Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA GESTION DES DÉCHETS

HARKOW AGGREGATES AND RECYCLING LTD

RAY RIVERS

CANADIAN FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS

THE RECREATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF MAPLE

MISSISSAUGA BOARD OF TRADE

CONSUMERS' GAS

ONTARIO LONG TERM RESIDENTIAL CARE ASSOCIATION
ONTARIO NURSING HOME ASSOCIATION

AFTERNOON SITTING

TORONTO ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE

CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC REAL ESTATE COMPANIES

TOWN OF DUNNVILLE

COUNTY OF SIMCOE

ANTREX DEVELOPMENT CORP

STELCO INC

RECYCLING COUNCIL OF ONTARIO

CONTENTS

Wednesday 12 February 1992

Waste Management Act, 1991, Bill 143 / Loi de 1991 sur la gestion des déchets, projet de loi 143

Harkow Aggregates and Recycling Ltd

Linda Lynch, environmental consultant

Ray Rivers

Canadian Federation of Independent Business

Linda Ciglen, director, provincial affairs (Ontario)

Ted Mallett, senior economist

Recreational Advisory Committee of Maple

Frank Consiglio, president

Mississauga Board of Trade

Wayne Gallant, past president

Norm White, member, environment committee

David Gordon, executive director

Lawrence Bryan, research and policy coordinator

Consumers' Gas

Bill Smith, Toronto region manager

Hugh Erwin, director, facilities management

Marika Hare, director, environmental services

Ontario Long Term Residential Care Association; Ontario Nursing Home Association

Harvey Nightingale, president, ONHA

Rick Winchell, executive director, OLTRCA

Maria Kelleher, consultant, ONHA

Toronto Environmental Alliance

Gerard Coffey, representative

Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies

Ron Daniel, executive director

Diane Saxe, legal counsel

Town of Dunnville

Brett A. Kelly, councillor

County of Simcoe

David Caldwell, county councillor

Antrex Development Corp

Leo F. Longo, solicitor

Stelco Inc

Al Schuldt, director, environmental control

Sandra Stewart, public affairs manager

Recycling Council of Ontario

John Hanson, executive director

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Chair / Présidente: Caplan, Elinor (Oriole L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Sola, John (Mississauga East/-Est L)

Cousens, W. Donald (Markham PC)

Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)

Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)

Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND)

Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)

Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex ND)

O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND)

Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West/-Ouest PC)

Sullivan, Barbara (Halton Centre L)

Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)

Substitution(s) / Membre(s) remplaçant(s):

Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND) for Mr Hope

Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC) for Mr Cousens

McClelland, Carman (Brampton North/-Nord L) for Mrs Sullivan

Also taking part / Autres participants:

McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)

McRobert, David, Ministry of the Environment

Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn

Staff/ Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1004 in room 151.

WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA GESTION DES DÉCHETS

Resuming consideration of Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act / Projet de loi 143, Loi concernant la gestion des déchets dans la région du grand Toronto et modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement.

HARKOW AGGREGATES AND RECYCLING LTD

The Vice-Chair: Good morning. I recognize a quorum. I would ask our first presenters, Harkow Aggregates and Recycling Ltd, to come forward and make their presentation. Please identify yourselves for the purposes of Hansard. You have 20 minutes to make your presentation, and we would appreciate a few moments at the end for questioning by members of the committee.

Ms Lynch: Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Linda Lynch, president of Environment Watch Inc, and I am very pleased and proud to be here representing Harkow Aggregates and Recycling Ltd today, a company for whom I have been an environmental consultant and project coordinator for the last four years.

I cannot resist pointing out that in the copies of the deputations before you, I think we are the only company to have used 100% recycled paper and that we have printed on both sides. We hope that perhaps we lead by example in our attempts here today.

I would like to start by talking for just a quick moment about the private sector. There has been an awful lot of contentious chatter back and forth about profit and supporting the private sector. We believe that everybody at the table supports the private sector, and so for the sake of an attitude adjustment, we would like to repeat some comments from Peter Drucker which I think really hit home and are worth remembering:

"There is no conflict between profit and social responsibility. To earn enough to cover the genuine costs, which only the so-called profit can cover, is economic and social responsibility. Indeed, it is the specific social and economic responsibility of business. It is not the business that earns a profit adequate to its genuine costs of capital, to the risks of tomorrow and to the needs of tomorrow's worker and pensioner that rips off society; it is the business that fails to do so."

Harkow Aggregates and Recycling Ltd is a family-owned and -operated business whose specialty is construction-demolition and solid industrial-commercial non-hazardous waste streams. We have operated a recycling and transfer facility in the port industrial district in the city of Toronto for the past nine years under certificates of approval issued in 1983.

In 1989, we were very proud to be the first company in Canada to come forward with a solid application to build a totally enclosed multi-material recycling facility to handle our waste stream. Approval was granted by way of another certificate of approval in June 1990 for the new facility. Unanimous approval was received from Toronto city council in August 1990, and we are working right now towards a construction start date this spring.

Currently, we recycle manually in the range of 10% to 20% of our total waste stream. The new facility will enable us to recycle between 70% and 90% of our total volume through a manual-mechanical sorting and separation process series that is a proven and state-of-the-art technology and building system. The new facility will create approximately 40 new jobs in addition to the 25 already employed at the existing site. It has been a dynamic and challenging period for our company that prides itself on being on the leading edge of the growth of the recycling industry in this province.

Recently, we have expanded our efforts to include composting and used materials manufacturing. Eventually, we see our corporate agenda as exciting and one that carries on business in the areas of reduction, reuse and recycling.

Harkow Aggregates and Recycling Ltd welcomes and encourages government activities that stimulate the growth of reduction, reuse and recycling in society. We know that used materials are tradeable commodities that have an inherent value that can be transformed into new growth industries, urgently needed in our sagging economy.

We have diligently monitored your committee's hearings and we have noted that the private sector has repeatedly mentioned fear, uncertainty and apprehension in responses to you, but you know what? We had been feeling that way a long time before Bill 143 came along, and we would like to make you aware of what has really caused these anxieties.

We would like to point out that our industry has been negatively impacted by an atmosphere of threatening uncertainty that has been prevalent in the GTA since the spring of 1990. This has not originated from the province but rather from the Metropolitan Toronto regional authorities.

On May 16, 1990, our industry scrambled to make deputations to the Metro works committee in the face of an announcement that it was going to ban the private sector categorically from Metropolitan Toronto landfill facilities. Faced with a running-out-of-room scenario, they informed us that there was not space for the private sector. The lack of alternative private landfill space in the province put all of us in an impossible situation.

It was this incident, and this incident alone, that triggered the export-of-waste scenario that you are grappling with today. There was a request by many business groups to form a task force and create a dialogue with Metro in advance of such a draconian ban, but silence prevailed and the industry had to react to protect itself.

1010

Going back for just a moment, let me underline that the private sector is not just huge waste management companies. It is made up of many medium-sized to small-sized businesses. It represents 60% of the total volume of waste in Metro. Suddenly those family-run businesses are told, "You don't have a home for your waste." What would you do?

Imagine the bewilderment when we found ourselves scrambling again in June and July 1991, a year later, to appear before the same Metro works committee to depute against changes to Bill 66, which, among other things, threatened to ban waste export. We were incredulous as we listened to Metro running to the province demanding a legislated end to the very practice that actions taken by it a year earlier had precipitated. "Confused" and "uncertain" are words that understate the climate our industry has had to deal with.

There is no question that, once we had to look elsewhere, we discovered how overpriced the tipping fees were at Keele Valley, for example. As an appendix to our presentation that I will be providing later today, we enclose US landfill rate sheets. Clearly, you will see that Keele Valley is the most expensive landfill in North America.

The original intent of raising the tipping fees was pecuniary and was designed to reduce waste through raising the costs of disposal. That is well and good, but now it has gone too far. Industries that recycle, reduce and reuse, no matter how successfully we apply our methodologies, are still going to have a residue left over. Tipping fees for our industry need to be brought down to a reasonable market rate. We have to be able to compete for north, south, east and west.

It is our belief that the solutions to the waste management challenges of the future lay in innovative partnerships between government and the private sector. The success of a partnered relationship turns on the mutual respect and support one partner gives the other. The partners must each understand their equity positions, their area of operation and responsibilities and the security in their relationship, and a methodology for dialogue and information exchange must exist. The most important goal of a partnership is to provide a secured future and a return on the investments of people, capital and other resources that each partner contributes to the relationship. We ask you to address the protection of your partners in this waste management bill.

Recommendation: Please provide legislation that would prohibit a municipality from banning the private sector categorically from its facilities. Introduce directives at all levels of government within your jurisdiction that prohibit legislative initiatives until full consultation with the stakeholder has been carried out and a cost-benefit analysis, along with a full market impact study, has been completed.

With respect to areas of the bill that are designed to prohibit the export of waste, we suggest that the government needs more information to provide for revisions before it proceeds. For example, we currently ship pure loads of wood to composting facilities in New York state. We view this as more environmentally sound, as we know you do, than burying it in a landfill. There are no large composting facilities here in Ontario that require this product. If you proceed with a generic description of all materials under the legislation, then we ask you to add exceptions by specific reference to product. We must be free to access the potential and emerging markets, wherever they may be.

Another area that requires some additional revision is the regulation governing our landfills. If your export legislation is going to turn on the concept of protecting the environment outside of Ontario, as outlined in section 22, part IV, then we caution: We had better make sure that our landfills are sounder than those that may be at destinations in the US. We point out that a double-lined landfill, complete with leachate collection system, has the potential for being safer than anything currently in the province, and your legislation would most probably be successfully challenged in that regard.

We believe that flow control with respect to the residential waste stream is not too difficult to implement. We have tried to point out, through a few examples, that flow control in the private sector requires more dialogue with industry and specific revisions before you proceed. We believe this underlines the need to define the private sector and its waste streams by separate category. Outside of your committee there have been government discussions both formal and informal that hint at flow control being a mechanism that will take waste management away from the private sector. It is our understanding that the flow-control approach was originally intended for the municipal sector. We require your assistance to protect us in the legislative arena, and unless we are defined as a separate entity from the municipal sector it just cannot be done. We urge you to share the vision you have and put fears to rest and provide industry with a background of certainty and confidence.

We would like to bring another area of grave concern to your attention. It is an area that requires you to protect our industry and nurture it. In section 25 of part IV you will allow a municipality to introduce bylaws to raise money for waste management systems and disposal sites prior to receiving approvals. We have just been through another nightmare of a scenario with Metro Toronto and its proposed revisions to Bill 66 and the single waste authority which creates an impossible situation for us where government proposes to both regulate and compete with us. Their flow of money to provide capital to build projects to compete with us comes from property and commercial taxes, tipping fees generated at their landfill through a monopoly, and now a method of raising new taxes to compete with us.

Currently -- and it is critical that your government understand this part -- Metro has $44 million in its capital works budget earmarked for facilities that include one that would compete with us. Welfare budgets are falling short and other social programs are cut back, yet $11 million is being spent to build a multi-material recycling facility that is not needed. Along with ours, two others have already been approved for the GTA.

Before I continue with the formal presentation I want to add that, to add insult to injury, as part of our review process for our certificates of approval we had to submit our engineering drawings and specifications for our process to Metro for an engineering comment. We got a call from our manufacturer a few months ago that Metro had called to get our system for its facility to compete against us.

The prospect of yet another tax vehicle on a staggering economy that already shoulders a high tax burden that will have to increase should not be allowed outside the provincial and federal government control. Waste diversion funding programs you already have can be used to provide for gaps in capital expenditures. These programs also control, by way of review, the legitimacy of the need for a facility. When the demands of the social agenda are desperate for funding, I really sincerely wonder how you can justify Metro spending $44 million of taxpayers' money on recycling projects that the private sector, people like us, is ready and infinitely more experienced and financially capable of building and operating. In the face of such flagrant financial abuse, how can you allow them yet another tax vehicle to do more of the same?

Recommendation: That section 25 be excluded or certainly rethought with controls.

We need the government's help to stop the illegal operators who are stealing our revenues and your tax dollars. We have brought this matter to the attention of ministry staff, Metro and the minister's office. That has been on a case-by-case basis accompanied by threats from the people we blew the whistle on. Your government has responded, but there are too many to keep track of. There are ever-increasing numbers of incidents where waste is being hauled and handled by those without certificates of approval. Those of us who have participated in the due process and are licensed stand by helplessly and watch them laugh all the way to the bank at all of our expense.

1020

If you are caught by the police driving a vehicle without a driver's licence you are not allowed to get back in the car and drive away. There is no defence, period. You are either licensed or you are not. Yet there is no legislation that allows provincial officers to stop the unlicensed operator on the spot who is hauling or handling solid municipal ICI waste. If you are going to contemplate loosening up the approvals for recyclers, then you must provide enforcement methods that will work.

Recommendation: Add legislation to the EPA, the Environmental Protection Act, that would allow enforcement officers to have authority to stop and terminate the activities of illegal operators on the spot. Powers of regulatory enforcement similar to those in the section that deal with liquid non-hazardous waste should be added to sections of the EPA dealing with solid municipal and ICI non-hazardous waste. This would allow the inspector to remove the plates from a vehicle and shut an operation down on the spot.

Finally, we would like to address the concept of mandatory source separation. Our new facility is designed to separate commingled wastes. Our technology is specifically designed and proven to perform this task with no negative environmental impacts. We are spending over $10 million to provide the market with this service. We know the government recognizes such sorting facilities in its definitions contained in the waste reduction office Initiatives Paper No 1. It is there in a one-line explanation of a multi-material recycling site, and they identify that as a sorting of commingled materials. But we think that the signals to industry are a bit mixed in the proposed reporting methods. Why should industry go to the expense of trying to source-separate when our facilities can take certain waste streams and do it for them?

Recommendation: We would suggest that a reporting methodology include the destination of a multi-material recycling facility as a compliance with the waste reduction initiatives. We suggest industry be so advised to avoid costly efforts that may not be necessary.

In closing, we would like to point out that we have a history of working with government, sharing our knowledge. We were pleased to be invited to participate in the formal sessions at the recent Recycling Council of Ontario's symposium and were eager and enthusiastic participants. We have participated in Peel region's waste management conference and the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. We were contacted by Mr Blackwell's office in the late fall for discussions, but as yet we have been unable to get our schedules together, and that has been probably more our fault than his.

We were not consulted at all regarding Bill 143, though. While we welcome the opportunity to be here today, we urge the government not to overlook the little guy in the future. We are ready to help with input any time you need it. Please feel free to contact Mr John Harris, Mr Ron Harris and Mr Rod Harris at 463-5946 in that regard. Thank you for your time and attention.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. Mrs Marland.

Mrs Marland: Ms Lynch, I think that Messrs John, Ron and Rod Harris should be very proud of your presentation. It was excellent. I am shocked to hear that a municipality which is funded by the province and by the taxpayers of a number of boroughs in the GTA is interested in putting the private sector out of business and spending public funds to do it. Could you just elaborate a little more on the item that you were referring to about them phoning? Did they actually call the people who designed your facility?

Ms Lynch: Yes, they did. The processing system is called HAR and then another part of the process, and the HAR stands for the Harris family members who were personally involved in designing the system.

Mr Wiseman: I would just like to make a quick comment that it seems like it is a bit of a contradiction for Metropolitan Toronto to be both a proponent of supposed recycling and reuse and at the same time making huge amounts of money from the surrounding municipalities. Just to give you an example, in Brock West the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Education tips and dumps for free, whereas the Durham Board of Education has to pay $150 a tonne and receives no rebates. There are some rebates that go to Durham region as a whole, but not to the boards. So I share with you a lot of what you have said today and the frustrations you feel.

The one question I do have is: Would you be in favour of having a dual tipping fee, a tipping fee for residual waste that is considerably lower if it has already been through a recycling stream as opposed to a very much higher tipping fee for one that has not been recycled?

Ms Lynch: I know that the principals of the company have had discussions with me about this, and we think it is definitely worth looking at. You would have to study it and have more controls, because in principle it sounds great, but there are companies who have been taking advantage of your 200 tonne-a-day out the back door of a recyclery to get an easy certificate of approval. They may take in 201 tonnes a day of material at $180 or $200 a tonne. They may recycle one tonne and send 200 tonnes to landfill and get the break of a reduced tipping fee, whereas operators such as ourselves who go to great effort and expense and partnership with the government to recover 70% or 90% would pay the same rate they do. It would be a great idea if you develop a mechanism of control, checks and balances, so that you could inspect these so-called recycleries and make sure that you had to have a 50%-or-better recycling rate before you could enjoy those reduced tipping fees.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wiseman. We are out of time, Mr Sola. Thank you very much for appearing before the committee today. We appreciate your appearance, and if there is additional information you think would be helpful, please communicate with us in writing.

Ms Lynch: Thank you very much.

