes, we are on the whole good Canadians, but on the whole these good Canadians have done some nasty things to other people who eventually became Canadians. I think there's historical evidence to show that kind of abuse, so I think it's there.
From your personal experience, do you know people within your community or other communities -- I won't speak of them as minorities, but other communities -- who have had tough experiences with the police and, if so, how do you think they can be mediated?
1030
Mr Binavince: Yes, I'm very much aware of complaints of minorities in relation to the police. That's part of the challenge the institutions have to face. I'm also aware of the historic misdeeds they have suffered. I think those have to be rectified one way or the other. I'm not so sure whether I should be reading those misdeeds, historic or otherwise, and bringing it inside the board hearing and then start writing a decision which will affect policemen. I have to be fair and just, and it has to be contextual, it has to be on the basis of the evidence presented at that hearing.
If it were possible for me to go in there and just brainwash me for a minute and get in there and learn from the beginning, it would probably be the best. But I'm a product of my environment, my education, and presumably the attempt of the government in this case is that by injecting two other people besides the vice-chairman, there will be some kind of balancing out. We will probably be debating some of those issues, I agree.
Mr Marchese: Yes, but I was asking your personal experience. I gave an historical example as a way of showing that historically, from the past to the present, I think people feel that there are abuses. I was asking you, do you feel from your experience as a community person, perhaps even as a lawyer, that there have been people who have been very critical of how they have been treated at the hands of either institutions or, in this particular case, by the police, and if those experiences are perceived or real, how would you mediate as a member of this board?
Mr Binavince: As I said, I know those, but unfortunately the function of this board is not mediation. There will be an opportunity for mediation probably at the pre-hearing conference and that might clean up some of the issues. But the moment it gets to the hearing stage, there's very little you can do. You have to stay back and listen to the evidence. I'm not trying to evade your question; all I'm trying to tell you is that those are experiences that will help us decide, but they are not the determinative experiences in making a just decision.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): You've been involved in law in several different parts of the world, four totally different ones, and you have extensive studies and experience. We're all aware of the controversies there have been, particularly in Toronto recently, and the allegations that crime rates are getting out of hand and the police have real trouble here. I understand you're based in Ottawa, so you have an outside perspective on that. Do you think things are really that bad in Toronto or do you think there's been a tendency to blow them out of proportion, for whatever reason?
Mr Binavince: I have a lot of friends in Toronto. They never told me it's really that bad. I think that is a factual question that I'm probably not qualified to testify on, but I know there is some rumbling outside and it would be foolhardy to ignore that; it's there. But our country and Ontario are not that bad. It can be made better, that's true, yes.
Ms Carter: But of course the fact that there are racial problems puts the police in this vulnerable position of being accused of being racist and so on. Do you think that they maybe have a motive, if you like, to make the statistics in Toronto look bad as a way of maybe justifying some of the things they --
Mr Binavince: I don't know the answer to that. I don't really know. I have my own personal views about statistics here and there but --
Ms Carter: That's what I was coming to. Do you think those statistics bandied about in the press are sometimes manipulated a little and maybe don't mean what they appear to mean?
Mr Binavince: The Law Reform Commission of Canada, before it was abolished, was studying that issue. Unfortunately, it's been abolished; I don't know what kind of recommendation it would have come up with. But that is a highly charged issue. There are a number of arguable sides to it and I do not think I am qualified to express an opinion one way or the other.
The Chair: We have 30 seconds, if there's another quick question.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): Are your hearings public or closed?
Mr Binavince: They're supposed to be public, so members of the public will be able to attend and see how it's done.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. That concludes the interview. We appreciate your appearance here this morning.
Mr Binavince: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, members of the committee. I appreciate your allowing me to come before you today.
JUDY C. SMITH
The Chair: Our next witness is Judy Smith. Ms Smith is an intended appointee as a member of the Ontario International Corp board of directors. Good morning.
Ms Judy C. Smith: Good morning.
The Chair: Would you like to make a few brief comments before we begin the questioning?
Ms Smith: No, I don't think I have any comments other than to thank the committee for the opportunity to apply.
The Chair: All right, we'll ask Mr Frankford to begin the questioning.
Mr Frankford: What can you tell us about the Ontario International Corp?
Ms Smith: I think it's an excellent corporation at a provincial level and it's very complementary with federal programs. In terms of the area I represent, the environmental industries or technology sector, it provides us with the opportunity to develop further our corporate abilities and apply for jobs that might occur outside of Canada, particularly in terms of the upfront costs of proposal writing and expressions of interest for new jobs. It also provides a registry of companies so that the corporation itself can put together a consortium to bid on work overseas and in South America and the United States. As well, it has representatives combing the globe for opportunities which can then be applied for by Ontario businesses.
What I see as most valuable in terms of what I might be able to do for the corporation is to make the organization, the corporation, better known in the Ontario region, because there are a number of companies, particularly in the environmental sector, which haven't heard of the Ontario International Corp. Its profile certainly has to be raised, because it's an excellent opportunity, particularly in the difficult economic times we face, to use our expertise, which is considered world class, and sell it abroad.
Mr Frankford: I gather you're very familiar with the environmental sector relating to the economy?
Ms Smith: Yes, that's my technical area of expertise, but there is also just the area of expertise of running a company. We have been in business for 14 years. As one of the smaller business sector companies, we certainly have faced many of the obstacles that companies in that category face, and with the recognition that this is the sector that is going to provide the new jobs for the future, and the new ideas, the new technology, it's very encouraging that people from smaller businesses are having the opportunity to direct policy and sit on boards of directorships like this in Ontario.
Mr Frankford: Do you have any thoughts about any other broad areas we should be getting into?
Ms Smith: Outside of the environmental sector?
Mr Frankford: Yes.
Ms Smith: I think in the health area we have a lot to offer. One of the projects I have been involved in is a training program for scientists from China; one of the programs was specifically geared to the medical practitioner and medical scientists from China. Our company organized a seminar for them about the Canadian health care system and about new technologies. We involved companies such as MDS, some of the leading-edge AIDS researchers in Canada. We talked about China in terms of it being not only a developing country, having some of the problems of a developing country, but also a country with a very high educational level.
There was a lot of interest in the way we organize our health care and the transitions we're going into in the next 20 years, so I would say health care is another burgeoning field we can develop.
1040
Mr Frankford: I'm delighted to hear you say that, because I've read up quite a bit on this. Are you familiar with the suggestion that we should be looking for a market much closer to home --
Ms Smith: The United States?
Mr Frankford: -- with an undeveloped health care system and excessive costs?
Ms Smith: Definitely. I think our advantage is in our administration of health care. We've basically kept the private physician system intact but it's the administration costs that we've managed to curtail and run efficiently.