RAY RIVERS

The Chair: I call next Ray Rivers. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We would ask that you leave a few minutes at the end for questions from committee members. Please have a seat. Begin your presentation now.

Mr Rivers: I wish to thank you for the opportunity to come before you and address you. My name is Ray Rivers and I live in Burlington, Ontario. I am an economist, and I am employed with the federal department of the environment, where I head up its pollution prevention initiative. However, I am here today representing myself, a resident of Ontario and the greater Toronto area where I work and live and, as do other GTA residents, pollute.

I have been actively involved in waste management issues around my community. I participated in Halton's waste management/energy-from-waste study. I participated as a public advisory member of the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee that was in operation here a couple of years ago and as a member of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on GTA Waste that Minister Grier established in 1990.

I teach sustainable development for business school graduates at Wilfrid Laurier University, where only last week my MBA class completed a case study analysis of waste management in Halton and the GTA. I will make copies of that available for your reading interest.

I was the first chairman of the city of Burlington's sustainable development committee and chaired this highly successful committee for its first year and a half of existence. I am currently a member of the city's waste reduction task force, which is trying to reduce waste in the city. I will be submitting this paper to both that task force and the city for their review and potential approval. However, today I am speaking on behalf of myself.

I believe that what is being discussed today must be not just an interim but a long-term solution to waste management and that this committee and the government must avoid being panicked into short-term solutions that will only defer and not resolve the waste issue.

Critical to this discussion is a vision of where we are as a society and where we need to be moving on the waste management issue. I believe that the minister has identified such a vision since coming to her office. I believe that this vision is one that is shared by the vast majority of Ontario residents who, like me, wish to see Ontario become a more sustainable and less wasteful society.

The consensus on waste reduction has been building for some time, perhaps most advanced by the former Minister of the Environment, Jim Bradley, who demonstrated his resolve and wisdom when he courageously led the rest of the country by announcing what then seemed like ambitious waste reduction goals of 25% and 50%. The debate over whether these goals will be achieved has diminished and has been replaced by the debate over how they will be achieved.

I agree with the overall thrust of the initiative in Bill 143 to make our society more of a conserver society since conservation means less waste and is integral to sustainable development. Critical to the implementation of policies that support sustainable development is an appreciation of the concept of the ecosystem and an adoption of sound ecosystem management principles.

1030

A sustainable ecosystem, of which a sustainable community could be an example, would produce no waste, since conservation is essential to its very existence. Waste created by one ecological process is consumed by another as a resource.

Achieving that state of ecosystem sustainability should be our goal, to ensure that the generation of products and byproducts in our society is complementary to human use of resources and energy to produce, consume and recycle. In that regard, I believe the minister is correct in that, since the incineration of matter discourages conservation of resources, it has no place in the debate over municipal solid waste management options and must be eliminated from consideration at this time.

Similarly, the export of waste out of the GTA, as every intelligent person should appreciate, is not and never should be considered a long-term solution to sustainable waste management since it violates every known ecological process or principle.

There are a number of measures that need to be adopted through legislation or by policy in order for this effort at conservation to succeed:

1. Ecosystem principles must be followed. Each jurisdiction must manage the waste it creates within its own ecosystem. Resorting to waste export or other unsustainable methods like incineration would mean that a community has exceeded its ecosystem capacity and that it should adopt measures to either halt growth or adopt more conservation practices. It is a signal and a sign that something is wrong.

2. In order for the ecosystem to respond to environmental signals, the responsibility for waste management must be clearly in the hands of only one jurisdiction, the local municipality, which must have clear guidelines and incentives to manage its waste management operations. Dilution of this management authority, as may be implied in parts I and III of the proposed bill, will only serve to confound the issue, irritate the municipalities and their populations, and detract from the move to a conserver society.

3. Only non-recyclables should be permitted for residual disposal. All paper, metals, hazardous materials, building materials, soils, glass, plastics and compostables should be banned from disposal to landfills and other residue depositories.

4. Alternatives need to be developed for the storage of waste residue. Since waste does not exist in a sustainable ecosystem, in theory, all of today's unusable residue should be stored for future uses. Aboveground storage, not landfill, should be the preferred method for the future. Instead of digging holes in the ground in York, Durham and Peel, existing and potential warehouse space should be employed in those areas to store residuals for the future.

5. Economic incentives are critical. The full cost of long-term waste management must fall directly on the user if waste is to be discouraged. User-pay for the full costs of waste collection, recycling, residual disposal and other aspects of management must be charged directly by municipalities to householders and other users. The incentive to conserve must be instilled in our society through direct charges for the waste produced, and the province should surcharge the municipalities for these external, common or shared costs in order that these also get passed on to the user.

6. Greater reliance must be made on innovative management within municipalities through the creation of public utilities for waste managment, for example, to ensure that sound waste management is not compromised by politics. Opportunities for greater private sector involvement in all aspects of waste management should be encouraged to utilize the expertise of the private sector and encourage this sector to become an ally for sound waste management, much along the same lines as the previous speaker.

Let me close this discussion by making a few recommendations that I believe are essential for the minister to achieve her objectives of moving closer to the conserver society and that will move the GTA and Ontario closer to sustainable waste management. Although Bill 143 moves society in the right direction, it must be strengthened and more clearly focused, particularly with respect to parts I and II.

Part I should be modified to include the specific authority of the province to surcharge municipalities for the full costs borne by the province for waste management and to appropriately penalize municipalities for unsustainable waste management practices as well as those that do not meet the provincial reduction goals.

Parts II and III should be modified to ensure that alternatives to landfill such as aboveground residue storage are given priority as a more practical alternative for long-term storage of waste residue or potential recyclables.

There is a need for specific exclusion of potential recyclables, regardless of current markets, from landfills in Ontario and the establishment of universal conditions for acceptable landfill material to ensure that no potential recyclables or hazardous materials are landfilled.

Since the issue of sustainable waste management inherently involves the practices in a broad sector of Ontario society, appropriate amendments must be made to the Planning Act, the Municipal Act and the legislation covering the creation and operation of public utilities, for those factors to be brought into the decision. I thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr Sorbara: Sir, I would like to turn to page 5 of your brief and your third proposal. I would just like to ask you how practical that is? You are saying there is a need for a specific exclusion of potential recyclables, regardless of current markets. We just heard that people in the waste disposal business are crying blue murder about the high cost of tipping fees already. If you were going to store things for which you have no markets and which you do not even know at the present time are recyclable, because you will develop something in the future, how much more would that add to the cost of waste disposal? How seriously can you expect somebody to accept a proposal where there is no time line to how long they would be stuck with this potentially recyclable material?

Mr Rivers: There are two points you have raised, one being the cost and the other being the feasibility. I think they are related. One of the things we should realize is that one of the greatest motivators for change, and technological change in particular, is the relationship to the economics. Clearly the prospect of higher costs will induce the various sectors in our society to find alternatives, find other ways of dealing with it. That aspect alone will create new markets.

Second, in terms of feasibility, I do not think we are going to do this all at once. What we are talking about is a longer-term process. But clearly there is a need to start excluding certain recyclables, and I think we could start with metals and glass and perhaps expand it to a whole series of papers. Unless you start to do that, there will be not the great incentive to in fact deal with those recyclable commodities on the markets.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you for a very interesting presentation. You have indicated that you oppose incineration and you oppose transport. You may know that we have heard a great deal of information, particularly about the transport issue. In fact, I think some people are running around with T-shirts indicating that this Metro waste should go north.

One thing I was quite interested in was what you say about the residual material and future possibilities for its use. Has there been anything done in terms of research? Is there any information you have regarding inquiries in that direction?

Mr Rivers: This is all fairly new. Because the issue of waste has been one that we have not dealt with, we have tended to ignore the fact that the waste will become a problem as we move on. We have stayed away from the question of sustainability and dug holes in the ground and buried it and put it out of sight and out of mind. We are going to come back to find that in fact many of those landfills that are currently in place will have to be dug up and there will be tremendous costs associated with it. I am not really answering your question. Could I have that question again?

1040

Mrs Mathyssen: I just wondered if there had been any ideas or research or some indication about possibilities regarding the utilization of the residue that we now seem to think is simply garbage to be thrown away.

Mr Rivers: A lot of that is already available. Europeans have been doing a much greater job of recycling in many ways than we have. The Americans have as well, many smaller communities. There is a need for economic incentives to encourage more of that kind of thing to happen, but there is already a substantial amount of information as to what to do with it. Essentially it is a matter of taking out those things that have alternative uses and can be recycled and reused. Clearly the glass, the metals, the paper and the compostables account for the large bulk of waste. What is left is essentially perhaps hazardous materials that really cannot be recycled at the moment, and a very small residue. My guess is probably in the order of 10% or 15% of the current waste load is probably that which has to be dealt with in some kind of long-term storage, be it underground through a landfill or in an aboveground structure, at some point to be reused.

Ms Haeck: You actually are encouraging an awful lot of discussion by your paper. My question somewhat followed on Mr Sola's because I know around hazardous waste there is aboveground storage, and Mrs Mathyssen hit the topic of research. A lot of the discussions before this committee have related to packaging and basically the difficulty of dealing with our waste. I guess the ultimate thing we are going to be hit with again as the discussions continue is cost. From your position and your lengthy knowledge, would you relate the costs for us? Do you have some idea of the cost of doing all of this?

Mr Rivers: In my view there is a time bomb that exists out there which is going to have a big impact on costs. We have not to date in my opinion paid the full costs of the landfills. We have not lined them properly. We have allowed mass fills which is equivalent to a mass burn, which associates a number of different components together. We really have not done the kind of technology that should have been applied when we started the landfill.

I guess it mattered less when we were less of an industrial nation; it mattered less when we were a smaller population, but today it matters more. I think we are going to find that in Halton, for example, the tipping fees are going up to in excess of $200 per tonne, and that excludes things like having to go and perhaps mine some of the existing landfills, which may happen when we find that leachate is going into ground water.

On the cost side, clearly we have to take some bold measures and the costs are going to have to increase. Householders are going to have to be very much hit with the cost of the waste they create. Industries similarly are going to have to recognize that the cost of packaging and other sorts of waste is very real.

The answer is pollution prevention, particularly when you get into the issue of hazardous waste control. Particularly in the United States there is a very strong focus on moving towards source reduction of those materials that will be hazardous. Obviously we do not have all the answers. I do not pretend to have all the answers. What I am laying before you are some principles that in many cases you have correctly noted are longer term, but I think it is important to have the longer-term perspective as we deal with bits and pieces of legislation that come before us. I am getting off your question here, but in particular I think it is important to deal with the question of the responsibility. I feel very strongly that eroding that responsibility can give us a number of difficulties down the road.

The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before the committee today. We appreciate your presentation.

CANADIAN FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS

The Chair: I would like to call next the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Please come forward. Begin your presentation by introducing your delegation. You have 20 minutes for your presentation and we would ask if you would please begin your presentation now.

Ms Ciglen: It is a pleasure to be here. My name is Linda Ciglen. I am director of provincial affairs for Ontario for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. With me is my colleague Ted Mallett, senior economist for the CFIB, and I am going to turn it over to Ted to start our presentation.

Mr Mallett: Thank you very much, Linda. The CFIB is here on behalf of its 40,000 members in Ontario, and our concern with this legislation is -- there are quite a few concerns through all parts of it, but I think what we are going to do is essentially limit our comments to part IV of the legislation, which we think deals most directly with the small business sector.

We think that the government has not properly identified the waste management problem for small firms, and it certainly has not properly developed a proper understanding of the small business community. The need for this legislation appears to be based on the assumption that business is not doing its share, that attitudes are somehow not up to par with public concerns, that business behaviour is not up to par with public concerns. The government has not presented any evidence in this regard, nor has anyone else.

We have done research into the attitudes and the behaviour of small firms and we find entire consistencies in their outlooks. Decima public opinion research organization conducted a poll last year that found that 51% of the public are very concerned about the environment. We also conducted our study at precisely the same time and found that 55% across the country were very concerned about the environment. Moreover, we found that 67% of Ontario small businesses were very concerned about the environment, and that was the highest we found across the country.

Ms Ciglen: These results are tabulated in a chart on page 2 of our brief.

Mr Mallett: The government should find it encouraging that the small business sector and public awareness is indeed very high in this province.

Attitudes are only one half of the issue. It also has to be translated into action, and looking at behaviour we find consistent results. More than 70% of our firms conduct some degree of reuse, recycling or composting at their businesses, and this is across all various types of waste materials, whether it be car batteries, paper, cardboard, glass, plastic, metal, what have you. It is across the board.

We also find that the waste diversion has been substantial. Two out of every five businesses in the province have reduced their waste as a result of the 3Rs activity by more than 20% and one in eight has reduced its waste by more than 50%. These results are more than a year old. I am sure that if we had looked again, we would have found significantly greater results. These results are also not a result of any government intervention or government regulation.

Can even better results be obtained? Of course they can. I think everybody knows that there is still potential out there, but the government is taking this potential and saying, "Aha, the business community is not doing its part." Instead we see the unused potential in terms of the barriers small firms are facing in trying to deal with their waste. A large organization, such as a large car manufacturer with a stamping operation, can generate tonnes of scrap metal of consistent alloy that is relatively efficient to get to a recycling facility or a reuse facility. A small business may generate a dozen envelopes, a couple of pounds of fine paper, a couple of pounds of coated paper, maybe a deskful in a week, and there is certainly not a cost-effective way for that person to get that material directly to a recycler. Of course, if they can find someone to offer that service for them, it is certainly going to be more expensive because it is less efficient to do so, and it has to be separated as well. We found that the biggest barrier to small business reuse/recycling was the lack of infrastructure for collection. We found the second largest reason was the lack of recycling technologies, and about 20% of the firms felt they needed more information about recycling.

1050

The government's proposal on this legislation is that paperwork is the best way to pave the path to a greener society. Although structured programs and paperwork-based procedures are commonplace to large organizations and to governments, they are completely out of place in a small-firm environment. We find that the effort to plan to do something is more than the effort to actually do something and we find that firms in fact, instead of developing a purchasing plan or a new purchasing plan for recyclable products, are simply walking into their business supply store and deciding to buy recycled paper. That is the extent of their plan and that is all that is really necessary.

Mandatory paperwork is also counterproductive. We find that a broad range of studies into regulatory compliance point out that regulations are 10 to 20 times more onerous on small firms than they are on large firms, say, of a couple of hundred employees or more.

It is important to note that business owners have to do the work themselves. They do not have a waste compliance office or department to handle this. They do all the work themselves. They also do their employee management. They also do their financial management. So they do not look at waste management issues in isolation. They have all sorts of other issues they have to deal with, and to a business owner who is already spending 60 hours a week at his firm, asking him to complete more paperwork, as this legislation would result in regulations to ask these firms to do, is not going to be received very well at all. We find paperwork concerns are the second most serious concerns facing our members in Ontario, as you can see in the handout on the front of the kit.

Ms Ciglen: It is the chart on your kits.

Mr Mallett: The government would not just be inconveniencing a small portion of the business sector. Firms with employees of five or fewer make up three quarters of the total number of businesses in the province, which makes them essentially no larger than a typical household. They certainly share the same constraints and the same abilities as a household, so why not treat them in the same fashion? The approach of Bill 143 is not appropriate in the household sector and therefore it is not appropriate in dealing with small business.

The final kicker to this legislation is that it disregards completely the cooperative approach that has been given such a high profile by this government. Bill 143's message to the business community is that government does not trust it, and that is particularly galling to a small business which has been doing its utmost to deal with environmental issues under very difficult economic conditions.

We feel the Ministry of the Environment should retarget this legislation to deal with breaking down some of the barriers small firms face in developing recycling facilities or developing reuse as well. They should assist and enable local municipalities to provide blue box programs, depots or equivalent infrastructure for small businesses to let them better participate in the separation of reusable and recyclable waste. The present lack of such infrastructure is the biggest problem they are facing right now; it is certainly not a lack of desire.

The government should also pay more attention to developing better markets and technologies for recyclables and reusables, and of course, instead of mandatory compliance measures, the government should be assisting firms in prioritizing waste management issues along the lines of the CFIB's efforts, which is another part of our handout.

Ms Ciglen: We just put this together, together with Pollution Probe. It is called An Environmental Checklist for Small Business. It gives a lot of very practical tips small businesses can put into effect in their firms right now to put the 3Rs into practice.

Mr Mallett: We are also currently working with the Canadian Standards Association to develop a comprehensive but simple environmental management system to allow firms to help them prioritize the issues they must deal with, but provide it on a voluntary basis so they can make it fit their business to their needs.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. Mr Wiseman.

Mr Wiseman: I have a number of points. We have heard a number of deputations from people who have asked for more regulation because they have services to offer and have things available to them. I know that one of the groups that could not make it yesterday but has contacted me, V-Trac, has a method of squeezing oil out of oil filters. We heard from another group that takes oil filters apart, and they cannot get very far in the private market because small business says we must regulate them.

Also, the regulations that may evolve out of Initiatives Paper No 1 will not apply to small businesses. The government recognizes that there are special needs. Have you had any contacts and any communications about Initiatives Paper No 1, and are you not aware of this limitation?

Mr Mallett: We have looked at Initiatives Paper No 1 and we presented a brief to the waste reduction office. If you read the description of the industrial, commercial and institutional sector, it includes everybody and that is what they say, that it will include large firms of over 100 employees, in certain sectors at a certain date. I believe it is July 1992. By December 31, 1993, it is expected to apply to everybody. That is what the wording in Initiatives Paper No 1 says.

Mr Wiseman: Can you comment on the other section?

Mr Mallett: Can I answer the other question first?

Mr Wiseman: Yes, I was just going to ask you to comment on it, because the bottom line here is that whenever you pass rules or regulations you are aiming at the group of the people who do not voluntarily comply. I would like you to comment on that and the conjunction of the groups that have said they have these services to offer and say, "We're waiting for the government to regulate oil filters out of landfill sites."

Mr Mallett: That is not what this part IV is looking at. The problems recyclers are having are certainly in the lack of supply coming down to them to allow them to squeeze oil out of oil filters. The problem is not a lack of desire for the generators of the oil filters; it is the lack of ability to get small numbers from point A to point B. It is certainly far more costly for a one- or two-person garage to do this than it is for a large multi-bay service station.

Mr Wiseman: That is not the fact. That is not the case.

Mrs Fawcett: Thank you for your presentation. In speaking to many small businesses and people who are running them, they are really extremely concerned about this legislation and I think you have put forward a lot of those concerns. I gather, and I hope you agree, that incentives and cooperation rather than legislation allow you to work within a framework and do not legislate you out of business, because really, basically it is in your own best interests to make all these environmental changes. Would you agree? Would you like to just comment?

Mr Mallett: That is certainly our reading of the small business sector. There are barriers in the way of small firms. These barriers are called economies of scale, which are fundamental market distortions small firms have to face in many aspects of their business. Regulation is one of them. The government should recognize that simply putting broad-brush regulations on top of the business sector will have differing effects depending on the size of business, and we think the approach of the legislation should be to help offset these barriers rather than simply apply a layer of regulation on top.

The Chair: There is a question from the parliamentary assistant.

Mr O'Connor: Just on that point, because we have been talking about the broad-brush approach to regulations and how it affects small business around the first waste initiatives paper, perhaps we can get David McRobert to respond briefly about that, because I think it has been addressed by a couple of members here and yourself as well.

Mr McRobert: As the representatives of the waste reduction office have indicated at previous hearings, we are consulting with representatives of small business and of many sectors regarding the exact contents of the regulations which will be promulgated based on Initiatives Paper No 1. Initiatives Paper No 1 was a consultation document. In it certain dates were indicated for the phase-in of the regulations that would be promulgated based on Initiatives paper No 1. Those dates are definitely not finalized. We are very sensitive to the concerns of small business and many sectors about the impact of the proposed regulations on them and we are trying to make sure the regulations are designed in such a way that the needs of those sectors can be taken into account.

The Chair: Thank you very much for the clarification. There are a couple of minutes remaining, if you would like to sum up.

Ms Ciglen: Just in terms of delaying the application of regulation to the small business sector, while certainly a delay is better than an immediate implementation, it still does not really solve the problem. Eventually, down the road, they are still going to need to cope with a layer of regulation without the infrastructure problems being addressed. Those are what the research shows are the real concern. If there were a better collection infrastructure in particular out there, part of the problem would already be solved, so while delaying regulation can be a help, it still does not really address the problem. What we would like to see this government look at is addressing those infrastructure problems. We see that as a place where the government can make a real impact. The truth is that this is government's job. That is where government should be directing itself.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. We appreciate your coming before the committee. I know you realize that you can continue to communicate with us in writing, if there is additional information you would like to share with us.

1100

THE RECREATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF MAPLE

The Chair: I would like to call TRAC-M, the next presenter. Begin by introducing yourself for the committee. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We appreciate your coming before the standing committee this morning.

Mr Consiglio: Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Frank Consiglio and I am addressing you this morning as president of The Recreational Advisory Committee of Maple. Some may say that we are fortunate to have the opportunity to address you today, but I disagree, and so do my colleagues on TRAC-M. We are angry and appalled that we as residents of Vaughan, and all residents of Ontario for that matter, must come before this committee today to redefend our fundamental environmental rights currently provided by the Environmental Protection Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Municipal Act and the Planning Act.

We find it absolutely mind-boggling that while in opposition the Minister of the Environment was a staunch supporter of environmental rights and that now with Bill 143, which she introduced into the House, she has proposed to flush those same environmental rights right down the sewer, no pun intended. Talk about a Jekyll and Hyde. Was that not just a fictional character?

Voters believe they elect politicians to represent the community's best interest by sticking to their campaign promises, but this bill is just another nail in the coffin of that popular myth. I do not believe we are born sceptical or cynical, but you sure cannot blame us for being so after a government does a complete 360-degree turnaround on an issue of such importance. The government of Ontario is setting a very dangerous precedent with this bill by eliminating the rights of individuals and municipalities. Where will it end? What other future crisis, perceived or real, will prompt similar legislation?

The Metropolitan Toronto works department produced a report that indicated that due to a number of factors, such as export, the recession we are currently in and the 3Rs, the latest closure date for the Keele Valley landfill could be as far off as July 1999. So where is the crisis? This certainly would give the government ample time to conduct a full environmental study, as well as an opportunity to consider alternative methods of waste disposal.

I am here as the president of TRAC-M, which is a recreational advisory body in Maple. The majority of recreational activities such as cycling, jogging, soccer for children, baseball etc take place outdoors. It is certainly no different in our community: That is where most of the activities take place. It is understandable that the residents in our community are becoming increasingly more concerned with the possibility of the expansion of the Keele Valley landfill.

This has created a certain degree of anxiety among residents with concern to personal health and quality of life. We currently endure the traffic of hundreds of trucks on our streets daily, thousands of seagulls in our neighbourhoods which contribute, in their own way, to waste problems, garbage that blows on to our streets and on to our properties on a continual basis on windy days.

Our generation, and in particular future generations, will enjoy more leisure and recreational time. We would like to enjoy those activities within our own community without fear of another Love Canal.

I feel that this committee and this government have a window opportunity to restore some confidence and credibility to our democratic system of government. Demonstrate to residents of Ontario that you have listened to the many petitions that have come before you over the last couple of weeks and that in fact you have heard the pleas of numerous groups to please not trash our rights. Wipe clean part III of Bill 143.

Mr Sola: Sir, you state that TRAC-M has had to "redefend our fundamental environmental rights." That says to me that you have had to defend your environmental rights on several occasions. Would you mind detailing how many times you have had to go before committees or government bodies in order to try to protect those environmental rights?

Mr Consiglio: I will tell you the truth: This is the very first time. Maybe the word "redefend" was inappropriate, but I am here defending environmental rights we enjoy under those acts stated above. I just do not think it is appropriate of the government that is in power, although it holds a majority, to railroad legislation through without giving it due process.

Mr Sola: Further on you state that Bill 143 takes away the opportunity to consider alternative methods because it predisposes people to eliminate, I guess, incineration and other methods. Would you elaborate on that? Do you have any alternative methods in mind that you think Bill 143 eliminates?

Mr Consiglio: Incineration could be a possibility. I know parts of this country are using it. Different provinces are using it successfully and it is being used successfully in the European Community and Japan. Transportation of waste was an issue before us very early on in these discussions. It was turned down. That certainly could be a possibility. There would be a cost factor, but it certainly should and could be considered.

Mr Sola: So you are not a proponent of these methods? You just want them considered to see their feasibility and the environmental safety aspects of these alternative methods?

Mr Consiglio: Yes.

1110

Mr Wiseman: We have heard from a number of groups from Maple and Vaughan. I do not know if you have heard the testimony and my comments to them, but I will make them quickly to you. Anything that comes out of the Maple landfill site in terms of leachate winds up about 400 metres to a mile from my door. Your problems are my problems. So it is with a great deal of care and concern that I evaluate this proposal in terms of another lift on Keele Valley.

I just want to review a little of the history. To start with, the former government was going to allow an EPA hearing on two greenfield sites, in 6B and P1. The one for the P1, I can tell you quite clearly, would have been dragged out in the courts for as long as the people of Pickering could do it. It would not have been up and running in the time frame some people dream about. The promise was made to have a full Environmental Assessment Act hearing on that. When the minister acknowledged that, P1 was removed from the table because it obviously would not pass. Dillon had already indicated it sat on aquifers and was impossible to construct.

The York proposal for an interim site was another lift on Keele Valley. So what we have here is a very difficult situation, and all I can tell you is that it is not one that brings me any pleasure to have to consider it, but the minister has said that the fullest possible analysis will be done on Keele Valley.

I ask you to check back through some of the other proposals. The CP long-haul rail proposal has the same number and more of trucks going into your community to that yard, because they would be coming from all over the GTA at this point to haul garbage up to Kirkland Lake, to a community that has already indicated in some ways that it does not want the garbage either. If you have any comments on this, it is like the presentation we had the other day -- it is spokes of the wheel, it is huge.

Mr Consiglio: Mr Wiseman, all I can say really is that besides the fact that I live in Maple, and maybe the leachate is a little closer to my doorstep than yours, and I certainly do appreciate your comment and your concerns, what our particular committee is protesting is the fact that with part III this bill pretty well gives government carte blanche to go ahead and expand and expand, not only in Maple but right across the province of Ontario.

Mr Wiseman: P1 would say that it had that power before and that it was used.

Ms Haeck: One of the comments that really struck me the most was the fact that you wanted incineration back on the table for consideration. By the same token, you are also very much involved in the sporting community and outdoor sport is part of your lifestyle. I am not sure how much you have followed the committee over the last several weeks, but very clearly the kind of scientific analysis we are getting is that in fact there are an awful lot of materials thrown into the air which are very dangerous to people's health. As someone who is not anxious to promote this kind of activity -- I am quite sure you are interested in the health of yourself and your fellow citizens -- do you not think it would be advisable to limit the consideration of a method of disposal which is so dangerous?

Mr Consiglio: The communities that are currently involved in that particular handling of waste must have found it acceptable. They must have standards in there, and they meet those standards. I am thinking of Japan and the European Community. I am sure those communities also care about their children.

We are looking at not only today's problem, but the problem from here on in, the long-term problem. With the way technology has advanced over the last decade, there is no reason I should not believe why technology could not advance so that incineration could be one of the best methods. We only have so much land that we can dump into.

Ms Haeck: Could we send you some other details?

Mr Consiglio: Sure.

The Chair: Mrs Marland, you have the floor.

Mrs Marland: I am sorry I missed part of your presentation, but I just wanted to comment on your paragraph about the Love Canal. I do not know whether you are aware or not that the Love Canal was in fact a very safe tomb until government disturbed it. When the Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corp originally put its discarded drums and so forth into what was to have been the canal designed by the engineer by the name of Love, it was sealed with the same soil that it had been dug through, which was solid clay, and that whole Love Canal was safe and sealed totally impervious to leachate because of the type of clay until government came along.

One level of government, in fact the city of Niagara Falls, New York, forced the company that owned the property to sell it to the school board in order to build a school on the site.

Mr Wiseman: A subdivision.

Mrs Marland: There is a perfect example of where government interferes with a process and things get totally turned around and the people who get blamed often are the innocent bystanders.

In that particular incident the school board said, "We want that land for our school." The subdivision already existed around the property, I would tell Mr Wiseman in response to his interjection. But I think we have to be very careful where we ask government to do one thing and not to do another, because as soon as we give government the kind of power that is in Bill 143, I think you would agree that nobody's best interests are protected.

Mr Consiglio: I agree 100%.

The Chair: There are a few minutes remaining if you would like to sum up.

Mr Consiglio: In summary, as a layperson you see different governments come into power, you listen to their platforms during election time, and no sooner do they receive that power than they abuse it. This particular government proposed to be the government of the people, the green party, the party that listens, the party that would have consultation with voters.

We certainly have seen none of that with respect to Bill 143. Our community has written hundreds if not thousands of letters. We marched down on Queen's Park in November, and I do not think any of us have received a reply. I do not want to sound terribly cynical but, boy, come next election, I just do not know if I will be voting at all. Thank you very much.

The Chair: I think you have delivered a very important presentation for the committee. We appreciate your coming today. If there is additional information, please feel free to continue to communicate with us in writing. Thank you for coming to the committee.

1120

MISSISSAUGA BOARD OF TRADE

The Chair: Our next presentation is the Mississauga Board of Trade. Please come forward and begin your presentation by introducing yourself for the committee. You have 20 minutes for your presentation.

Mr Gallant: My name is Wayne Gallant and I am past president of the Mississauga Board of Trade. The Mississauga Board of Trade currently has a membership of 2,300 businesswomen and businessmen who represent approximately 1,600 companies located in Mississauga.

Our board membership covers all aspects of industry and commerce. Our directory lists over 500 different business classifications. Our members employ more than 50,000 people in Mississauga. We truly believe the Mississauga Board of Trade is the voice of business in Mississauga.

With me today are Norm White, a lawyer, member of our environment committee and a director of the board of trade, Lawrence Bryan, the research and policy coordinator of the board and David Gordon, the executive director of the board.

The legislative process: This committee is to be congratulated for holding these hearings. The process allows all political parties firsthand contact with members of the public who may be impacted by the changes and to hear of actual situations which the bill's drafters may not have considered or may not have understood fully during the drafting stage. The board fully supports this consultation process.

Further, the board wishes to acknowledge the Honourable Ruth Grier, the current Minister of the Environment, for her obvious commitment to environmental issues, both while in opposition and now in the government. To have such a minister on the treasury benches whose foremost concern is to continue the necessary work of shifting this great province of Ontario from a consumer society to a conserver society is a great bonus to all of us who work daily towards this critically important goal.

As you know, Mississauga stands at the forefront of waste management initiatives and control in this province. Mississauga was a pioneer in the blue box recycling program. Mississauga has made substantial progress in applying the 3Rs and thereby slowing the rate of landfill disposal in our city. Our city and our mayor, Her Worship Hazel McCallion, remain open-minded to any proven option to landfill waste management in use anywhere around the world.

The central issue: I must state on behalf of the Mississauga Board of Trade and its 2,300 members employing some 50,000 workers that Bill 143 as proposed conveys corruptive, absolute power to the minister. It is quite unacceptable in this parliamentary democracy of Ontario and should be withdrawn forthwith without further debate.

Bill 143 overrides existing legislation, specifically the Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Municipal Act, the Municipal Board Act and the Planning Act, and puts at risk accepted means of governing and doing business. Relations from the provincial government to the municipalities, among the municipalities and from various levels of government to the people, to the taxpayers, to the voters are all cast aside by this proposal.

Bill 143 arrogates to the minister a set of powers completely unacceptable in Canadian parliamentary democracy, which is an evolutionary system of ministerial statements before the House, full parliamentary debate, legislative scrutiny over ministerial and departmental financial expenditures, public presentations to legislators at all phases of a bill's enactment, and ultimately full recourse for other levels of government, citizens' groups and individuals against allegedly arbitrary and capricious misuse of powers entrusted to the ministers or public servants.

Bill 143 further allows the minister to delegate these powers, unacceptable in the hands of a minister of the crown, to an appointed public servant in the direct employ of that minister, the so-called director of approvals. This delegation eliminates any kind of legislative monitoring and debate, any financial scrutiny and any opportunity for citizen recourse against the improper application of these powers by a public servant.

Not since the Family Compact have we in Ontario seen such an attempt to rule by personal whim, secretive writ or bureaucratic fiat beyond the pale of legislative scrutiny and control. Such legislation is abhorrent in the 21st-century atmosphere of open, participatory government consultation with citizen-partnership groups, on which the present government places so much emphasis.

We do not need a War Measures Act for waste management in Mississauga. The members of this standing committee can ensure the province does not decree such wide-reaching suspension of normal government relationships by acting in concert to have Bill 143 withdrawn and replaced by a bill which deals with real-world waste management solutions in a realistic, open-minded manner.

Waste management economics: Citizens and business react negatively to waste management uncertainties such as:

Waste recycling costs $170 a tonne in Mississauga, $87 a tonne to landfill in Mississauga, but only $60 a tonne to ship the waste to the northern United States.

Waste recycling companies go bankrupt in Ontario because there is no aftermarket for recycled materials.

Some municipalities may simply be landfilling the added-cost recycled waste because there is no other way to handle the recycled materials logjam, which is the economic and moral equivalent of burying thousands of dollars in the ground.