Mr Frankford: Let me suggest that it's more than that. It's the philosophy of health as a public good as opposed to a marketable commodity, which has become the philosophy south of the border.
Ms Smith: Definitely, and they have the highest health care costs in the world. We certainly have a fair amount to contribute generally in policy development and in management consulting services. That's one of our strengths.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a couple of questions. One of the things I noticed on your CV that I'm interested in is that you seem to have an interest in renewable sources of energy. I was wondering how that type of thing is going along, because my feeling is that we're not doing well with that at present.
Ms Smith: Your feeling is correct. It is an area that has been underfunded for approximately 10 years. After the national energy plan policy period ended and the energy crisis ended in the late 1970s -- I'm sure Jenny Carter would know some of this history too because of her involvement in energy -- the field was underfunded. It used to be provided with sufficient R&D funding from the national level. Even Ontario had a plan for an alternative energy corporation; I'm not sure if it still exists. There was a plan for a much broader development of this sector, but we have lost momentum and we've lost many opportunities in the last 10 years, which you can't recoup, to switch to renewable forms of energy.
But I think we are again embarking upon a new period of intensive interest in renewable energy for two reasons. I'm talking about conservation and efficiency improvements, not so much because of the energy shortage at this point but the environmental constraints, the CO2 emission reduction targets we have to meet to moderate global warming and the acid rain and ozone depletion constraints as well. The environmental imperative is driving a lot of the interest in renewable energy and energy efficiency.
There's also the economic imperative, because you have at least an efficiency improvement in conservation. Some other modes of -- well, cogeneration really isn't renewable energy, but you have opportunities to save money and save resources at the same time and restructure our economy to be more efficient, and more competitive with Japan and Germany, which have already undertaken programs along these lines.
Mr Waters: On a different topic, the perception in the public seems to be that our workforce needs a major upgrading in skills level in order to be competitive. Sitting with this board, where you're out looking for foreign investment in this country and selling Ontario products, do you feel we need a major infusion of new skills and upgrading of skills if we want to maintain our standard of living, or are we competitive on the world market?
Ms Smith: I think we have depended on our natural resource heritage for too long. We do have an excellent education system, but ongoing professional development and ongoing skills development I think is going to be increasingly a part of adult life.
About every 10 years, it's coming to the point where you need to update your skills or perhaps change careers. In our office, we find we use a lot of computer programs. Even the secretary and administrator have to be highly skilled to keep up with the amount of material and information we have to process. It's difficult to find that level of skill in most people unless they've actively taken it upon themselves to keep on the leading edge in technology application.
The Chair: I'm sorry. I'm going to have to jump in here and move on.
Mr Grandmaître: You said one of your responsibilities would be to stimulate interest and to invite the private sector to participate in a more active way. How will you do this in the context of our present economy?
Ms Smith: If I were appointed to the board, I would encourage more widespread awareness of the corporation itself across the province, through chamber of commerce newsletters and vehicles like that. In my own community, in the Ottawa area, I see my role as simple.
Mr Grandmaître: The best, or the greatest area.
Ms Smith: It would be through the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corp. I sit on their environmental technologies committee. That would be the first group I would make aware. They're already somewhat aware; they would like to have a speaker come and talk to the committee about the Ontario International Corp. Also we would make aware our network across the province of other environmental consulting firms and technology companies.
I've already done that to some extent just in my informal conversations with people, because I don't think very many people do know of this advantage. I think the environmental sector sees itself as being able to cross some of the boundaries and barriers. We do work substantially with companies in the United States, in Europe and in Australia.
Many of the environmental consulting firms also have an interest in development issues and have travelled extensively. The connection to Third World markets is quite amenable to them. They can see themselves working in that capacity more. It would generally be through making the corporation visible in the networks I work in.
Mr Grandmaître: Under the present economic situation in Ontario and under some of our laws that are not very well appreciated by the private sector, don't you think that by promoting or initiating more of these laws, your job will become much more difficult?
1050
Ms Smith: Just for clarification, could you give me an example of what kind of law you mean?
Mr Grandmaître: Well, Bill 40 is one of them.
Ms Smith: I'm not as familiar with Bill 40 as --
Mr Grandmaître: Well, you're the only one in this province who's not.
Ms Smith: No, I'm aware of the government position. I'm aware of the Southam News position, with its full-page ads against it. I think I'm somewhere in between. I'm not quite sure of the ramifications that stem from it at this point.
Mr Grandmaître: I see. You're a member of OCEDCO, which was recently criticized by Graham Kirby, the commissioner reviewing the Ottawa-Carleton regional government, for not being active enough or forceful enough. Can you respond?
Ms Smith: You can always be more active and forceful. OCEDCO is the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corporation. I think it's incumbent upon all corporations to be looking for new markets and how to stimulate entrepreneurial talent within their existing community, and that is something that should continue.
I can't really comment on their record in the past. I'd like to think at this point that they realize there are significant possible concerns related to the constitutional question, perhaps devolvement of power from Ottawa that would perhaps put a burden on industries and businesses in Ottawa. I will endeavour to find out more about whether they're planning for that possible situation in the next few years.
Mr Grandmaître: What will be your first recommendation to the corporation to stimulate business in Ontario?
Ms Smith: I haven't attended a meeting yet, because I'm still an applicant.
Mr Grandmaître: Any pet project?
Ms Smith: Because I'm from an environmental sector, I would be interested in what conditions or guidelines might be applied to Canadian business ventures overseas. CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, has a set of guidelines that are applied, and I am interested in discovering how widespread that approach is because I would not want to see our business develop to the detriment of the environment in other countries. What I would propose is that for any development that looked like it may pose substantial hardship on the environment and possibly people who are living off the land in another part of the world, there be an environmental component or a consultant or some application of environmental technological skill attached to that project. I guess I would be looking for environmental opportunities through projects that may not have them already.
Mr Grandmaître: Good luck to you.
Ms Smith: Thank you.
Mr McLean: Do you think this position will have any conflict with the association, associates, you belong to?
Ms Smith: Could you clarify about associations I belong to?
Mr McLean: Torrie Smith Associates. Isn't that who your firm is?
Ms Smith: Yes. My understanding is that if there is a conflict of interest, I make note of that to the board and disassociate myself from any further involvement in the decision that's made. At the present I have no conflict, and I don't foresee any conflict in the future.
Mr McLean: Being a member of the board and looking at different aspects of investment and other aspects that companies will want to be looking at, you would be in a good position to be able to advise the firm if there were some business it could pick up through any negotiations that you may have, would you not?