The Minister of the Environment categorically rejects proven alternatives such as post-recycled garbage as fuel to landfill waste management, even though these alternatives are in use in other progressive, environmentally responsible jurisdictions.

"Manage your waste at home" edicts are issued by the minister for all of Ontario, unless your home happens to be Ottawa-Carleton or Kingston. Why do these municipalities have different ground rules?

Companies that have undergone an environmental assessment hearing process for some five years, costing untold thousands of dollars, are prevented from completing this process.

Companies proposing waste management solutions often get no answers from the ministry for periods of three years or more.

If the world of waste management is to be governed by unsubstantiated ministerial emotions, will this government attempt to manage the other industrial sectors in the same secretive, unaccountable fashion?

In summary, let me restate our position. Bill 143 as proposed is unacceptable to Ontario parliamentary traditions and should be withdrawn without further debate. We acknowledge the Honourable Ruth Grier for her obvious dedication and concern for the environment. We suggest all our time would be better spent developing the necessary waste management partnerships based on mutual trust and respect than on any further contemplation of the misguided power arrogations outlined in the bill.

Accordingly, the Mississauga Board of Trade recommends: immediate withdrawal of Bill 143; immediate public consultations with waste management partners; legislated elimination of ministerial reports as an instrument of the government; incorporation of the principles of disentanglement in the matter of waste management; amendments by this standing committee to existing legislation as and if required based on its public consultation process; legislated return to the orderly and established negotiations-arbitration process to follow through on public commitments for interim landfill closures and renewal of existing landfill site selections, and a legislated open mind to all waste management options as developed around the world.

Under possible amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act we propose: a legislative reduction in the process and time frame for decision-making; maximum life for landfill sites not to be greater than 20 years; landfill site search to focus on selecting one environmentally safe and sound site, and subsequently to locate additional acceptable sites to be used as future landfill locations.

The Mississauga Board of Trade strongly supports the environmental assessment process as the proper venue to consider all waste management alternatives. The minister should not limit the consideration of any alternative without first conducting a full and thorough scientific review of that alternative, in particular, with respect to a personal bias against incineration, investment tax incentives and government-sponsored R&D for new applications of recycled materials to eliminate the current logjam of post-recycled materials, to encourage innovative private sector operations in this growth industry and to accommodate any and all reused or recycled materials from the waste stream.

1130

Ms Haeck: Thank you, Mr Gallant. We obviously have some differing opinions on a number of fronts in this. I will admit very much right off the top I am not pro-incineration at all and I know there are a number of other members sitting around this table, including some opposition members, who would agree with that particular stance. We have heard from a number of citizens in your area who also have some rather strong feelings about living under the stack of an incinerator and who probably have debated with you that particular point on other occasions.

I do want to raise a point that you raised on page 3 of your submission which you did not read into the record. It relates to cost of garbage and how you basically say, "Unfortunately, Mississauga is required by the effect of provincial policies to spend more on garbage than on people." In a recent article that appeared in the Mississauga News -- of January 31, 1992, for all those interested -- it indicates that the cost to Peel taxpayers of not keeping the Britannia dump open could be a staggering $209 million over the next five years and then goes on to outline the impact of closing this dump. "Peel will not only have to pay millions of dollars to ship garbage to an as yet unidentified site, but the municipality will lose the considerable revenue it receives from the tipping fees charged to use the dump." Do you have any idea of the tipping fees that Mississauga garners from this and how this would affect what you say is the expenditure not being allowed to go to people that has to be spent on garbage?

Mr Bryan: That is a question that we can ask of the mayor. We are not here to debate the municipal dumping fee.

Mr Gallant: I do not know. The question was responded to by Lawrence Bryan. He feels that we are not here to debate the dumping fee. However, we can respond to that question in writing at a future time.

Ms Haeck: That is income. That is part of the whole process. Metro, as has been outlined in other areas, the GTA, makes very large sums of money from tipping fees. Obviously your region benefits from using that landfill site and will be able to use that money to build things like a new police headquarters, add money to Promenade Park, deal with improving of roads. So this is all something that I think I would ask you to take under advisement and to review and possibly revise your statement.

Mr Sola: As usual, Mississauga comes up with a well-researched and hard-hitting brief. I would like you to expand on the proposals you have here, where you say, "Bill 143 arrogates to the minister a set of powers completely unacceptable in Canadian parliamentary democracy."

You are not the first group to say that. It does not matter whether they are business groups, whether they are environmental groups that live in the vicinity of waste disposal sites or whether they are small business groups. They all feel very much offended by the fact that this Bill 143 is government by edict, government by decree, which takes away all the usual safeguards that we have had to date to disagree with the government or with the minister or with a certain bill.

Perhaps at the time when this minister was elected to government and became Minister of the Environment there may have been a crisis situation based on the records compiled up to that date but, because the depth of the recession showed up subsequent to the election of the minister, all the data we had have changed, and instead of the crisis being as profound as we thought, all the dates have been pushed back for the closing of all the landfills that Bill 143 is supposed to be dealing with. Yet the direction of the government is still to act as though it were pre-1990.

I wonder what that does to your sense of confidence in this government and what it does to the sense of confidence of business in general, especially when you take into consideration all the other pieces of legislation that this government is proposing, like the Labour Relations Act and the rent control bill and other bills.

Mr Gallant: I think you have to look at the fact that if this legislation goes through as proposed, this ministry will be able to dictate without any consultative process how it is going to handle waste management. There are ramifications, we think, down the road that other ministries could ask for the same powers within their own ministries.

The other aspect is that industry has possible solutions to some of our crises, if you wish to call waste management a crisis, and there may be others in other areas. But if at a point in time the government can dictate that a minister will decide how things will be done, industries will not come forward with their ideas or plan to invest their money if they know that two thirds of the way through their concept, the government can just change the rules they are playing under.

Industry does not work that way. We look for a payback, depending upon the dollars invested, over certain guidelines. Industry basically goes in the world now where it can be assured that payback at that point in time. So they are not going to come in and start developing a waste management program if they know in three years' time the minister can decide that program is no longer going to be in place. Their money is just down the drain.

Mrs Marland: I would like to congratulate the Mississauga Board of Trade for being here and being the voice of business and commerce in Mississauga and trying to do a conscientious job. I find it really interesting that the member for St Catharines-Brock draws attention to something that is a very important point in this presentation. I think it is really significant that in Peel we are spending $45 million for waste management and $31 million for welfare. I would have thought this socialist, Bob Rae government would have thought that was pretty significant too.

In any case, when the financial chief for the region of Peel talks about how much it is going to cost if we do not extend Britannia for one lift, the point he is making is that if we had not had the intervention of both the previous Liberal government and the current socialist government, we would not be in this mess. Region of Peel residents have spent $8 million trying to locate a new site, and here we are talking about what the alternatives are. Sure, the alternatives in this crisis are worse, because we are talking about shipping out of the province and possibly shipping long distance.

I would simply say in response to Ms Haeck, who asks ridiculous questions of the board of trade, which is not responsible for roads and other capital expenditures -- those questions should have been asked of the mayor of Mississauga when she was here, or of Mr Kolb, the regional chairman, this week.

I simply would ask the board of trade, when it lists its priorities of concern here in its summary on page 9, if it had one single wish that it might think the Minister of the Environment might amend in Bill 143, which of those would be its priority in terms of knowing we are probably not going to get any of them? What do you think might be the top of your list if it was possible?

Mr Gallant: I think our priority would be to immediately withdraw the bill. There is existing legislation that can handle the waste management of the province, the Environmental Protection Act, the Environmental Assessment Act etc. That was good legislation at the time it was developed, and I think it still is. Companies can operate within that legislation. Let the legislative process take its own due course. You do not need an overriding ministerial power to change the rules of the game at any time. So that would be our one concern. Immediately withdraw the bill.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Marland. Did you want to make an introduction before this deputation leaves?

Mrs Marland: No, I did not.

The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before the committee today. We appreciate your coming forward.

1140

CONSUMERS' GAS

The Chair: I would like to call next Consumers' Gas. Please come forward. Begin your presentation by introducing your deputation. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We welcome you to the standing committee on social development this morning. Could I ask that you begin your presentation now, please.

Mr Smith: Good morning. My name is Bill Smith, general manager of Consumers' Gas Metropolitan Toronto region. Joining me this morning is Hugh Erwin, director of facilities management, and Marika Hare, director of environmental services. We certainly appreciate this opportunity to appear before the standing committee on social development as it considers Bill 143, the Waste Management Act.

As the primary enabling legislation for Ontario's waste reduction action plan and as the driving force behind the implementation of the proposed waste management activities within the greater Toronto area, the bill certainly deserves everyone's careful attention. I am going to focus my brief comments on Bill 143 on those aspects which are of provincial application and, as a result, impact on Consumers' Gas throughout its franchise area, from the Niagara Peninsula to the Ottawa Valley.

In Bill 143, these include those Environmental Protection Act amendments that would allow the development of regulations for the waste reduction initiatives described in the government's discussion paper, waste reduction office Initiatives Paper No 1, Regulatory Measures to Achieve Ontario's Waste Reduction Targets.

In particular, I will address the following areas: first, the approach that Consumers' Gas has taken to solid waste management; second, the need to address market development for source-separated materials; third, the requirement to develop workable source separation programs; fourth, the need to clarify third-party obligations. Finally, I will outline what we believe is a more productive approach for governments to follow when encouraging industries to re-examine their solid waste management.

Consumers' Gas brings a unique perspective to the issue of waste management. Although described as part of the institutional, commercial and industrial sector, we do not manufacture any goods, nor do we sell any packages of natural gas in the traditional sense. Our activities are largely invisible in the public marketplace. Our delivery system is literally underground in our pipeline network.

Consumers' Gas is the largest natural gas distribution utility in Canada. More than one million residential, commercial and industrial customers depend on us for reliable energy services. Our distribution network includes Metropolitan Toronto and parts of central Ontario, the Niagara Peninsula, eastern Ontario and a little in northern New York state. Our pipeline network extends more than 22,000 kilometres, delivering about 10 billion cubic metres of natural gas a year to our customers.

The solid waste that we create is largely the byproduct of providing a safe and secure supply of natural gas and the normal administrative activities associated with that responsibility. However created, Consumers' Gas is committed to ensure the proper management of its solid waste. We are a company of over 3,000 employees, and our philosophy is one of good corporate citizenship and community involvement.

By such measures that may be used as net worth, we may seem big, but in fact we have our roots in a heritage of responsible service to meet the changing needs of local energy customers. We live and work in the communities we serve and we have a vested interest in the wellbeing and prosperity of these communities.

As an environmentally responsible company, we are proud of the role that natural gas can play in helping solve several environmental concerns. Producing and using natural gas is not without environmental impacts; however, as the cleanest-burning fossil fuel, natural gas can play a major role in improving the environment. When used in place of other, more polluting energy sources, it serves to minimize some of our most serious environmental problems, such as urban smog, acid rain and global warming.

There are environmental benefits whenever and however energy is saved. Consumers' Gas has been involved in the research, implementation and communication of energy conservation and efficiency measures for many years. Our corporate culture recognizes that as a responsible corporate guardian of a non-renewable natural resource that, when utilized wisely, has several environmental benefits, we have a special obligation towards the protection of the environment. As a result, the concept of sustainable development and the value of preventive environmental initiatives is not new to Consumers' Gas. Without the need of government regulations, we have been working to improve our company's solid waste management for several years.

Our environmental policy specifically commits Consumers' Gas to conducting all of its operations in an environmentally sensitive manner and to promoting employee and public awareness of environmental issues. As well, the company promotes the use of natural gas as an environmentally preferred fuel and we invest in the development of technology to improve the efficient utilization of natural gas.

Recently, the company has introduced an environmental code of ethics to provide employees with guiding principles so that they can better contribute to achieving the company's commitment to environmental protection in all its areas of activity. This commitment is something we take seriously. We recognize that environmentally sound waste management and resource conservation have several benefits, including improving company efficiency, lowering replacement costs, promoting employee job satisfaction, ensuring health and safety, as well as helping to protect the environment.

Two years ago Consumers' Gas established a waste management committee to assist in the development of an environmentally sustainable waste management system. The committee has adopted the 3Rs hierarchy of solid waste management and has developed several waste reduction, reuse and recycling initiatives. Further programs will continue to expand and improve upon this waste management system. As a result, Consumers' Gas is in support of the Ontario waste reduction targets of achieving at least 25% diversion of municipal waste from disposal by 1992 and 50% diversion by the year 2000. We also support the policies of the national packaging protocol.

We are moving to implement 3Rs waste management measures wherever we can. If we have not been able to completely apply the 3Rs to any one material, it is not for lack of effort or commitment but rather because of obstacles found in our way. Indeed, a company waste reduction goal has been established to reduce Consumers' Gas contribution to the landfill waste stream by 50% by 1995, as measured against 1989 volumes. We hope to achieve the provincial target five years before the province does itself.

The commitment is a challenging one, but we believe the results are worth it. While some initiatives may seem small on their own, when added all together, their combined impact is quite large. Some of our waste reduction initiatives to date include preparing new purchasing guidelines with the goal of increasing the use of products that minimize the amount and toxicity of materials requiring disposal and the avoidance of those products that contain excessive packaging and developing several company initiatives to reduce the amount of waste produced in the everyday office use of fine paper, computer printouts and photocopies.

Using an item over again in its original form for the same or different purpose makes good business and environmental sense. At Consumers' Gas we are examining ways to reuse all possible materials, including office equipment such as furniture and partitions, field equipment such as distribution fittings, which are reclaimed and reused, and regulators and electric motors, which are now rebuilt if possible.

Recycling allows waste materials to be used as a replacement for virgin materials in several different processes. At Consumers' Gas, the company's recycling activities originally focused on the recycling of fine paper which had been identified as the primary component of the company's waste stream. Today, a recycling program has been implemented for newspaper, computer printout paper, cardboard, magazines, aluminum pop and juice cans, polystyrene products, reprographic and printing chemicals and photographic films to avoid silver contamination.

1150

Field supplies such as distribution plastic pipe scraps are now collected and returned to a company for reprocessing. Natural gas appliances such as old water heaters are returned for scrap metal recycling, and the company's garages now recover tires, vehicle oils and grease, cleaning solvents and car batteries.

The list is continuously expanding. Consumers' Gas is actively investigating recycling opportunities for materials currently not recycled if they cannot be reused. In the interim, we are segregating and storing these products.

As you can see, voluntary waste reduction activities have been under way at Consumers' Gas for several years. As a result, the proposed introduction of mandatory waste reduction for Ontario's businesses and municipalities would not force Consumers' Gas to begin waste reduction initiatives, nor does it add anything to our existing initiatives.

We believe that clear, fair and sensible waste management requirements are in everyone's best interests, but the development of those requirements must take into account certain economic realities. The costs of doing business is not an acceptable excuse for not doing anything but it is a real factor that must be considered when new requirements are developed.

The proposed regulations contained in Bill 143 requiring major institutional, commercial and industrial waste generators to implement source separation, that is, recycling programs, waste audits and waste reduction work plans will in fact further change the way we do business. The specific company activities that will trigger the undertaking of these new requirements is primarily the management of the company's office buildings.

The following comments outline the types of clarification we believe are required for successful implementation and indicate some of the realities that governments need to be mindful of when developing waste management regulations. Consumers' Gas needs these concerns addressed in order to ensure that the existing programs at Consumers Gas will become fully integrated with the regulatory framework outlined in Bill 143. They are as follows:

1. Market development: While recognizing that an initiatives paper addressing the issue of market development strategies to ensure the utilization of recycled materials is in fact under preparation, the issue is of immediate concern to Consumers' Gas. The future expansion of our company's waste management activities is dependent less upon the introduction of regulatory direction than upon the existence of viable markets for the materials generated.

Diversion from disposal through the implementation of reduction, reuse and recycling programs will require the timely establishment of technical, financial and market development programs by the Ministry of the Environment. The implementation of Ontario's waste reduction plan will need to ensure that the necessary framework is in place for the 3Rs programs to succeed.

Consumers' Gas has several examples of materials that we have made every effort to recycle but have failed due to either a lack of a market or the prohibitive cost if in fact a market does exist. This ranges from old D-cell batteries to drywall and the mercury in old, used thermostats. The market development bottleneck needs to be addressed, and the timing of the waste reduction initiative should be integrated with those initiatives expanding the recycling marketplace. Failure to co-ordinate the development of a market for recycled materials will continue to result in inappropriate disposal. The banning of a material from the local municipal landfill may result in its increased illegal dumping if cost-effective markets are also not created.

2. Source separation program: The requirement for materials to be source-separated for construction activities appears based upon the size of the facility and not the size of the actual sites under construction. The approach proposed by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment could pose significant difficulties for companies such as ours whose primary function is not building construction.

Unlike construction firms which may focus their activities at one or more large sites, pipeline construction and maintenance operations at Consumers' Gas are usually undertaken at many small dispersed sites by crews of less than 10 persons. The work is usually completed in a period of a few days, with most being completed in less than one day. The introduction of source separation programs at smaller sites, which are often residential homes, may in some cases prove onerous with minimum environmental benefits resulting.

It could be that the consolidation of the resulting construction materials such as asphalt, concrete and excavated fill at our company's regional facilities may help resolve this concern. Consumers' Gas is currently examining its activities in this area and has undertaken a test of new technologies to help reduce the amount of excavated material requiring disposal.

3. Third-party obligations: Consumers' Gas often utilizes contractors to provide services to our customers, such as the company's water heater rental program, and to construct new pipeline facilities. Currently Consumers' Gas ensures that these businesses are aware of the company's waste management policies.

For example, contractors are encouraged to recycle the cardboard packaging generated by the water heater rental program and, if necessary, to return the cardboard to the company for inclusion in its recycling program. However, the issue of company responsibility for third-party activities needs to be clarified in Bill 143.

In conclusion, I hope I have made it clear that Consumers' Gas supports the concept of environmentally responsible waste management systems. We believe the adoption of the 3Rs hierarchy of solid waste management to guide the development of waste management programs and the establishment of waste audits can help produce a more productive workplace and a more healthy environment. However, the existence of certain market realities and the need for timely and clear direction will make the achievement of a workable waste management system a challenge. More than the introduction of enabling legislation is required.

In fact, the introduction of regulatory programs may not be the most efficient way to develop workable waste management programs. Another method does exist and has resulted in the creation of a national packaging protocol, a process in which Ontario participated. I am not sure whether you have a copy of that before you.

The Chair: We have all received a copy of your written brief.

Mr Smith: Through the development of meaningful partnerships between all players, industry has voluntarily committed to meeting the stated targets without the need of government regulations.

By addressing the economic realities of what it was proposing, the protocol succeeded in achieving industry buy-in, consistent standards across the country and agreement that regulations would be acceptable only if industry compliance was not forthcoming after a specific period of time. This "regulations if necessary but not necessarily regulations" approach has worked.

The role of government can often be most effective through the introduction of goals, policies and the yardsticks to measure our progress by. These should be subject to a life-cycle cost-benefit analysis and should establish a clear and workable waste management framework in which companies such as ours can function. If involvement is required, it should be directed towards the support of a viable marketplace for the source-separated materials.

Let industry determine how to best meet the standards set by the government through open consultation, as only industry is capable of actually implementing the desired programs and making them work. Let the command and control regulatory approach be replaced by the more productive approach of developing open partnerships and instilling a new philosophy of environmental responsibility.

Once again, let me thank the Chair and members of this committee for the opportunity to submit our perspective on some of the important waste management issues facing our province. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have on our presentation. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming before the standing committee on social development this morning. We appreciate your presentation and we have all received a copy of the material you have left with us. If there is additional information over the course of our hearings that you think might be helpful, I know you will communicate with us in writing.

Mr Smith: Certainly.

Mrs Marland: Can we put questions on the record?

The Chair: No, there is no time.

1200

ONTARIO LONG TERM RESIDENTIAL CARE ASSOCIATION
ONTARIO NURSING HOME ASSOCIATION

The Chair: I would like to call next the Ontario Long Term Residential Care Association. Come forward please and introduce yourselves to the committee. We have 20 minutes for your presentation. We ask if you would leave a few minutes at the end for questions from committee members. Please begin your presentation now.

Mr Nightingale: My name is Harvey Nightingale from the Ontario Nursing Home Association. With me are Rick Winchell of the Ontario Long Term Residential Care Association and Maria Kelleher, our consultant. Thank you for letting us present our submission this afternoon. Our members provide essential care for more than 50,000 elderly and disabled residents in over 500 facilities throughout the province.

We are very concerned about the impact Bill 143 will have on our members' operations. I refer specifically to part 1V, section 33 of Bill 143. This section provides enabling legislation for the Ontario waste reduction action plan and Initiatives Paper No 1. We feel that the initiatives paper is flawed and we oppose any attempts to legislate this initiative as it is presently written.

We cannot support any initiative that would compromise the level of essential care that is provided for elderly people in Ontario. We believe implementation of the part of Bill 143 that deals with the waste reduction action plan will jeopardize the health and wellbeing of our residents.

Our associations object to several aspects of the regulations and to the process by which they were developed. Despite the spirit of consultation that is said to be favoured by the present government, we were not consulted at any time during the development of Initiatives Paper No 1 and at no point was either OLTRCA or ONHA notified about the release of Initiatives Paper No 1. Regardless of the significant new responsibility the regulation seeks to impose on our sector, we were not notified of its release. We object to the fact that we found out about the preparation and release of the paper by accident.

Our combined membership only contributes between 0.3% and 0.5% of Ontario's waste stream. We are not clear as to why we were specifically identified as an ICI waste generator in the initiatives paper. Perhaps in developing this regulation, the Ministry of the Environment was unaware of our small contribution to the waste stream.

We feel that the lack of basic waste generation and composition data provides a flawed basis for the entire waste reduction action plan program. We are concerned that waste reduction targets have been developed in the absence of essential information or even an informal discussion with our associations. From our perspective, an effective waste reduction plan can only be developed following a waste audit which provides details on the quantity and composition of waste generated by our sector. May I stress that this has not been done to date.

On the positive side, I would like to stress that our members, the members of the long-term care sector, are prepared to do their part to help the environment. However, we have to protest the addition of more regulations. We are heavily regulated as it is. Imposing mandatory waste reduction regulations burdens us with targets that we simply cannot achieve, ladies and gentlemen.

Our concerns regarding the content of the initiatives paper are as follows:

The Ministry of the Environment has set waste diversion targets of 25% for 1992 and 50% for 2000, using 1987 as a base year. Having completed a very brief study, our assessment shows that for the long-term care sector these targets are probably not attainable.

Our research shows that at present the necessary infrastructure for waste diversion does not exist across the province. Even in the greater Toronto area some of our members do not have access to municipal recycling programs and in other parts of Ontario the options are even fewer. Until there is an adequate infrastructure in place, the diversion objectives set out in the initiatives paper will not be attainable. We feel that it is unreasonable to penalize our members before facilities exist which enable them to comply fully with the intent of the regulation.

A great deal of the weight of our sector's waste is composed of materials which would not be readily recyclable or easily diverted even if the general collection infrastructure were available. Much of our waste consists of materials for which there is no recycling infrastructure. This includes items such as broken dishware, worn-out sheets and towels, broken beds and mattresses.

We also use several other items that cannot be reduced, reused or recycled. Single-serve packages like jams and creamers are essential for long-term care facilities. The packages do not contribute much to our waste although the cardboard in which they are packaged contributes some waste. We must continue to use products like this to maintain the high standards of health and sanitation that are so important for our residents.

As part of the overall drive for waste reduction, section 3.7 of the initiatives paper calls for our operations to develop source separation programs for newsprint, glass, aluminum, ferrous, cardboard and fine paper. Had we been consulted, the ministry would have learned that items such as fine paper and newsprint do not constitute a large portion of our waste. Even with the very best and most efficient separation program, it is unlikely that we could divert much waste by source-separating these materials.

Our staff are experts in providing care for elderly residents. I want to come back and stress that. They are not trained in waste management. According to the proposed regulation, our staff are to be responsible for carrying out waste audits. They will also be responsible for developing waste reduction action plans, implementing source separation programs and training staff and residents to participate in all aspects of recycling. This greatly extends their current areas of responsibility.

Separating and auditing waste will impose a tremendous time burden. It will also require extensive training and monitoring. The prospect of developing waste audits for each of the 500 facilities across the province is, to say the least, daunting.

Not only were we not informed about this requirement, but each facility with more than 100 beds is presently required to complete waste audits and to develop work plans by July 1992. It is February. That leaves less than five full months to set an effective process in motion. This time frame must be re-examined.

The initiatives paper provides a form that must be filled in and maintained onsite. It looks simple but really requires a detailed analysis of each material that goes into our waste stream. Not only are we required to determine our waste for this and every subsequent year, the regulations request that we provide information related to our waste generation in 1987. I must tell you in all honesty that these figures are not likely to be available in any valid form.

The proposed process of developing waste audits is somewhat confusing as well. The initiatives paper outlines requirements for assessing each waste material by weight. We are to note what we did to avoid sending it to disposal and how much we diverted. Is the Ministry of the Environment suggesting that our staff sort through our garbage bags? Are we supposed to count Kleenexes and Saran Wrap or lump everything together?

1210

Difficult as this will be in 1992, I have no idea how we are going to provide the numbers for 1987. We do not pretend to have this expertise on hand and we certainly do not have the resources available to hire people to do this for us. Complying with the proposed regulation means increasing the cost of our service and ultimately reducing accessibility to those who need it most. I am afraid that if this aspect of Bill 143 is applied to our sector, we will incur a large expense to reduce a very minimal portion of the provincial waste stream. This is not effective use of our very limited funds.

Source separation programs are mandated for our facilities following completion of the waste audit process. Here we encounter an additional problem: space. Most of our facilities are at least 10 years old and were built to accommodate specific functions, which do not include source separation of waste. I am talking at the very least of 330 nursing homes, of which 95% were built before 1980. Most of our facilities cannot include the space. Regardless of whether we have the space, we cannot generate enough room to separate all the materials. We do not have the room and we simply cannot add on to the room.

For instance, if you took a 200-bed facility which chooses to provide nutritional supplement to its residents, they will use at least 30 large cans for each meal or break. If various materials must be separated, that means at least 30 cans per meal that must be washed, dried and stored. Our facilities were designed to be space-efficient. We simply do not have extra space for washing and storing of these cans.

The easy answer is to add new rooms or retrofit the facilities to the materials. This is not possible, especially in these very economic restraint times. Not all facilities have abundant extra space and indeed some of our older facilities are simply not amenable to the required changes. For example, many facilities are moving back to using reusable diapers. Yet for some operations this is not a viable option. Diapers contain bacteria and germs that must be controlled. Facilities which use reusable rather than disposable diapers need several sluicing stations. Regulations for nursing homes require at least one per floor. We have to separate the laundry chutes, and additional laundry facilities and staff processes must be followed. For some facilities the retrofit is financially or physically impossible.

No matter how much we would like to do this, the bottom line is that the operational changes in our facilities that would in any way reduce our ability to control infection are unacceptable. Most of our residents are elderly and frail. We are deeply concerned that many of the changes required to comply with this regulation, should it be legislated, will be disruptive to our operations and reduce our ability to control the spread of infection. Exposing our residents to germs from stockpiled waste materials is something we cannot do.

Long-term care facilities are already actively attempting to reduce waste and in many facilities staff have developed systems that suit their operations and achieve significant waste reduction in a cost-effective manner. Many innovative programs that include reducing packaging and products, compacting waste and using composters as well as all kinds of recycling and reuse systems are presently operating. Most facilities use reusable china, linen and silver or are using reusable diapers, and many are investigating how to reduce waste as a cost-effective business measure.

We feel that the waste reduction action plan as currently written is not appropriate to our sector. We also feel that a voluntary approach is preferable to further legislation. Our regulatory responsibilities are onerous enough at present. To achieve the goal of reducing waste disposal in Ontario through a waste reduction action plan, on behalf of our two associations I would offer the following suggestions:

1. Develop more appropriate waste reduction targets for our sector based on the results of waste audits and assessment of operational considerations. Let us conduct waste audits and discuss reasonable, achievable targets with the Ministry of the Environment before legislating an unreasonable and unworkable system.

2. We want to be given the opportunity to work with government on a voluntary basis to implement effective measures over a more realistic time frame. Our members have proven that we are committed to reducing waste where possible. We would prefer greater guidance and less regulation from government on this issue. I can assure that our members will respond appropriately.

3. Let us consider relaxing the emphasis on numerical standards for the program at least for the present. Let us develop waste-tracking systems if need be, but do not expect everything to be up and running by July of this year.

4. Before mandating source separation by regulation, ensure that a viable recycling and composting infrastructure is operating in at least 75% of Ontario communities. I cannot stress that enough.

5. Until the above is accomplished the government should agree to postpone the development of regulations pertaining to the waste reduction action plan.

Our members recognize the urgency of the waste situation in Ontario. However, we cannot support an initiative that will threaten the integrity of our operations, and more important, the health and wellbeing of our residents. By prematurely enshrining the Initiatives Paper No 1 in Bill 143, the government of Ontario threatens to do just that.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for your time. We are prepared to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate your representation and your presentation.

Mrs Marland: This is one of the most compelling presentations I have heard. I cannot believe the impact this is going to have on your sector, and I really appreciate what you have told us today. There is such an irony here that government does not build homes for the aged any more and government does not build nursing homes or allocate funding for nursing home beds any more. The only people out there to look after our frail and elderly senior citizens who require nursing homes are the private sector.

Here we have proposals that are so absurd. Imagine the example which you give about whether you are going to be asked to count your Kleenexes. The answer is probably yes. If they are suggesting that you have to know what your waste generation was in 1987, it is entirely likely that they are going to ask you to count your Kleenexes.

I am just floored to learn from your presentation what the ramifications are to your sector. As dismal as it is to know, I am quite sure that Bob Rae's socialist government is interested in putting the private sector in nursing home care out of business. We have seen that direction in other areas like child care, for example. I am sure private nursing homes are next.

When you talk about not having the resources to hire people to do this, we know that. We in the Progressive Conservative caucus understand that, because we know that your resources are stretched so thin in providing the nursing care, let alone counting the garbage and weighing it and everything else. I think the most important point you make is that even if you could do all this, the fact is that the markets do not exist. I would ask you if that is the most important point.

The other important point is that there are simply options that a health care facility does not have. You cannot have everybody dipping into the same marmalade jar or the same dish of butter or everything else. Disposable diapers, for example --

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Marland. Your time is up. Mr Martin, you have the floor.

Mr Martin: I assume that you represent the private sector of the long-term care --

Mr Nightingale: No, our association represents the for-profit and non-profit sectors, and the Ontario Long Term Residential Care Association as well.

Mr Martin: Okay. I just needed to clarify that. I want to say first of all that I appreciate your presentation. Certainly you make some good points when you talk about the inadequacy of some of the infrastructure that is out there and even some of the deadlines. I think we need to talk about that. However, would you agree or disagree that we have a waste management crisis on our hands at the moment, and would you not agree as well that everybody has to play a part, and if we are going to play a part -- and your private sector people will probably understand this more than anybody -- we need to set targets and deadlines in order to do that? I suggest to you that this is the government's first shot at trying to do that, and we are really happy that you are here today. Perhaps you could comment on some of this.

Mr Nightingale: Where possible, many of our members, whether it is a retirement home or a nursing home, either have compactors or have participated in the waste program on a voluntary basis. Where it makes sense and where they have the infrastructure within the community, they do it. The problem, as Mrs Marland stressed, is that in most of our communities, there is no place. We can do it within the home, but the infrastructure taking away some of this stuff is not there.

We fully support the waste program. We are doing it and have been doing it where feasible. But the proposals are so onerous. We cannot meet collecting the data of 1987. We cannot do some of the things that are proposed to us because the infrastructure is not there.

Mr Winchell: I just wanted to add that if you sense an edge to our presentation, it is because of the fact that we did find out that we were targeted purely by accident.

Mrs Marland: Yes, exactly.

Mr Winchell: So while we both agree that there is a need, we have not been part of the solution yet.

Mrs Fawcett: I think the part that just floors me is that you were not consulted. It is a very important part of our care system, our health system, and your needs and your ability to respond are far different than, let's say, an ordinary business. This fact that you were not consulted at all or did not even know anything about it is just horrible.

One thing that jumps out at me, because I am critic for seniors and the disabled, is the whole idea of the spread of disease. You are deeply concerned, and, boy, I am too, that, as you say, "Many of the changes required to comply with this regulation, should it be legislated, will be disruptive to our operations and reduce our ability to control the spread of infection." I am sure that is something that must be really serious. Could you just expand on that?

Mr Nightingale: Very simply, it is very frustrating when different ministries of government carry out initiatives without either consulting the parties who are affected or, equally important, talking to another ministry that is responsible for that area. Under the Ministry of Health we have to provide care in a certain way. We are covered by 458 regulations. Has the Ministry of the Environment spoken to the Ministry of Health to understand all the areas of how we have to provide care either by standard or by regulation or by professional standard? We cannot do some of the things in the proposed regulations because of the aspects of infection control programs within the facilities, the way things have to be disposed of. Medications have to be disposed of in certain ways. We are not arguing against it, but had people spoken to us, we think we could have come up with something far more reasonable and, more important, workable.

Mrs Fawcett: Of course you could have, and I could not agree more.

Mrs Marland: May I ask a question to the minister?

The Chair: A question for the record to the parliamentary assistant.