Ms Smith: Apparently, there is a separate committee that decides on proposals, and I have been advised that I would not be required to be on that committee. I think more the senior policy issues would be addressed by the board as a whole, and in that capacity I would be represented, but as to the committee that looks at funding of specific projects and help, the chief executive officer, Gordon Gow, has informed me that I would not sit on that committee if I was appointed.
Mr McLean: Are you still involved in Greenpeace?
Ms Smith: I'm not a member of Greenpeace. They have hired us for our expertise in the past, and currently we are helping them, along with a coalition of other environmental groups, at the hearings on Ontario Hydro's long-term business plan. So I'm not a member, but they feel that we have the expertise they need.
Mr McLean: I see that your firm has been mainly involved in environmental work. Is that mainly the direction that the firm is in?
Ms Smith: My résumé is a little skewed because it only shows the projects that I've been involved in. Our company has been involved in 150 projects, and a prospectus from our firm would show you that we're much more broadly represented than this particular résumé indicates.
We worked for the Canadian Electrical Association, SaskPower, New Brunswick Power; we've worked for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, working groups in various levels of government, Environment Canada, Energy, Mines and Resources and so on, as well as some international organizations. My background and interests and the kind of environmental analysis that I bring to a job lend themselves either to progressive elements of government or environmental groups. Hopefully they will eventually move further into the mainstream over time.
Mr McLean: Were you asked to apply for this position?
Ms Smith: I was asked if I was interested in applying for the position, yes.
Mr McLean: And who asked you?
Ms Smith: By the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology; by the ministry. Barbara Bell called me.
Mr McLean: Right, and you didn't have an application in until that time?
Ms Smith: No.
Mr McLean: I wish you well.
Ms Smith: Thank you.
The Chair: That concludes your appearance here this morning, and thank you very much. I wish you well.
Ms Smith: Thank you.
GERARD COFFEY
The Chair: The next witness is Gerard Coffey. Mr Coffey, good morning.
Mr Gerard Coffey: Good morning.
The Chair: Mr Coffey is an intended appointee as a member of the Waste Reduction Advisory Committee. Any brief comments before we get into questions, Mr Coffey?
Mr Coffey: No. Happy to be here.
The Chair: Okay. I hope you have that same attitude at the conclusion of the interview.
Mr Coffey: Let's hope so.
The Chair: We'll look to the government member, Mr Waters.
Mr Waters: Good morning. One of the things I'd ask is, can you please tell us about your contribution to Metro Toronto's waste reduction task force, which I understand issued a report in 1991?
Mr Coffey: Yes, that's right. Yes, I was initially an alternate for Steven Shrybman, I think it was. At the time I was working for the Canadian Environmental Law Association. I was the staff person for the It's Not Garbage coalition; I was the coordinator, the person who basically made a lot of it happen. There was a representative of the It's Not Garbage coalition on the Metro waste reduction task force, and when Steven left, I took his place and I was involved in the -- I won't say negotiations, but the writing of the report, of the development of the report, and I was very happy to be there. I thought it was an important thing to do at the time.
Unfortunately, the Metropolitan government did not take much action on a lot of the recommendations that came out of the report, which I thought was too bad because I thought we had a fair representation of people, including a number of people from the Metropolitan governments, councillors and staff people on the committee. I thought we developed some pretty good recommendations, and I was a little disappointed that not much action happened as a result of it.
1100
Mr Waters: It's interesting, this group that you were a part of, It's Not Garbage. I'd like to know if you could please outline some of the recent work of this group; it sounds like an interesting concept.
Mr Coffey: Sure. Initially it started because of the site searches under the previous government, which were happening around the greater Toronto area, and a number of the areas that were threatened with landfill sites were, as now, screaming. Our thought about the whole process was that if we were to get together and we could agree on some sort of proactive agenda for reducing waste it would be in all our best interests, and in fact that's what happened; that was the seed for the group as a whole.
We agreed on a five-point strategy, I think it was, for waste reduction in Metropolitan Toronto. There was a real feeling at the time, I think, that the Metropolitan Toronto government was basically interested in shipping the stuff somewhere else and not doing much about waste reduction. And so we got together and put together this five-point plan which we took to the Metropolitan Toronto government and asked it to strike a task force to look at the recommendations that were made, which it agreed to do, and we followed up with the report.
Since then, what we've been doing within Metro, besides making recommendations on particular policy matters, is also to start reaching out to a lot of the ethnic organizations and ethnic groupings within Metropolitan Toronto. Our experience is that very few people who have English not as their first language or as their mother tongue are reached by the information on waste reduction that Metro puts out, and we made it our business to try to go out there and reach the Italian groups, the Portuguese, Chinese, Caribbean communities.
It's a long, hard, slow process. It's not something that's high on their agenda; it's not even on their agenda in a lot of instances. The Chinese community is changing now, and has changed significantly in that regard, but I think a lot of the other communities are slow to respond, and it's often easy to see why. They're not always in the position that jobs are easy to come by and they tend to get passed over in that regard, so making a living is often their primary interest.
We're working slowly at this and we're hoping to do a series of programs on CHIN radio fairly soon, in cooperation with CHIN, which should, I think, make this a much more mainstream issue.
Ms Carter: I guess we're all committed to the three Rs, but reduce is probably the ultimate R, the best one, and I understand that you're doing some particular work on waste reduction, so I wonder if you could tell us something about that and the kind of conclusions that you're coming to on that.
Mr Coffey: Sure. The major conclusion that I've come to, looking at this stuff, is that you're right: It is the only way ultimately to reduce waste. Even if we were to close the loop, even if we were to recycle everything and to lose nothing, it would still be possible for the loop to keep growing bigger and bigger and bigger, and the problem with that is not the waste that's produced but the pollution that accompanies the extraction processes and the recycling processes and all the manufacturing processes that are there. It's the air emissions, the land degradation, the water emissions; all those things are the real problems with waste production, and only by actually reducing the amount of material that we use are we ever going to come to grips with the solid waste problem.
This is particularly true in light of the fact that Third World countries are -- and rightfully so -- wanting to raise their standard of living to something close to our own, and that will involve a lot more industrial production worldwide; will involve a lot more production of greenhouse gases; of particulate emissions of all kinds; water pollution. That's a major problem for us, and we have to stop looking at waste as just something that happens within our own backyard, something that's just a disposal issue. It's much more than a disposal issue; it's an issue of pollution, first and foremost.
I'm looking at a number of recommendations for reducing waste, just one of which came to mind this morning: The old paperless office that was sold to us years ago by computer sales people. This was how the office was going to look in the future, but of course we all know that in fact --
Ms Carter: We've got more.
Mr Coffey: We've got more paper, and one way to cut down on that may be to start using more electronic mail communication, and within provincial, federal and municipal governments there's significant leeway for doing something like that, but at the moment, there are so many competing software packages and systems that it's almost impossible for one organization, one ministry, one level of government to communicate with another. So there's a lot of room there to cut down on paper use.
Ms Carter: What about packaging?
Mr Coffey: Oh, sure, there's lots of room to work on packaging. A lot of it is being addressed, but yes, there's lots of room to move there. We've always been very keen on introducing refillable containers for a whole bunch of uses.
Reusable transportation packaging, which I think is being looked at: The Liquor Control Board, for instance, or the Brewers' Retail would save massive amounts of cardboard and packaging materials if they were to move to reusable containers. In fact, I think in the brewing industry, the Brick Brewery, if you're familiar with it, when it initially started to produce beer, used plastic containers for shipping its beer. Unfortunately, they didn't fit into the Brewers' Retail system and so they had to get rid of them, but if everybody was to move to those things, they would save a huge amount of material. There are a lot of those kinds of things that can be done.
Ms Carter: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Marchese and Mr Perruzza, and you've got about a minute and a half.
Mr Marchese: One quick comment on the issue of how we reach ethnocultural/racial communities -- just to commend you in having done that, because I believe we're not doing enough of it. Communicating in writing is simply not enough. It assumes that every community is literate, and that's simply not a good medium on the whole. People have to reorient their minds around other issues.
My other question is -- that wasn't a question, it was a comment -- if we have limited dollars -- and you will understand that most governments at all levels, municipal, federal and provincial, have problems with money -- and we have to commit them to environmental issues, how would you advise us to spend limited dollars and to have the most maximum effect?
The Chair: In 30 seconds.
Mr Coffey: It's such an easy question.
Mr Grandmaître: That'll be my supplementary.
Mr Coffey: That's good. My focus is waste management, and if I can keep it to the waste management area, I think it would be extremely good for the government to develop some sort of materials-use policy, to be perfectly honest, and to look at the flow of raw materials through the economy: how it can be reduced; how the impacts of material use can be ameliorated; it would take into account packaging; it would look at the extraction of bauxite; it would look at the power that's used to produce various materials.
I think having a sense of how materials flow through the economy, flow through production processes, would be extremely valuable in the long term, and I think we're ultimately all going to have to do that kind of stuff. It's because garbage is not just a matter of putting it in the ground somewhere.
The Chair: Okay, we'll have to move on. Mr Grandmaître?
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Just as long as I get to be first with the next person, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Put your hand up first.
Mr Coffey: Sorry if I've been taking up too much time with my answers.
1110
Mr Grandmaître: People in the Metro area are very concerned about Bill 143. Do you think it's fair that the Toronto area should be shipping its trash, garbage, call it whatever you want, to the York region? Do you think it's fair that the York people should be accepting other people's garbage?
Mr Coffey: I think there are a number of answers to that question. The first one that comes to mind is no, of course it's not fair. I think that wherever Metropolitan Toronto's garbage is put -- and it's going to be put somewhere. Whether it's within Metro, the surrounding regions, in Kirkland Lake or whether it's, I don't know, Plympton, you name it, it's not going to be fair. Somebody's going to end up taking garbage from somebody else's backyard and that's not fair at all.
That's one of the reasons I do the kind of work I do, because I believe that, ultimately, the real answer to this stuff is not disposal, although we're always going to need some sort of disposal facilities. We should make them as small as we possibly can. We have been looking at options to landfills, at the possibility of getting all the toxic material, the organic material, out of landfill sites, which would make them less prone to create leachates, to attract rodents, seagulls or to create smells. That ultimately may be the way to go, but still some people are going to have a site of some sort in their backyards.
I know all these boundaries are arbitrary. I always feel sorry for people who are going to take it. I live close to the Christie Pits. If somebody decided there was going to be a landfill site in the Christie Pits, I would be quite upset.
Mr Perruzza: So would Rosario.
Mr Coffey: Yes, I'm sure he would be. I think there's just a basic unfairness about having to dump material, but I don't know what to do about that. At least on this particular day in this particular year, I think our choices are really limited.
Mr Grandmaître: I realize what you're saying. A site is needed, but you don't have to triple the size of the site to accommodate more garbage and less recycling. This is what you mean.
Mr Coffey: Yes, we should obviously make sure that as much is recycled, as much is diverted, as possible. I think, to be honest, that a lot of the things in part IV of Bill 143 will make that happen. It's certainly my hope that if industry cooperates, which I believe it will, we can make major steps in that direction. We can keep a lot of the stuff out of the landfill sites. That would certainly be my goal.
If we can make sure Metro gets its composting facilities up and running and get the organic waste stream, especially the industrial, commercial stream, out of there, I think that will make a major difference.
Mr Grandmaître: What are your thoughts on municipal composting? I'm very much interested in this.
Mr Coffey: I think we need centralized composting facilities.
Mr Grandmaître: Is anything being done right now?
Mr Coffey: Metro is giving out -- selling for $10, which kind of amounts to giving them out -- backyard composters.
Mr Grandmaître: But I'm talking about a larger-scale composting.
Mr Coffey: Unfortunately, I think the municipal government has been very, very slow to move towards getting the compost out of the waste stream. We've been kind of disappointed. We asked it in fact to allow the refurbished composting facility up at the Dufferin transfer station, the Downsview station, to be used for industrial-commercial waste.
Some residents in Chinatown have the facilities and are willing to sort of separate their organic waste but unfortunately the commissioner has said no, he won't allow it to be used for commercial waste, which I think is unfortunate. We could make major changes, I think, starting right now if that were possible. It's too bad, but we're always pushing them.
Mr Grandmaître: Do you think the minister should impose it?
Mr Marchese: What do you think?
Mr Grandmaître: I'm sitting over here.
Mr Coffey: I would much prefer the municipal government to just kind of get on with it.
Mr Grandmaître: Take on its responsibilities.
Mr Coffey: Yes, that's right. Obviously, it's got a problem right now with funding, but I think it still has enough money left in its waste reserve fund to get something up and running fairly quickly if it wants to.
Since the province has taken over the site search, the hope was that municipalities would get on with 3Rs, but in fact they seem to be just kind of sitting on their hands and not doing a lot. I'm not saying that nothing is happening; I must say some things are happening.
Mr Grandmaître: Maybe one last question, on refillable soft drink bottles. I know the objective of the government and the previous government was 30%, if I'm not mistaken, and we've only achieved, what, between 7% and 11%?
Mr Coffey: Yes.
Mr Grandmaître: What's happening then on it? Isn't the government respecting its own objectives?