Mrs Marland: I understand from our new rules that we are allowed to ask questions to the minister. My question to the parliamentary assistant, and so to the minister: In regard to the concerns and the requirements that have been outlined in this last presentation, is the ministry going to make the same requirements of all the operators of all our hospitals and other health care facilities in this province?

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs Marland. For those who are watching the proceedings --

Mr Martin: Could I ask a question to the ministry too?

The Chair: Yes, you may, Mr Martin.

Mr Martin: It is my information that this group did in fact make a presentation to the initiatives paper that was presented on this particular issue. I would like to know from the ministry what other contact was made with this group around this particular piece of legislation, just for my own edification.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Martin. For those who are watching, members of the committee can ask questions of the parliamentary assistant. The ministry will then respond in writing as part of the record to all the members of the committee.

I would like to thank you very much for appearing this morning. It is good to see you again, and thank you for coming before the committee. As I have said to others, if there are other pieces of information you think might be helpful to committee members over the course of our hearings -- I know you are monitoring -- please feel free to communicate with us in writing.

The standing committee on social development is recessed and will reconvene at 2 o'clock this afternoon.

The committee recessed at 1225.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The committee resumed at 1403.

TORONTO ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE

The Chair: The standing committee on social development is now in session. I would like to welcome our first presentation, Toronto Environmental Alliance. Please take a seat at the microphone. You have one hour for your presentation. We ask you to leave some time for questions from committee members.

Mr Coffey: When I first found out that I had an hour, I thought maybe what I should do is break everybody up into small groups and give you some tasks and we could come back later.

The Chair: That would be a novel approach for this committee.

Mr Coffey: Yes, I am sure it would.

Mr Wiseman: You are not a defrocked teacher, are you?

Mr Coffey: Defrocked? That is an interesting word. No, I am not; a defrocked artist, I think.

The members of the Toronto Environmental Alliance would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to you today about waste management in Ontario, and more specifically about Bill 143.

The alliance is a non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation of the environment in the Toronto area. It was founded in 1987. As members of the It's Not Garbage coalition, which is active in the Metro area, and on our own account, we have been active on the issue of waste management over the last five years.

I should also say on my own account that I am a staff person with the coalition, which includes such large organizations as Greenpeace, Pollution Probe, Canadian Environmental Law Association and many smaller community groups throughout the Metro area. We decided we would not make a joint presentation on this bill because many of the members were making their own individual submissions. Consequently I am presenting on behalf of the Toronto Environmental Alliance, which I represent on the coalition.

Our overall view of Bill 143 is that while it contains some flaws, it is none the less a major step in the direction of responsible waste management. It envisions a system that promotes the idea of local responsibility for waste disposal, deals straightforwardly with the need for interim landfill space and provides a framework for dealing effectively and responsibly with waste reduction, reuse and recycling programs.

In our opinion, waste management, or more appropriately, resource management is not simply the most expedient method of locating holes in the ground and the most effective ways of prolonging the life of those holes. Resource management is tied quite firmly to larger issues, such as the greenhouse effect, that affect the health of the planet and its inhabitants.

Garbage is in reality simply the most obvious manifestation of the environmental impacts of our overuse and abuse of natural resources. Our consumption-dependent lifestyles do not simply produce waste; they are also responsible for the degradation of our land, air and water. Each time we throw away a container, for instance, in order to replace that item we condemn ourselves to producing the same amount of air pollution, water pollution and energy use that accompanied the production of the original item. Reduction, reuse and recycling can break that vicious cycle.

Using secondary materials is more efficient and less polluting than the use of raw materials. The use of secondary aluminum, for instance, can result in energy savings of up to 95% and reductions of over 90% in discharges to air and water. Direct pollution reductions are not the only benefit in this case. Aluminum smelters are energy-intensive in the extreme and are usually found in places around the globe that can supply large amounts of cheap hydro power, such as northern Canada; ie, James Bay. We are, I am sure, all aware of the major environmental and social problems caused by the flooding of large tracts of land in the north. The proposed James Bay II project will decimate wildlife, displace people and destroy whole ecosystems. These effects are in no small measure the result of our appetite for resources.

The savings outlined above are not limited to aluminum; it is simply the most obvious. Recovering and reusing other materials have similar advantages. The value of recycling old newspapers, for instance, is not just a matter of reduced energy and atmospheric emissions; it also must include the role of trees as carbon dioxide sinks and the cultural value of old-growth forests.

In the short to medium term, the adverse impacts of waste can, as discussed above, be ameliorated by recycling and reuse. Indeed, every effort must be made to facilitate these processes. In the long run, however, projected population growth and the very nature of our society, based as it is on high consumption of disposables, will limit the effectiveness of these measures. An example of this already exists in the attempt to reduce emissions from automobiles. Much has been achieved over the last 20 years to reduce the impact of cars on air quality, but these efforts have been overtaken by the growth of the population and the growth of car ownership.

Reduction of waste at source is the only real long-term answer to our problems. The results of not reducing at source will inevitably be, at best, a moderation in the increase of pollution levels provincially and rising levels on a global scale.

Global equity is also part of the new equation. It interacts with and cannot be separated from our own economic-environmental problems. Industrial output in the Third World is projected to grow significantly in the next decades, something we can hardly oppose. The environmental impacts of this growth, however, would be significant even if the developed nations gave away their most efficient technology, and there must be serious doubt about the likelihood of that event. The addition of large amounts of pollutants from Third World nations to our own intransigent levels would be a major disaster for life on this planet. We cannot afford this scenario.

Whether we like it or not, the only way to address the contradictions of our resource addiction, global economic growth, social equity and environmental degradation is for the industrial nations, including ourselves, to reduce our appetite for resources. We simply have no choice.

I would like now to make some comments on specific items of the bill before us.

Part II: We support the minister in requiring that each municipality provide its own landfill site. We believe positioning sites as close as possible to the source of waste is a sound approach in keeping with the concept of local responsibility. It is our understanding that the selection of these sites will be subject to the Environmental Assessment Act, particularly as a reading of the bill before us indicates that the minister has gone to the trouble of stating that certain options will not be considered as part of the hearing process. However, in order to remove any lingering doubt as to the process, we urge the minister to clarify her position on this issue.

We also support the decision to use figures generated by the waste reduction office when calculating necessary disposal capacity. There appears to be no valid reason to ignore the expertise of the waste reduction office when calculating capacity needs. This office was created specifically to implement and monitor 3Rs programs and has much of the available expertise in its area. Asking the Interim Waste Authority to duplicate this capability would simply be a waste of resources. The idea that the IWA would be a more independent, and therefore a more trustworthy, body is simply not a valid argument. It is not in the best interests of the waste reduction office, the present government or anyone else, with the possible exception of incinerator proponents, to underestimate the need for capacity.

1410

With regard to the decision to limit discussion of alternatives to landfill as part of the long-term site selection process, we have no doubt that this is the appropriate strategy. Both export and incineration of waste have serious drawbacks. We would like to address these separately.

Export of waste to a site outside the greater Toronto area no doubt has attractions for its proponents, but as far as we are concerned the drawbacks far outweigh any possible advantages these options might have. Export destroys the educational advantage of dealing locally with our waste, has transportation and energy side-effects and uses economic blackmail on disadvantaged communities.

The educational value of dealing with our waste in our own area is something the minister and many in the environmental movement have stressed. It should not be underestimated. For instance, one of the highlights of the blue box system is the educational value of source-separating our recyclables in the kitchen and at the curbside. The positive effect of this is borne out by the repugnance many of us now feel when forced to throw away a can or bottle because the jurisdiction we find ourselves in has no recycling program.

The transportation of waste to communities remote from the source also has major energy, and therefore global warming, implications. Global warming is not, as you will no doubt agree, a joke; it is an extremely serious problem that demands responses in all facets of our lives. All our undertakings must be examined to find ways to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. To therefore suggest that transporting waste to a site such as the Adams mine in Kirkland Lake is environmentally sound, because trains are more energy-efficient than trucks, is rather disingenuous. Even if we accepted the energy efficiency figures of CN itself, it would still allow us to find a site somewhere south of Gravenhurst and use less energy. The soundest option is to keep the waste as close to home as possible.

Transporting waste to Kirkland Lake brings another point to mind, that of the willing host, so-called. It is often pointed out to us as we struggle through this issue that Kirkland Lake is a willing host to Metro's garbage, so why not send it? After all, does it not mean jobs and money for a depressed area? The sad thing about this of course is that it would indeed mean jobs and money, although the questions of how many, how much, and more important, for whom have not really been answered.

However, the fact that a community such as Kirkland Lake that is desperate for jobs and money might get some by accepting garbage from Metro does not make this the right thing to do. People will take trash when there is no perceived alternative. Lawrence Summers, the chief economist of the World Bank, recently said, "The demand for a clean environment, for aesthetic and health reasons, rises with income." He was in fact arguing for the export of toxic waste and dirty industries to countries of the Third World that are, as he so aptly put it, "vastly underpolluted."

These so-called underpolluted countries of the Third World were and are targets for pollution for reasons similar to those advanced to justify the export of waste to Kirkland Lake. Toxic waste is no doubt more troublesome than plain garbage, which will have a more limited, though still significant, impact on the local environment. However, the message is the same: Garbage and environmental degradation in return for jobs is not a choice people anywhere should be asked to make.

Alternatives can and must be found for communities throughout the north that are faced with restructuring of resource industries, which is happening on a global scale. This government, representatives of northern resource-based communities and representatives of resource companies must sit together to find solutions to these problems.

Northern communities are not the only ones with an interest in the export question. Should the Kirkland Lake site prove unsuitable, communities throughout southern Ontario will be faced, as they were during the tenure of the preceding Liberal government, with the prospect of being a willing or otherwise host to Metro's cast-offs. Is this really what we want? I am sure it is not what they want.

Another export-related issue that the alliance considers to be important is the recent trend to export industrial, commercial and institutional sector waste to sites in the US. We do not approve of this type of export either. Apart from the question of the morality of exporting environmental problems, the fact that municipalities and individuals are suffering financial losses from this practice means it should be stopped as soon as possible. Municipalities such as Metropolitan Toronto rely on the tipping fees from the ICI sector to finance their future waste management infrastructure needs. The losses Metro is sustaining because of the 70% or more drop in revenues from this source will have serious financial consequences and may well limit the choices Metro is able to make.

Individuals are also being hurt by the diversion of waste to sites south of the border. Large waste management companies are experiencing windfall profits by charging their customers rates that reflect tipping fees at Metro dump sites and then taking the waste to sites in the US that charge considerably less. If this is not a good argument for the exclusion of the waste management conglomerates from the market in Metro, and indeed the province, then I do not know what is. We therefore call on the government to take immediate action to halt the flow of ICI waste to sites in the United States.

As we indicated above, waste management is also resource management, and our concern about export also applies to the export of source separated materials. Ontario needs jobs. Municipalities in Ontario are producing larger and larger amounts of secondary resources which need to be processed. It would appear to make sense to ensure, wherever possible, that these materials are processed in the province. Allowing materials to be exported to the US for processing will be a further blow to the economic base of the province.

Local economic opportunities can result from the development of facilities for the collection and processing of waste. For instance, the Institute for Local Self Reliance in Washington, DC, estimates that for a city of 1 million inhabitants the number of permanent jobs created would be in the order of 1,400 and the annual gross revenue from the processing of these materials would be in the region of $270 million. Those figures are slightly old; they may even be greater these days.

A more specific although smaller-scale example of the benefits offered by local processing of materials comes from Muskogee, Oklahoma, famous for white lightning, a town of some 45,000 people. The town made a concentrated effort at collection and local processing of recyclable materials. It has been estimated that 1,800 jobs have either been created or saved. The financial benefits received have been in the order of $40 million.

The steel industry too is aware of this advantage and is proposing that we find a way of closing the materials loop; that is, whatever leaves the industry and is used in Ontario must find its way back to the province's steel plants as secondary resources. This model, while in its infancy, holds some promise. We urge the minister to explore options such as this which will derive maximum value from the materials we collect.

It appears I have lost a sheet of my paper. However, I will attempt to fill in the gap. What I wanted to do was deal with the issue of lifts. Our concern about lifts is that we think that there are alternatives to them, that the opportunities for diversion and for storage of materials for recycling and for waste reduction are possible with these kinds of initiatives, with sufficient regulation. It is possible to reduce and store enough material to allow us to get away with not having lifts.

However, as far as we can see, industry is not particularly open to regulation these days. They seem to take a firm stand that they can do it themselves. What I would suggest is that if they take this attitude, then what they might want to do is to go and talk to the people who live close to the Britannia Road site, or talk to the mayor of Mississauga, and let them sort it out themselves.

We met with the minister, along with the Canadian Environmental Law Association and Pollution Probe, in July 1991. We asked her to institute condensed hearings on the lifts on both sites. She responded at that point that she did not think the timing was available to do that. We believed at that point, and we still do, certainly in the case of Keele Valley, that it is possible to hold an Environmental Protection Act hearing, although in a condensed version.

We know that time is a very real problem and that the minister takes her responsibilities to provide for any disposal capacity shortfall very seriously. We have absolutely no doubt of that. However, we do not support the lack of formal hearings, particularly in the case of Keele Valley. The alliance considers it is still possible to do something. As far as the Britannia Road site is concerned, we are basically of the same opinion as Pollution Probe, that at this point there may be no other measure than to use the minister's emergency powers to order the lift.

1420

Part IV expands the power of the minister to make effective regulations for the purpose of waste reduction, reuse and recycling. That these regulations are needed is reinforced by the relatively small quantities of household material diverted by the blue box and voluntary programs undertaken by the ICI sector. Solid figures on the amounts reduced, reused and recycled are hard to come by, but I think it is fair to say that the reduction in ICI waste going to landfill these days is due to export and the recession, rather than to any massive diversion effort. It is not to say a massive diversion effort could not be mounted.

We welcome the provision that will allow the minister to take into account the environment outside Ontario when making regulations. This, in our opinion, is forward thinking. Environmentalists have for years been stressing the interrelated nature of environmental problems and the need to take transboundary and even global consequences into account when considering policy. The alliance is appreciative of the nature of this change and hopes it will result in responsible changes in our production and consumption habits.

We firmly believe regulation is necessary for the achievement of the social and environmental goals identified by our society. Responsible change in our production and consumption will not, however, be achieved solely through regulation. The economics of the situation must also coincide with the behaviour we are asking people and companies to adopt.

For instance, in the present economic climate there are actually disincentives to reduction, reuse and recycling by manufacturers. For many manufacturers of packaging, the attraction of low-cost processing by municipalities or free disposal or recycling by private generators is too alluring to resist. Why would any company dedicated to the maximization of profits to its shareholders pay to process materials or its waste when it can get somebody else to do it for free? It simply does not make sense.

For reasons outlined earlier, we believe that reduction and reuse must take precedence over recycling. In order to achieve this, and to make the system function to its best advantage, we must change the economics of waste production. Manufacturers must become responsible for the post-consumer processing of their products. Whether through a deposit-return system or through a system such as the blue box, the message must be the same: Responsibility does not end with the sale of the product. In this way regulations can be reinforced by economics to the benefit of society at large.

The last point I would like to touch on is the need for markets and marketing strategies. When regulation and economics combine to promote the 3Rs, the effect will be to bring large quantities of material on to the market. The need for markets is obvious if we are not to be flooded with secondary materials. Governments and industries must take that joint role in addressing this need.

For governments, their role in developing procurement policies will be crucial to the adoption of a sound marketing strategy. For industry particularly, the use of secondary materials must become part of the drive for efficiency and competitiveness within world markets. A large opportunity has opened for the development of technologies related to the recycling and the reuse of secondary resources. Ontario industries can be in the forefront of this revolution. The need for bold thinking and planning also applies to the development of products that are resource-efficient.

In many areas, Ontario is a leader in this country, and in recycling terms, in the world. What we develop today, the world will need tomorrow. We would be foolish not to capitalize on the opportunity the waste crisis has presented to us.

Mr Sola: I would like to pose this question to you. In your overview you state that Bill 143 is "a major step in the direction of responsible waste management." Then you say it "promotes the idea of local responsibility for waste disposal." Then a couple of pages later you say that "certain options will not be considered as part of the hearing process."

How do you consider this local responsibility responsible waste management if the minister can by decree declare what can be considered, what cannot be considered, what will be disposed, what will not be disposed, what the boundaries shall be, what the boundaries shall not be? It seems to me she is taking the responsibility into her own hands and having the municipalities at her beck and call, to be her servants while picking up the tab.

Mr Coffey: My feeling around that is that the bill is necessary. If the local municipalities had done what they should have done over the years -- they have had lots of opportunities and that particularly, as far as I am concerned, applies to the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto -- then this bill might not be necessary. We may already have had the kinds of waste diversion programs, the kinds of initiatives, that this bill is trying to promote, that this bill is trying to kickstart.