Mr Coffey: It's a tough one. I remember when the regulations were brought in. Almost from day one, targets were not met, and this 8% has been going on for a long time. I believe we may be on the edge of making some changes here. I hope so, because the industry seems to be on the point of accepting of the use of refillable PET containers, which I think are good for 15 or 20 trips or something like that. Polycarbonate containers are also now available, which are good for juice and liquor, and they can be used up to 100 times, so it appears that the technology may in fact provide the answer to this kind of dilemma we've all been going through.
We've been trying to negotiate and work with the soft drink people for quite a long time now to find some sort of answer. Obviously, their problem is they want to centralize their facilities and ship it out. These kinds of containers may provide the answer, and I'm hoping they will, because obviously threats and fines haven't worked in the past. They've just basically been shrugged off, so unless we can find some sort of common ground, which I'm hoping we will, I don't know where it's going to go, to be honest.
Ultimately, if the industry continues to renege on its promises, then I think the government is going to have to come down hard on it. But my hope is that we'll all be able to find something that we agree on, and I actually think that's likely at this point. My hopes are up in the last three months. Six months ago I would have been quite despondent about it, but right now I think there's a good chance that it will happen.
Mr McLean: I've been a great advocator that packaging is a problem, in my mind, and I think that we're lacking some direction on that. What is your opinion towards the reduction in packaging?
Mr Coffey: My opinion is that until we get some sort of agreement, some sort of understanding between all the generators, the producers, municipalities and governments, on who is financially responsible for the processing of packaging materials and materials in general, it's going to be very difficult to make reduction happen.
My favourite example is always the soft drink industry, in that at the moment, because the municipalities pick up soft drink containers, recycle them, dispose of them, there's no financial incentive in fact for the industry to move towards refillable containers. Until they actually take some financial responsibility for the post-consumer processing of those materials, it's going to be very difficult to change their minds.
The Waste Reduction Advisory Committee, as you may know, has been working on a shared model which will in fact, hopefully, move this kind of idea forward, I think. If the producers take responsibility, or a certain amount of it, for the post-consumer processing, there will be an incentive for them to reduce the amount of materials they use and incentive for them to move towards reusable packaging as opposed to disposable, because they'll have to pay for the disposal of it.
Mr McLean: Does the Waste Reduction Advisory Committee have any goals set in that direction that you're aware of?
Mr Coffey: I'm not as familiar as I would like to be with all facets of the Waste Reduction Advisory Committee. Obviously I'm here because I'm slated to be appointed. My knowledge of their progress in this particular area relates to the development of the shared model.
Mr McLean: Okay. The legislative research memorandum says:
"The minister's decision to ban the incineration of garbage was strongly supported by environmental activists and many health care professionals, and criticized by some municipal politicians around the province and some private sector waste management firms. An example of the latter is Ogden Martin Systems Inc, an international waste management company with operations in Ontario. The company argues that state-of-the-art incineration is safe and poses minimal health risks, certainly less risk than many dump sites in operation in Ontario. The company points out that even in countries which do practise the 3Rs, governments find it necessary to allow incineration."
Can I have your opinion on this?
Mr Coffey: Yes. To deal with the last point first, I wouldn't concur that governments find it necessary to incinerate. I think they probably have their arms twisted by people like Ogden Martin who have a lot of very well paid, well-trained lobbyists out their trying to drum up business for themselves.
1120
My feeling on it is that there are definitely health risks associated with incineration. If you incinerate, it doesn't do away with the need for a dump site. If it did, there might be more of an argument.
In fact you still need both, because you still have to dispose of the ash. The fly ash becomes more toxic than the actual material that would have been put into the dump site and has to be disposed of in a hazardous waste disposal facility. Obviously, the costs of that are fairly extreme.
The other ash, the bottom ash, I think is considered toxic a third of the time. I could be wrong on that, but a certain amount of the time it can be toxic. It's often disposed of in municipal landfill sites.
The other two major points are that there's a major upfront cost to putting in place incineration and it almost forces you into using it; basically I think it does. I think the cost of incinerators these days is something like $200,000 per daily tonne of capacity. So if you burn 100 tonnes it costs you $20 million, if my math is correct.
The costs are fairly significant, and our experience is that they do in fact undermine recycling. It doesn't undermine recycling of cans and bottles, to be sure, because they are absolutely useless as fuel, as you might guess. And we don't buy the argument that power production from incinerators is a particular advantage, because you can't use incinerator-generated electricity for base load. You can only use it for peak power because the fuel is just not stable enough. So you would tend to waste most of the electricity that can be generated.
Mr McLean: Okay. I think I've got an answer. The other question I have is, the process has gone on in the GTA with regard to locating landfill sites. You're probably aware of it as well as anybody and probably have some observations you can make. How many disposal sites would you feel would be appropriate if they locate in the GTA? I don't know myself and I'm just curious.
Mr Coffey: I don't know either. I think any government that does it is going to get dumped on, so to speak. I think you're between a rock and a hard place. If you announce a few sites, people are going to say to you: "What about this? You didn't consider this one. There are all these other sites." Then they'll want you to go back and look at the rest of them. If you announce them all, then you threaten a lot people and you get a lot of screaming and shouting.
My general feeling is that this is probably the right way to do it, although I must admit it causes an awful lot of people an awful lot of grief. Again, I find that difficult just from a personal point of view. But, I mean, I hope the process can be got on with quickly and the sites narrowed down to the more legitimate candidate sites. I don't know what the magic number is. I wish I did.
Mr McLean: What do you think would be our goal for the year 2000 with regard to waste reduction? Do you think we can have it down to 50% of what it will be in 1992?
Mr Coffey: Sure. Yes, I think it's quite conceivable and I think you could probably do it within the next few years if you could get all the players to stop playing politics and just kind of get on with it.
Mr McLean: The mayor of Mississauga said it has 500 tonnes of plastic in storage. Where do you get rid of all this recycling material that we have?
Mr Coffey: The report the It's Not Garbage committee did in conjunction with people from Metro basically looked at paper, glass, compost, metal, the things that are relatively easy to recycle and relatively easy to find markets for. We came to the conclusion that just with those particular portions of the waste stream, you could reach 50% and find markets for them. Obviously, there's work to be done in market creation through procurement policies at all kinds of levels, but it could be done and we wouldn't have to -- I won't say we wouldn't have to worry about plastic. We have to try to make sure that plastics are recycled as much as they're used, but I think it could be done.
Mr McLean: You live in Toronto?
Mr Coffey: Yes.
Mr McLean: I'd like to know, why does Metropolitan Toronto need twice-a-week garbage pickup? We only have once a week in the city of Orillia. Why do we have twice a week here?
Mr Coffey: It's a good question.
Mr McLean: It's a big expense.
Mr Coffey: I don't know that we need it twice a week. Historically, people have had twice-a-week pickup. I think you bring into that debate the whole issue of where the surplus labour would be used. Our position on this stuff is that if communities want to go to once-a-week pickup, the staff that are now being used to do the twice-a-week pickup should be transferred to jobs related to the 3Rs, that this shouldn't be used as a method of laying people off for cost-cutting purposes. I think that's what it often is, particularly in municipalities that have twice-a-week pickup.
Mr McLean: Then why don't you have twice-a-week pickup for recycling stuff?
Mr Coffey: In fact, they did in some parts of Metro. I think the city of Toronto used to have at least a couple of trucks coming by on the same day, which kind of amounts to the same thing. They've just moved from that to basically once-a-week pickup for recycling.
I think it's a historical thing to some degree. When you've got twice-a-week pickup -- I think the idea behind it initially was to make sure the garbage didn't get thrown away, wasn't dumped illegally -- then it could be useful as a waste reduction method. I don't know that there's any proof that it is, but our concern is that you don't use it as a way to just lay people off, that we could use those bodies in 3Rs.
Mr McLean: Thank you.
The Chair: Thanks very much, Mr Coffey, for your appearance here this morning. We wish you well.
JOAN KING
The Chair: Our next and final witness this morning is Joan King. Good morning.
Ms Joan King: Good morning.
The Chair: Welcome to the committee. Ms King is an intended appointee as a member of the Waste Reduction Advisory Committee. Would you like to say anything before we begin the questioning? Any comments?
Ms King: No, it's been a long time getting here; that's all.
The Chair: Do you mean in terms of miles travelled or in time?
Ms King: In time.
Mr McLean: Holidays.
Interjection: Too many holidays.
Ms King: That's another story.
The Chair: We'll begin the questioning, then, with Mr Perruzza.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): No, sorry, this is --
The Chair: Sorry, I thought all these were government appointees. My apologies. Mr McLean, then.
Mr McLean: I thought they were too, but this is one I picked a long time ago.
I'll ask you some of the questions I asked the last one with regard to the reduction advisory committee. My greatest concern, and you hadn't heard all the questions, was with regard to packaging. What do you believe should be the order of the day, to reduce packaging in this province, for your reduction advisory committee?
Ms King: The question is, what do I think should be done to reduce packaging?
Mr McLean: Yes.
Ms King: I think the way to get at the reduction of packaging is through the federal packaging protocol committee. That's not NAP; I'm trying to think how the words go. To reduce packaging, it's going to have to be done through federal legislation, because most of the packaging problems we have go across this country. You can't really tell Kellogg's, for example, that we don't want these large cereal boxes two-thirds empty by the time I pick them up at the store in Metropolitan Toronto. There are going to have to be very clear rules across this country on packaging. That's why I think the attention should be primarily on national legislation, but certainly, provincially and municipally we should be pushing.
1130
Mr McLean: What about the recycling program that's in effect now? Do you think it is being used to the full extent that it should be or do you think we're still slack on our recycling programs?
Ms King: I think in the recycling program, the blue box program -- I can certainly talk about it in Metropolitan Toronto -- we're getting very close to feeling we're reaching that 25% reduction target in Metro using the recycling programs. In order to get much further, we're going to have to have completely different kinds of programs. We're going to have to be much more aggressive in terms of what we recycle, and I think the bottom line is going to be to look at it economically, whether that's possible.
I think the idea of trying to reduce things before they ever get into the packaging is the right way to go, rather than try to deal with them after the fact. I would like to see more effort put into where you originally started the reduction things to make sure they're not there in the first place, rather than try to figure out more and more ways to sort things and pull things out that might or might not be very worthwhile to recycle.
Mr McLean: You're on Metro council?
Ms King: That's right.
Mr McLean: Are you on the Association of Municipalities of Ontario as an elected representative?
Ms King: That's right.
Mr McLean: And you're their environmental committee chairperson?
Ms King: No, Mike Bradley is, but they asked me to represent them on the Waste Reduction Advisory Committee.
Mr McLean: So you've been recommended by them to sit on this board.
Ms King: That's right.
The Chair: We have Mr Perruzza, Mr Waters, Ms Carter and Mr Wiseman who've indicated an interest in asking questions, if you want to keep all that in mind. Mr Perruzza, you can lead off.
Mr Perruzza: It's not very often we get a public official before us, so I'm going to ask you some questions dealing with your public persona and then a couple of questions on your specific views on waste reduction. I guess my first question would be, are you a member of either the NDP, the Liberal or the Conservative party?
Ms King: No.
Mr Perruzza: You're not a member of any of the three parties?
Ms King: No.
Mr Perruzza: Have you ever assisted or worked for any of the political parties in election campaigns?
Ms King: Yes.
Mr Perruzza: Which ones?
Ms King: Both the Liberals and the Conservatives.
Mr Perruzza: Okay.
Ms King: I tend to go by people.
Mr Marchese: That can be confusing.
Ms King: It is, but I seem to be able to do it very well. Everybody's confused. Those who are Conservatives think I'm Liberal, and those who are Liberal think I'm Conservative, but definitely, I must admit, Tony, I've never been out actively knocking on doors for the NDP. I do fund-raise for both or put my money in both pots.
Mr Perruzza: Okay, good. So we've gotten that out of the way.
Mr Marchese: Sean Conway would have asked you that question, but he's not here today.
Mr Perruzza: I did it for Sean so when he looks into Hansard he can see that his question was asked and he won't have missed the meeting.
I often sit back and watch Metro council meetings. To put it mildly, you're a very outspoken councillor, and I think that's a good thing in terms of representing the interests of your community and more often than not the interests of the corporate collective on Metro, but you've also been a very active and vociferous critic of the Minister of the Environment herself. Would you say that's an accurate statement?
Ms King: No.
Mr Perruzza: Okay, well --
Mr Wiseman: As far as Kirkland Lake is concerned.
Ms King: On specific items, that's right. If you would like to know my position on Kirkland Lake, I'd be pleased.
Mr Perruzza: As part of your speeches, when we talk about some of these very sensitive issues and issues that are near and dear to us, things like transporting waste to Kirkland Lake, or I guess the other issue that readily comes to mind because it's a debate that only took place I believe a couple of weeks ago is the tipping fees -- I believe that's still going to be an ongoing debate at Metro -- wouldn't you say that you've been very outspoken and critical of the initiatives the minister has taken on these two these two particular issues?
Ms King: Certainly, on the Kirkland Lake issue I've been very clear. That was part of the thinking at Metro council when we invested a lot of money, having checked first, by the way, with the ministry and been told to keep our options open -- we did -- and I feel that's still going to be a very viable solution down the line.
On the tipping fees, I honestly have absolutely no idea of the minister's position, although I certainly have been well advised by people in the waste reduction office and I think we're in concurrence. That is my understanding, but I do not know the minister's position on tipping fees.