But in fact it has not happened. In the circumstances, given our situation, I think the bill is absolutely necessary, and it is necessary for the minister in this particular case to take the lead and say: "This is what's necessary. You've dallied for too long. You've done too little for too long. You now need to get off your butts and you need to move it and let's get going on this stuff."

As far as disallowing certain things is concerned, I think this government, as any government of the people of Ontario, has the responsibility to disallow discussion within environmental assessment hearings of technologies that would be harmful to the people of Ontario. That certainly includes incineration. Actually I did not get to that in my brief. I do not want to address the issue of incineration particularly, because I think many people before this committee have addressed it quite adequately. I was here yesterday when the assistant medical officer for the county of Simcoe was here. I believe his evidence, along with the work that Pollution Probe has done, and the speaker from the Center for the Biology of Natural Systems, addresses that quite well. The debate is over as far as I am concerned. There is no reason we should be discussing technologies that are harmful to the population of Ontario.

Mr Sola: Is this not at odds though with your notion of local responsibility? Are you not tying the hands of the local officials if you are saying, "Here's what you can consider and here's what you cannot consider, but we want you to make a local decision"?

Mr Coffey: There is never such a thing as perfect freedom. We all live within restraints, and I believe this is a restraint that is fairly imposed. It is unfortunate it has to be imposed, because I think the people at Metropolitan Toronto council have access to the information, just as we have had access to it here. It is quite clear that this is a dangerous technology, in our opinion. We do not need it. We should not be considering it. I think that if the local municipalities are not willing to take that step, then it behooves the Minister of the Environment and the government of Ontario to step in and say: "No. This is no longer to be considered." I do not see any conflict in that area whatsoever.

Mr Sola: I would like to switch over to the part where you consider export and your conclusion says, "The soundest option is to keep the waste as close to home as possible." Yet prior to that you say the location should be environmentally sound. What does political terrain have to do with environmental soundness?

Mr Coffey: It is a good question. The boundaries of the greater Toronto area are obviously arbitrary. They do not coincide with valley systems or any natural system. However, it is what we have to work with at this point. My preference personally would be to have the landfill sites in the middle of the city of Toronto. I mean, great, we have the Bay-Adelaide Centre. It is not being used. Why do we not use that? It may never be built so we could just fill it in. That would certainly bring it home. However, I think most people in Metropolitan Toronto and certainly the developers of the site would not agree with that. It is hard to find sites within Metro. There may indeed be some. I understand the sites are not just limited to the region of York, it is also Metro and York.

I think it comes back to keeping it, as I said, as close to home as possible. It is unfortunate that the boundaries are political, are arbitrary, but they are there. I think what we need to do in our site searches within Metro and within the region of York is to keep it as close as possible to the source of generation, close to the economic area of Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr Sola: I want to leave some time for my colleague Mr McClelland.

1430

Ms Haeck: I too want to address the issue of export. I appreciate your comments on that. As you may know, I represent St Catharines-Brock. We have had some concerns about where a lot of toxic waste is going to end up, and that has been going on for about 10 years. What you are saying is appropriate. I guess a lot of people in my area, much like in the north, would view what you say about economic blackmail and understand really what that means. It has come to my attention that there is going to be some sort of demonstration, I believe sponsored by city council, called A Walk for Work. This will be in Kirkland Lake. While you have addressed it here, I wonder if you could elaborate on why the Adams mine proposal is really nothing more than economic blackmail.

Mr Coffey: As I attempted to point out in the paper, and as the chief economist of the World Bank so aptly put it, I think it is a matter of alternatives. When people have few alternatives -- and I think this is a real shame; it is not something I like -- the prospect of taking jobs and money for anything seems to be better than nothing. The prospect of taking toxic wastes in Third World countries, for instance, appears at first glance to be better than absolutely nothing. But in the long term, I do not believe it is a viable option for Kirkland Lake, never mind the moral aspects of the whole thing. If we are successful, which I believe we will be, and this bill will be successful in diverting large amounts of waste from the waste stream, the amount of money Kirkland Lake will get will continue to fall.

It is difficult to justify sending source-separated material up to Kirkland Lake when the market is basically in Metropolitan Toronto. It is a long journey to be sending resources to be processed. I just think this kind of ad hockery, this kind of northern development by I do not know what -- by lack of thinking -- cries out to be stopped. If we are going to do northern development, if we are going to provide jobs for people in the north -- and we really do have to address this problem, because it is becoming more serious -- we have to sit down and think it through. We have to think, what is the best possible way of providing economic wellbeing and quality of life? I think those things should not and cannot be divorced for the people of northern Ontario.

This is not the way to do it. This is not a way of thinking it through. Somebody has a site in Kirkland Lake. Somebody wants to make a fair amount of money out of it and sees an opportunity with the Metro garbage crisis. That is what is driving this whole thing. The people of Kirkland Lake, naturally enough, are scared for their livelihood. They want work; they want money. When you have seen, as I believe the committee has, the question that was put on the ballot in Kirkland Lake during the election, as far as I am concerned, it is a blatant attempt to manipulate the population. It is almost impossible to answer no.

Ms Haeck: I understand, and I appreciate your comments and your heartfelt concern.

Mrs Marland: I wonder if you could explain your position in terms of public participation. I would imagine that your organization is, as I understand it to be, an umbrella group.

Mr Coffey: It is not, in fact.

Mrs Marland: Do you encompass more than one group? You said you are members of the It's Not Garbage coalition. The coalition itself is an umbrella --

Mr Coffey: The It's Not Garbage coalition has quite a number of organizations, 30 organizations. I am presenting specifically on behalf of the Toronto Environmental Alliance, which is not an umbrella group. But we are members of the coalition. I am in fact the staff person of the coalition. This is not a joint submission by It's Not Garbage.

Mrs Marland: No, I think It's Not Garbage has either been here or is coming.

Mr Coffey: Yes.

Mrs Marland: In any case, the point of my question is that you obviously believe very much in grass-roots participation.

Mr Coffey: Yes, we do.

Mrs Marland: You believe in the public process and you are familiar with this bill.

Mr Coffey: Yes.

Mrs Marland: Yet you support it?

Mr Coffey: Yes.

Mrs Marland: That is what is very difficult to understand, because this bill does away with the opportunity for public process. In fact, we would not even be here enjoying this public process of information and exchange with deputations had it not been for the two opposition parties, which demanded that this bill come for public hearings to a standing committee of the Legislature.

I have to ask if you really believe in that opportunity for the public to be able to express their concerns, their views or their support for a piece of government legislation when you get through with this bill, which overrides all of the existing statutes in this province that have within them that provision for public participation. I notice you do say there are some flaws, so I think that part is fine. But how can you be here saying it is a great piece of legislation, coming from your particular purview and background?

Mr Coffey: Okay. By the way, I applaud your courage in standing up and making sure this bill came to committee. I think it is a good opportunity for people like myself to come and say how wonderful they think it is.

Mrs Marland: I did not say that.

Mr Lessard: That was her purpose in doing that.

Mr Coffey: With regard to your question about public participation, our organization, when it looks at environmental issues, has to take the whole picture into account, as many do. As I said in the brief, we did take exception to the lack of participation. We met with the minister. We held the press conference. We said that we do not think this is the right thing to do. We still believe that in the case of Keele Valley it could be possible to introduce some sort of hearing. It would have to be time-limited because the time is limited. I do not believe it is possible to run an Environmental Protection Act hearing under the conditions that exist generally.

As far as Britannia Road is concerned, I do not know what to do. Personally, I think there is very little that can be done. It is really unfortunate that the preceding Liberal government stopped the landfill site search in Peel region, which would have allowed it to have had a landfill site by this time, so that now it finds itself in the position of having nowhere to put it. What are they going to do? Are they going to spend millions of dollars to send it down to the US, or to send it somewhere else? What are they going to do? Put it in Keele Valley? I do not think so. I do not think those are real answers either.

I feel very sorry for the people who live next to the site. However, no matter where we find sites, whether they be interim or long-term, there is not a hope that you are going to find one that does not affect somebody and that somebody is not going to be angry about and hurt by it. My heart goes out to those people and I think we should do as much as possible to help them and to ameliorate their position. But I think that in this instance, due to inaction on the part of previous municipal and provincial governments, we find ourselves in a bind. We have to do something.

Mrs Marland: Just a minute. Inaction on the part of previous municipal governments? I was a member of a previous municipal government in the city of Mississauga and the region of Peel. We were looking after our garbage business very well, thank you, without any government down at the province at that time. It is true the Liberal government put a stop to our candidate search and the environmental assessment hearing. Even with appeals, our site would have been up, open and operating in the region of Peel today. We would not have any problem at all if we had not had the interference of the province.

Having said that -- and you are saying you are very concerned about the people adjacent to the Britannia landfill site -- I would like to ask you this: If you believe Bill 143 is so wonderful and yet it supersedes all the existing statutes that give protection to people in this province, how do you conceive down the road, no matter who is the government, the possibility of anybody ever being sure of anything? The people who live around the Britannia landfill site not only had an agreement with the city of Mississauga and the region of Peel; they had agreements signed with the provincial government. They had agreements that were the result of a hearing of the Ontario Municipal Board. Now all those agreements that were enshrined in 1978 are thrown out the window in 1992 by this socialist Bob Rae government.

1440

What security is there ever going to be for people to know what their property rights are, their opportunity to live undisturbed without a garbage site beside them being either established or extended, and especially extended after an agreement has been signed? You represent people. You cannot just come in here and say, "This is a great bill," because it represents your viewpoint today. Let's assume it is a great bill in your opinion. How are you going to feel when your people have no protection because another government has come in and repealed everything that was on the books?

Mr Coffey: My response to that is that we live with uncertainty every day. All we ever have are probabilities. The probability is that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, but I cannot be absolutely certain of that fact. I think we must go as far as possible to reassure people and to make certain that things continue in a reasonable way; however, certain situations arise where action is needed. Things have been allowed to progress to a particular crisis point and action has to happen. I find that this is the situation we are in at the present time.

I do not believe the kinds of things that are being proposed in this bill should be an everyday occurrence. I do not believe they will be. I do not believe the bill is promulgated on the understanding that this is an everyday occurrence. This is not an everyday occurrence. This is a problem for Metropolitan Toronto, for the region of Peel.

As you said before, it is really unfortunate that previous governments took out of the hands of the people of Peel region the ability to find their own site that would indeed have been up and running by this point, but they did. I do not know what we do about that. We cannot go back and change their minds. I think that process was heavily flawed and it had repercussions for the people of Peel.

As far as my organization is concerned, yes, we do represent people, and when we look at this bill, what we look at is what is best for the people in the Metropolitan Toronto region and even for the people in Ontario as a whole. We think this bill is the best thing for the people of Ontario as a whole. It is going to impact negatively on some people. Garbage impacts negatively on some people; landfill sites do. That is a fact we just cannot get away from.

When we say this bill is a good bill, even though it has flaws that we admit, that is an overall view. We think it puts forward a basis for sound waste management practices in the future so that we will not end up with situations such as the one we have at the present time. We do not want any more of those. We need good planning.

Mr McClelland: I am surprised. I never thought I would see the day Mr Coffey would be here saying that a bill that basically overrides the EPA, the EAA and the OMB, and that goes on further to say that any regulation that stands in the way that is seen as an impediment as opposed to the right of people, is a good bill. I can only ask myself rhetorically, if Bill 143 was put forward by a Conservative or a Liberal government, whether you, sir, would be here today saying the same thing. I think you will forgive me for having some very grave doubts about that, inasmuch as what you said before in terms of interference of the previous government.

You understand very well, and I would defy you to deny the fact that you know that what happened in terms of the process before was a direction from the government to make sure the site selection process complied with the terms of the Environmental Assessment Act. There is considerable opinion shared by organizations like yours, and by your predecessors in your organization, that the EAA process for the long-term site was severely flawed and that there were some injustices being perpetrated. The former minister, Mr Bradley, ordered that the long-term site be conducted in full compliance with the Environmental Assessment Act.

You see full compliance with the Environmental Assessment Act as a flawed process, and yet you say Bill 143, which gives no protection for people, is a good piece of legislation. Quite frankly, I find that defies logic of any kind. It seems to me it is the same kind of political arbitrary boundaries that my friend Mr Sola was talking about when he asked you, I think, a very valid question: What is it that makes the boundary of Metro Toronto, York or Peel, recognizing that there very well may be literally within -- let's look at this not only hypothetically but realistically. There may be a situation for a region to find within, albeit slightly, the boundaries of Peel the best possible site for, let's say, the disposal of Metro garbage. I am not going to be a very popular person in Peel for saying that, but why should you as an environmentalist say that arbitrary line between Peel and Metro means that you cannot consider it the best possible site? It completely defies logic in my mind.

How can you possibly say that a bill, which Mrs Marland so ably walked through with you, that takes away so many people's rights is better? You hold it up as a champion of people and you call yourself an environmentalist and say it is good stuff, when it wipes out the EAA and the EPA. People like you fought very hard. A lot of effort and energy was put into having those kinds of rights put in the hands of the people of this province. A lot of people fought very hard, people such as yourself, to expand participation in the democratic process. I find it totally illogical quite frankly. I am baffled to hear you, personally and you as a representative of your organization, say it. Quite frankly, it is almost unbelievable.

Mr Coffey: Where do I start?

Mrs Mathyssen: With a shovel.

Mr Coffey: I will go back to the idea of arbitrary boundaries --

Mr McClelland: Mrs Mathyssen --

The Chair: Mr McClelland, order.

Mr McClelland: Did you hear the comment?

The Chair: No, I did not.

Mr McClelland: I will tell you what she said, the arrogance of the parliamentary assistant: He could start by getting a shovel. It is now on the record. That is reflective of the kind of attitude of this government that you, Mrs Mathyssen, reflect.

The Chair: Mr McClelland, you do not have the floor. I ask all members of the committee to refrain from interjection that will create disturbance before the committee. It would be appreciated. To this point in time we have been quite respectful of each other, because we have refrained from those kinds of interjections. I would appreciate it if we would refrain in future. You have the floor, please.

Mr Coffey: Let's go back to arbitrary boundaries. All boundaries are arbitrary. I think there is always the opportunity that on the other side of whatever line you draw there will be a better job, a better place, a better something or other. Greener pastures are always just over the other side of the line. Where do we draw that line? Do we draw it at the political boundary of the greater Toronto area or do we say, "Maybe there is a site just on the other side that could be better"? Should we expand it to the whole province? I would say no, let's not leave it to the whole province. We have unfortunately an arbitrary system of boundaries that has been drawn that we live by, so we have to do the best we can with the situation we find ourselves in.

As far as the environmental assessment process and the environmental protection process are concerned, if you had listened to what I had said you would realize that we did go to the minister and say that we thought this was wrong, that we do support public participation and public input into this process. We are also mindful of the fact that the timing is tight, that we are definitely in an emergency situation. We do not know where the stuff is going to go if we do not find an interim site, a lift or something, to allow us to dispose of our garbage in 1996 or 1997.

As I said, we still believe it is possible to have some sort of hearing on the Keele Valley site. It does not appear it is possible to do that in the region of Peel. I think that is the most unfortunate part of the situation we find ourselves in. It is not the bill that concerns me in that regard; it is the people who are going to suffer. It is the actions that were taken in past years, which I think have led to this situation, that make me angry.

When we talk about environmental assessments and we talk about the Environmental Protection Act, a number of sites that were designated as part of the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee process as interim sites were going to be exempted from the Environmental Assessment Act. What kind of public process is that? How fair is that? How fair is it to go to a community such as Whitevale and suggest that because we have a gap of three or four years we should dig a bloody great hole in the ground right next to the village?

1450

Mr McClelland: Would you be pleased with an amendment that would suggest that Keele Valley be given a hearing, at least for that, and certainly that the lift on Britannia be limited and some assurance given that if in the final analysis the best that people in and around Britannia can hope for is that there be some limitation on the lift, they at least be given some guarantee or some written assurance from the current government that it be limited to --

Mr Coffey: It is hard for me to say at this point. I am not willing to say whether that is acceptable or not to my organization or to myself. If you want to make that proposal to us and to the Minister of the Environment, I am sure we and she would consider it. That is all I can say about that.

Mr Wiseman: I want to talk for a minute about the minister's powers under the Environmental Protection Act. I think the people of Whitevale are pretty sure that the Minister of the Environment already has very wide and extensive powers under the Environmental Protection Act, powers that would allow a former Premier to sit down with a chairman and say, "We're going to stick a dump right here and we're going to do it under the Environmental Protection Act," with no legislation and no consultation with the people, designating a willing host simply because some other jurisdictions within a very large regional government have said, "Pickering will be a willing host and, oh, by the way, the land is government land," so that's where the dart lands.