Mr Perruzza: Okay. Then I was watching another council meeting and it must have been another councillor who was --
Ms King: It has not come to council yet. We have debated it at a joint management-works committee three times. It should come to council on the first council meeting in November. The whole issue is financing of waste management.
Mr Perruzza: No, I was referring to the whole issue around Kirkland Lake. I understand the tipping fees and I understand that it's gone before committee.
The decision not to proceed with the Adams mine site in Kirkland Lake sparked some very, very harsh -- and harsh is putting it mildly -- comments and criticisms on the part of many a Metro councillor, and I can understand this. I guess if I were on Metro, I'd essentially be doing the same thing, but it links up to an issue which I think is important to me, in terms of your being able to sit on this committee and advise the minister on issues of waste reduction when harsh comments and harsh criticisms more often than not attack the persona or the personalities themselves. It deals quite directly with the issue of credibility. I know that we've been having some of those problems as a government and I think that sometimes we politicians can --
Ms King: Anthony, I beg to differ on this one, because I don't think I've ever personalized it. As a matter of fact, I quite admire Ruth Grier. On many issues, I think she's absolutely right on.
On the export of waste to Kirkland Lake, she and I have discussed it many times and we've done it in public. She knows my position and I know her position, but I have never personalized it. I think if we went back and looked at tapes of Metro meetings -- if there are such things and I'm not sure there are -- I think you would find that I do not personalize. I don't really believe in that kind of political debate and I suspect that if Ruth Grier were here she would not find that I have ever attacked her personally. I certainly haven't.
Mr Perruzza: No, I understand. Again, I think it is important to clear the air, because in order to be effective on this type of committee I think one needs to be clear on the fact that he or she is not going to be using this as simply a platform to further their own sort of political agendas. I think that's important. I think that you're doing that a little bit.
Mr Grandmaître: That has never happened before.
Mr Perruzza: Two more questions before I turn it over to some of my colleagues. I guess we've dealt with the Adams mine a little bit. In your opinion, did Kirkland Lake want the garbage?
Ms King: Do you mean the town of Kirkland Lake?
Mr Perruzza: Yes.
Ms King: I think clearly on the referendum they were asked a question of whether or not they would like the Adams mine as part of a full environmental assessment process to be one alternative looked at, and yes, that community clearly in voted that direction.
Mr Perruzza: Did you address a hostile crowd up there?
Ms King: Did I address a hostile crowd?
Mr Perruzza: Yes, a bunch of screaming people saying they didn't want Metro's garbage.
Ms King: No.
Mr Perruzza: Did you go to Kirkland Lake and address a crowd up there?
Ms King: Yes, but it was quite the other way around. They were very much saying to us, "Why haven't you moved on this, Metro?" The pressure I got from Kirkland Lake, quite honestly, as a matter of fact, is that there's a lot of anger against Metro for not pushing on this issue harder, because there are many people up there who would like to see that site as part of the assessment hearing, and they're angry that we're not delivering it. That is the animosity, I think, at the moment.
1140
Mr Perruzza: Curbside levies: How do you feel about that? Do you believe that at some point we're going to have to charge people for their garbage?
Ms King: Yes.
Mr Perruzza: Okay. Targeted taxes: for example, the Treasurer's 10-cent beer-can tax announcement. How do you feel about that?
Ms King: Personally, I think that is the wrong way, and please let me explain that. With the tire tax, the beverage can tax or a tax that goes into general revenue, we can't get it back to address the problem. I think it's much better to look for a way in which those businesses, be it tires or beverage producers or whatever, have a responsibility in this, no question about it. But I would like to see their moneys used for finding alternatives.
I'll give you a perfect example that's happening today in Metro. We've been trying to find ways to get tires recycled. One of the options is sound barriers along the highway. We were even prepared to go far enough ahead to say we'll even use them on one of ours on the Allen expressway. But the Ministry of Transportation won't allow it yet because it isn't proven. We're in a catch-22: We can't get the funding to help us get that up as a model. We're absolutely caught in a catch-22.
We have to find markets for these things. If we're going to pull them out and recycle them, we've got to find something we can do with it other than bury it. So here we are in a catch-22; there's no money. Damn it all, there's a lot of money collected on tires, but we can't even get a small amount to put into a project to see if the sound barrier thing will work.
The Chair: Sorry, I'm going to have to jump in there. Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Grandmaître: Yes. It's very refreshing to have --
Mr Perruzza: I'd like to thank the councillor for answering some very difficult questions in a --
The Chair: You can thank her later. Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Grandmaître: As I was saying, it's very refreshing to see an appointee who does have knowledge of why she's being appointed to such an important committee. How would you describe this government's record as far as waste management is concerned?
Ms King: In fairness, we're all struggling on waste management. We're all struggling because it's a very costly thing to get into. We've had an easy way with landfilling in the past. It's not going to be easy in the future. Very, very expensive programs, though, are being suggested, and our tax base just can't handle it right now.
The reason I'm really quite interested in being on the Waste Reduction Advisory Committee is I think they're looking very seriously at a model, a shared model, where you can get the business sector involved in the process without taxing it, without doing it through three different routes, but actually get it involved in the process of getting these materials back into another product through recycling. I think also they've got very good thinkers in terms of some of these reduction concepts of how we can change our ways. But the bottom line is that none of us are doing very well in resolving all the problems.
I stand up on platforms and say, "In Metropolitan Toronto we've reached 25% reduction." I know actually we've reached way more than 25% reduction; we've reached more than 50% reduction, but it's been just because all the waste is going south of the border, and I'm not very proud of that because I don't think that's environmentally very smart. I don't think it's going to safer landfills. As a matter of fact, I'm quite concerned about that. I also think the environmental impact of shipping it all off --
Mr Grandmaître: To somewhere else.
Ms King: -- and I think with a lot of the recycling things that we wanted to see happen, it's much cheaper to just send it south of the border. So those things are not happening, although statistically we look great; nothing's coming to Keele Valley. But really we haven't solved the problem; we've just sort of let it go somewhere else, and that isn't solving the problem. I think this government has to address that. We have not solved the problem; we've just let it flow somewhere else. That's a real concern to me.
Mr Grandmaître: In your answer, I sense you're against an environmental tax.
Ms King: Yes. I wish I weren't. If an environmental tax could actually come back to resolve that particular issue then I'd say, "Great, let's have them." But from my perspective, the environmental tax is not coming back to solve that problem at all; it becomes part of the general revenue. I realize the pressure's on government right now and I realize it gets used for all kinds of other things.
I would rather, instead of an environmental tax, find a way that the industry producing the thing can get involved in resolving the problem directly. I think that way we might get some answers to some of our environmental problems.
Mr Grandmaître: This government prides itself on consultation and negotiations. How would you rate the government on the consultation between Metro and the Ministry of the Environment? How would you rate it?
Ms King: We don't have much consultation. I think it's a fact of life that we're all very much involved in doing our things.
If you're talking politician to politician -- I think you are -- the one good thing I can say is, certainly my experience is to see that the bureaucrats on both sides of the fence consult very well and that there is a lot of dialogue back and forth and a lot of awareness of what's happening, what isn't working and what is working and so on.
Politically, we don't seem to have a forum; we don't seem to have a way to sit down and gnash through some of the problems. It's very unfortunate because then we land up being seen to be opposite and I think in fact we all want to have the same result. We want to resolve some of these problems, but we don't seem to have a forum for that. I just thank the Lord that the bureaucrats seem to get beyond us and do a lot of that work.
Mr Grandmaître: Who's to blame, though, at the political level? Is it Metro or is it the provincial government that's not to be trusted? Who's to blame?
Ms King: I really don't think you can throw the blame on one or the other. The difference, I guess, is that at Metro, up to now anyway, we have not been affiliated with parties so we don't have that natural alliance that might make things flow or, of course, might make sure things don't.
But I think Metro government, for those of you who are familiar, has gone through major, major change in the last four years, with direct elections to Metro, and we're struggling a lot internally. I think a lot of the fault has to be on Metro. We haven't moved to look out to the local municipalities or to the province as much as we should and I think we should be doing a better job on that.
There are certainly some political alliances that I'm not privy to, parties to parties: some members of council are members of one party or another.
Mr Grandmaître: I was going to ask you a question on market value assessment but my time is up, so good luck to you.
Ms King: Thank you.
The Chair: Okay. That concludes your appearance here, Ms King. Thank you. Good luck.
Ms King: Thank you.
1150
The Chair: The final matter before the committee this morning is the determination of whether we concur with the appointments of the witnesses who appear before us this morning. Members know we can deal with this in one motion or, if there's a request, on an individual basis. All for? Mr Marchese moves --
Mr Wiseman: Is there any discussion on this?
The Chair: Any motion is open for discussion. We have a motion from Mr Marchese that the committee concur with the intended appointments reviewed today. Mr Wiseman would like to comment.
Mr Wiseman: Yes, I'd like to comment on the last deputation. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to ask any questions. I think there are some that need to be resolved. I think the very first thing we need to recognize is that this is an AMO appointment, and I think that's --
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Chair, are we considering the four appointees?
The Chair: Yes, we are.
Mr Grandmaître: You're referring to one and we're referring to all four.
The Chair: I see nothing wrong with anyone commenting about any of the four. No one's objected to dealing with them in one motion.
Mr Grandmaître: That's right.
The Chair: So we can comment on any of the four witnesses who appeared before us during discussion on the motion.
Mr Grandmaître: But aren't we going against the resolution?
The Chair: No, not in my view.
Mr Grandmaître: Your resolution is all four, and now --
Mr Marchese: That's true, but he's commenting on one of them.
The Chair: He's commenting on one of them. I think that's quite appropriate.
Mr Wiseman: There are a number of questions I would have liked to have posed and I think they need to be put on the public record for consideration.
The very important consideration for my constituents is the role Metro has played in my community and the amount of money Metro has received because of that. Metro receives hundreds of millions of dollars a year from tipping fees from communities outside of Metro. For example, the Durham Board of Education has to pay $150 a tonne to tip in the Brock West landfill site. It's true that Durham region does receive some rebate, but most of that money goes to Metro, and Metro has in its coffers hundreds of millions of dollars from communities outside of Metropolitan Toronto. Also, Metro charges the industrial-commercial sector $152 a tonne to tip at both Keele Valley and Brock West and has hundreds of millions of dollars coming in through that sector as well. What happens to this money when it gets to Metro is a cause for concern to my constituents.
Mr McLean: Mr Chairman, on a point of privilege: I would like to raise the issue of the fact that I will come here to every meeting and I will comment on everyone who's before us. If people are going to come here and want to take the committee's time, they should have taken the 10 minutes that were allotted. If they're going to comment on one individual after it's over, then I will come here and I will comment on everyone and keep the committee here after the allotted time, because that's what's going to happen.
The Chair: I think that's perhaps something that should be discussed by the subcommittee in terms of we have a motion on the floor and we don't have any guidance in terms of time limitations or this sort of thing occurring. As far as I'm concerned, Mr Wiseman has a right, even though he's not on the committee this morning and there's a substitute in his place, but I'm going to ask him to be brief.
Mr Wiseman: I'm almost finished.
The Chair: All right. I'd like you to conclude.
Mr Grandmaître: I want to go on record too. You asked for a vote.
The Chair: No, I didn't.
Mr Grandmaître: This vote has not taken place. Yes.
The Chair: I've asked for a motion to concur, and I believe everyone has the right to have input. I'm being generous in some respects because Mr Wiseman has a substitute here this morning, so he is not effectively sitting on the committee, but I think in terms of getting a lot of rancorous comments going across the floor, I'm trying to avoid that. I'm allowing Mr Wiseman to have these brief comments. If you want to talk about this whole concept, I think we can refer to the subcommittee later on. Mr Wiseman, do you want to conclude? Mr Wiseman: In conclusion to my point about the money coming in, Metro council clearly is in a conflict of interest when it comes to waste reduction. They will be voting on issues that are going to cause their revenues to fall, and therefore it raises the spectre of perhaps Metro not moving in the direction it should in terms of waste reduction.
To give two examples, we have the example of the food terminal in Toronto, and I raised this during committee hearings before. They spend $800,000 a year eliminating their waste and they had a program set up whereby they would compost it. We have the Chinese community businessmen who wanted to compost in Downsview who were not allowed to do that.
Therefore I have to put forward some very grave concerns about AMO's appointment, given that there is this potential conflict of interest when it comes to recommendations for waste reduction.
Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Can we have a separation? Can we vote on the individuals separately, one at a time?
The Chair: I asked for that initially. We already have a motion on the floor. You were given the opportunity and no one took up the opportunity. Mr Marchese has already --
Mr Perruzza: I'm going to support all four, but I think it's important for people to be able to do that on an individual basis.
The Chair: The point is that we already have a motion on the floor. Is there any further comment on the motion, which is to concur with all four appointments? All in favour? Opposed? Motion carried.
Mr Marchese: Was that unanimous or not?
Mr Wiseman: They didn't vote.
Interjections.
The Chair: The motion carried and that's what I saw. Meeting adjourned. We have a subcommittee meeting.
The committee adjourned at 1155.