I think we already know there are very large powers available to the minister under the EPA to do an awful lot of things like cancel 6A or put P1 or 6B on. I want people to recognize that when somebody comes in and says this takes away people's rights -- in fact I would argue that this bill in a lot of cases restricts some of the rights of expropriation and access and so on that are already too broad in other bills. That is one thing I would like you to comment on.

The second part I would like you to comment on is the appropriateness of removing the consideration of incineration and export and haulage of waste up to Kirkland Lake. Does that in any way take away from the Environmental Assessment Act in terms of evaluating where an appropriate landfill site should be?

Mr Coffey: I think your first point is well taken. Under the present Environmental Protection Act the minister has quite broad powers. Section 29 says the minister can write reports, making it clear that it is necessary in the public interest to establish, maintain, operate, improve, extend; a whole range of things. It is not particularly new that these powers are in place. What is unfortunate is that we are in such a situation that they have to be used. This is not an everyday occurrence. I agree with you; I think in some ways the bill may indeed limit some of those applications.

As far as incineration and limiting the discussion of incineration and export under the environmental assessment process is concerned, I do not think it will affect the process. I think it may shorten it. It may make some people happy, because one of the problems that has come up and some of the comments I have heard are that we have an environmental assessment crisis, which may or may not be true. I am not going to comment on that, but people who make those comments may be happy if we limit the discussion of alternatives because it will make it somewhat faster. I am sure a lot of the people who would want to be involved in the environmental assessment process of these future landfill sites will be or would have been proponents of incinerators and proponents of export to wherever.

As I said before, I think certain options are unacceptable for moral reasons and for a whole host of other reasons. It is the obligation of the provincial government to make sure those things are not on the table and will not be exploited by people who would use them for their own financial benefit.

Mr Lessard: You made the comment in your presentation that the solution needs to be economically driven. I have a couple of points with respect to that. One is that because of that factor, I think it is pretty clear that the government cannot do it all on its own, that it is going to require the cooperation and involvement of the private sector as well. You talked about developing markets, that this is one area that could use that involvement, and about the development of procurement policies to encourage those markets. As an environmentalist, are you aware of the procurement policies of the provincial government and other municipalities? Do you think there are areas for improvement and do you think there are things we could do to encourage the private sector to change its procurement policies?

Mr Coffey: The short answer is yes. I think there are things the province can do in its own jurisdiction and it can also encourage the local municipalities to get going on this stuff.

Pollution Probe wrote a report not too long ago about the value and the extent of municipal procurement policies and found that they were somewhat lacking. I think there is a lot of room for movement in that area. We obviously need markets. Market development, if it has not been neglected, has not been promoted to the extent I believe it should be. One of the ways to make it happen is for provincial governments with their large purchasing power, and municipalities, certainly the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, to move more quickly on this.

As you are aware, there are standards for government purchasing policies with regard to recycled content that involve the federal government, the province, the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and, I think, the boroughs, the small municipalities in Toronto, which have been sort of struggling along for a number of years. The process really needs to be moved along a little more quickly. The whole business of markets and economic development and private sector involvement on this issue have not been looked at as a whole.

The point I tried to make in the brief was that the private sector up to now has been kind of resisting the whole business of recycled content and recycling in general, apart from the people who can make chunks of money out of it. It has to be realized that not only can you reduce your own operating expenses, but in terms of market development for the private sector there is a lot of opportunity out there these days for the development of products and technologies that deal with the use of secondary resources. We have an opportunity in this country, in this province, to get out there and develop this stuff and become world leaders in this kind of technology.

We get awards from the United Nations for our blue box programs, for our recycling programs. We can translate this kind of thing. We can make it work in terms of economic development and in terms of research and development. It disheartens me to hear business people come here and say: "Oh, it won't work with the regulations you're going to put on us. You're going to make us too different and no one will buy our products and we're going to have problems with exports." Where is the forward thinking? Where is the boldness? Where is the initiative that can turn this stuff into jobs for people in Ontario? It disappoints me. I am sorry they do not see the opportunities that are there.

Hopefully once we get involved in this whole process, once the regulations that will be promulgated under this bill come into effect, people's thinking may turn around to the degree that they will see what is actually out there. Maybe then we will move forward, but I think it is unfortunate. There is definitely a role for both the province and the private sector.

1500

The Chair: Mrs Marland, there is just one minute remaining for you.

Mrs Marland: We heard from the private sector this morning and we heard how the public sector is developing in competition to it, with public sector money, by the way. We have examples where in this area even this government is still trying to put them out of business. Your pages are not numbered --

Mr Coffey: I apologize.

Mrs Marland: -- but there is one page here where you say, "However, we did not, and do not, support the lack of formal hearings, particularly in the case of Keele Valley." You said earlier that your heart bleeds, or whatever it was you said, for the poor people of Britannia.

The Chair: Was that your question?

Mr Coffey: I am not a liberal.

Mrs Marland: My question is why, if you have one standard of concern, particularly in the case of Keele Valley, you do not have the same standard of concern for the lack of hearings on Britannia.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Marland.

Mr Coffey: I do. It is just that I think the situation we are in leaves us with very difficult choices to be made. Somebody unfortunately has to make them. Because of neglect and wrongheaded thinking in the past we find ourselves -- if we had the time, that is exactly what I would want.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate your coming to committee today.

CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC REAL ESTATE COMPANIES

The Chair: I would like to call next the Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies. Please come forward and begin your presentation by introducing your delegation to the committee. You have 20 minutes for your presentation and we would ask if you would leave a few minutes for questions at the end.

Mr Daniel: I am Ron Daniel, the executive director of the Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies; the acronym is CIPREC. On behalf of the members of CIPREC, I wish to thank you for this opportunity to present our comments and suggestions on Bill 143 for the committee's consideration. With me today are Dianne Saxe, our legal counsel on this project, and Dianne will summarize our brief for you; Lawrence Lagowski, a leasing specialist from Cambridge Shopping Centres Ltd, a CIPREC member, and Hilton Ngo from C. D. Sonter Management, a firm specializing in waste reduction programs.

CIPREC has 35 member firms such as all major developers, including such firms as the Cadillac Fairview, Bramalea and Trizec. All five of the major Canadian banks and major trust and insurance companies are members.

As investors, landlords and corporate citizens, CIPREC members are generally supportive of the waste reduction initiatives set out in Bill 143 and we are here today to provide some practical commentary on the legislation and the regulations under development. We believe our suggestions will make the participation and cooperation of landlords and tenants more effective.

Ms Saxe: I hope everybody has found our presentation. It says CIPREC on the front. It is in a Cerlox binder. The first two pages are the covering letter. The guts of the submission are in the next two pages, which you will see have the heading "Bill 143" and then a chart.

We are really here to talk only about two clauses of the bill. They are both in section 33 of the bill and are incorporated in the set of amendments to section 136, the section that authorizes the cabinet to make regulations in relation to waste management.

The draft sections as they stand at the moment are pretty bare, but they imply that the cabinet is to have the authority to order anybody to do just about anything in relation to waste management. More particularly, they indicate an intention to allow cabinet to adopt regulations requiring the landlords of facilities to do a variety of things in relation to waste generated in those facilities whether they have the power to do that or not. That was fleshed out by the waste reduction initiatives paper issued by the Ministry of the Environment, together with two sets of draft regulations also issued by that branch. In both cases they followed up on exactly what we were concerned about in the bill and they said, "We are going to make the owners of land do waste audits, set up source separation facilities and perform waste reductions."

That is not always possible for landlords. If you look at the chart on those middle two pages, you will see we have separated what landlords can and cannot do. This is a chart that applies in your typical situation.

People tend to think of a shopping mall where you have one landlord and a multitude of tenants, and the critical factor is that in these cases the landlord deals with waste disposal. When that is true, there is a whole series of things the landlord can do. The landlord can set up a series of bins for waste separation. The landlord can do a growth audit of the wastes that go out from the facility as a whole by landfill tickets and so on. The landlords can control their own wastes, but the landlord's own waste is less than 2% of the total. The landlord's waste would be paper towels from the bathrooms, cleaning products used to wash the floors and lightbulbs from the ceilings. All the other waste that comes out of that shopping mall will be generated by the tenants and there is absolutely nothing the landlord can do about it. The landlord does not have the power in the existing leases, and there is nothing in the bill or in the draft regulations or in the initiatives paper that would give the landlords the power, to make tenants tell them what they were going to buy or change from styrofoam cups to some other kind of cups or anything else of that sort.

The bill is set up and the initiatives paper indicates that the landlord will be punished if he does not do things he cannot do. This cannot work. It cannot be in the interests of society as a whole to set up a battle that will end up in the courts with everybody waving the charter at each other. It will be wonderful for lawyers like me and it will be dreadful for everybody else.

What we came in to say is, make the obligations you impose consistent with the rest of the legal powers and duties of the different parties. What we are saying to you is that you must distinguish between three different groups. First of all, there are the waste generators. This will be the tenants. It is only the tenants who can decide whether or not they are going to sell drinks in styrofoam cups. Next there is the person who has the legal responsibility for the waste disposal by that generator. In a multitenant facility where the landlord does the waste disposal, then you can require the landlord to do things like set up multiple bins. But in the third group of cases, where the owner is simply the owner and does not have any part in the waste disposal, then it is the person who deals with waste disposal who has to do those things, the waste audits, the waste reduction and the source separation.

The way you should do that is by amending these two clauses. If you look at page 4, at the top of the page you will see a recommendation. Three paragraphs down we suggest two changes of wording. In the proposed clause 136(4)(k), which deals with requiring people to establish waste disposal sites and waste management systems, right now you are proposing that it should be municipalities or anybody else. That would mean the cabinet could adopt a regulation that says, "Ms Marland, you set up a waste management system for all the tenants in an industrial mall 100 miles away." There is no requirement in the bill that there be any logical connection or any legal connection between the cabinet's regulation and the obligation. What we are saying is that the obligation should be imposed on "municipalities and persons who manage wastes generated by waste generators." In that way you are imposing the obligations on the people who are in a position to carry them out.

Similarly, in clause 136(4)(r) the bill that is before you proposes to allow cabinet to adopt regulations requiring owners of premises to do things in relation to waste management whether or not they can do that. Again, we are suggesting you should change the wording of the clause so the obligation is imposed upon "municipalities and other persons who manage wastes generated by waste generators."

1510

What that would mean in the case of the shopping mall everybody likes to think about is that the cabinet would have the authority to regulate the waste management activities of the landlord to the extent that the landlord carries out such activities. The landlord would have to put in bins and so on, would have to audit his own wastes and would have to post his own work plans in his own common areas, but it would make clear that those obligations could not be imposed in relation to the tenants. There is no way a landlord can do that.

There is a second issue as well, and you will see that on the bottom part of this page, on lack of clarity. This is really not so much something you can do in your committee, other than by sending a message back to the minister. The bill itself simply provides for authorizing legislation. There is a series of powers that are relatively vague saying there can be regulations about practically anything in the waste area. The problem we have seen in the waste reduction initiatives paper and in the draft regulations that have been issued to date is that there is an intense lack of clarity as to what people in the real world are actually supposed to do.

The waste reductions initiatives paper, for example, requires every commercial premise of any significant size to be audited in relation to the waste that was produced in 1987. What if the premises did not exist in 1987? What if they were completely rented then and are only half rented now, or if the businesses changed? There are a number of different factors that can apply that so far the ministry has not found any way to address and that would put people owning and operating premises in the real world in an impossible position.

The same kind of thing applies to construction and demolition. The ministry seems in its waste reduction initiatives paper to be intending to require an across-the-board waste reduction. What do you do with things like construction waste in a shopping centre where a company may be taken over by one of the tenants or may be taken over by another company? There is a lot of construction work to change the signs, change the colours, change the layout to the new company's market. What if there are changes in marketing techniques or legal changes that apply to the tenant? There can be at times great flurries of construction in a shopping mall that the landlord would not have any control over, and it will vary erratically over a period of decades. How is the landlord to handle something like that in terms of the quotas that are to be imposed?

There is a question of lack of clarity, and really all we are saying there is, "Please send a message back to the ministry that when the regulations are adopted, they have to deal with these kinds of practical details."

In the last part of the submission, you will see there is a series of pages dealing with voluntary programs that have been put in place by some of our members. The purpose of this is twofold. First of all, we want to show you that if you follow our suggestions in terms of the amendments you can still get what you want, which is very substantial waste reductions. We all want to see that. It does not make sense to be filling up landfills as fast as we are doing it.

If you look, for example, at the Erin Mills Town Centre, which is the second numbered page, you will see that in 1991 they were able to recycle 51% of the waste from that shopping centre through voluntary measures by the landlord, with substantial cooperation by the tenants. Similarly, if you look at the Quinte Mall on pages 4 and 5, followed by an actual waste audit -- the numbers are on page 8, estimating a waste diversion this year of 41% -- you can get very substantial waste reductions through the kind of structure we are suggesting.

That all depends on recycling making economic sense. If it is twice as expensive to recycle as it is to just throw it in the dump, then with all due respect, all the regulations in the world are not going to make this system work. But if the recycling program as a whole can be made to continue to work so it is more expensive to dump things than it is to recycle them, then we think the initiatives your committee is considering could be very effective. That is the gist of what we wanted to say.

Mr Martin: I would certainly like to thank you for your presentation; your comments were very helpful. I particularly appreciated the positive tone with which you presented your very real concerns here. I am under the impression that you have already made these concerns known to the ministry and have entered into a dialogue with ministry staff. I would venture to say they will be much appreciative of the points you make, because certainly in drafting the regulations we want to be as realistic as possible. We do not want to set up situations where you cannot comply simply because it is impossible but to work with you around that. In your consultation so far with the ministry, have you had a sense of a good dialogue happening or has it all been one way?

Ms Saxe: It is a little early for us to say. I had some informal discussions with members of the ministry, and then we went in last week and made a formal presentation and gave them a copy of this submission and they said they would think about it and we would hear eventually. We are hoping that, in fact, they will. We did not, at that time, have wording developed for the bill. We thought that would really be appropriate for today.

Mrs Marland: I would like to commend you for this presentation. It is so straightforward and so common sense I wonder why you would have to bring it. I would have thought the ministry might have had enough people who would have understood this, if it had taken the time to consult at all, without your having to come and tell us the obvious.

Ms Saxe: I have to tell you that we thought so too.

Mrs Marland: I am sure you did. I am happy to see that the Dixie Value Mall in my riding is doing its share of recycling, and I am proud of its work.

I am not very optimistic about the ministry changing very many of its proposed regulations or the direction of this bill, because it seems bound and intent to put the private sector in this province out of business one way or the other, and this is just another avenue for it to attack private business. Do you think they are going to listen to this proposal and the fact that your comment is pure common sense, in essence, in response to a piece of legislation or a regulation that asks you to do the impossible? Do you think they are going to respond by understanding what it is when you are saying the obvious to them?

Ms Saxe: We hope they will. I worked for the ministry for many years and I know that most of the people there really are trying their very best to do the right thing. So we hope that given this kind of information, which probably did not occur to them beforehand, they will make the appropriate changes.

The other piece of the puzzle is that, as I was suggesting, drawing regulations and legislation is only a small piece of the puzzle. You cannot make water run uphill by saying, "Thou shalt run uphill." If recycling saves money, the program will work. If recycling costs money, it will not work.

You probably all saw that article in the Financial Post about what is happening to the value of recyclable materials. The cost of recycling is going up all the time. We have one sheet in here where one office tower in Toronto, rushing to recycle, found it is now costing more than it would if they had simply thrown it all out. This is an urgent problem for the ministry to deal with, because if it cannot be made economic, it will not work.

Mr McClelland: I very briefly thank you for bringing the presentation and laying it out so plainly and clearly. I hope it is responded to favourably for you, and good luck. Keep up the good endeavours. That is about all I can say.

Mr Wiseman: Your last comment put a question in my mind right away. You talked about recycled material and what to do with it, and what is rather interesting is that in New England in the United States newsprint is worth nothing, and when you go to the west coast it is worth $40 a ton. It is worth $40 a ton because California has regulated the content requirement of newspapers in the California market. Have you any suggestions you could offer us in terms of the kinds of things we could do to ensure that there is a market for the recycled material and that it is a market that will make a return that will allow for the products to be used as they are in California, at a good rate?

Ms Saxe: I have to say that I do not have a brief from CIPREC to develop theories for approaches to regulation by the ministry, but if there is anything I have learned -- I have been in this field for 15 years -- it is that just passing the regulations and sending prosecutors out does not do very much. There has to be an integrated economic strategy. Procurement policies are one thing; minimum content policies are perhaps another. Careful attention to real economics is absolutely essential, and that is one of the things we are constantly trying to tell the ministry, and we hope it listens.

The Chair: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation. Is there anything you would like to sum up? You have about a minute and a half.

Mr Daniel: We just thank you for your attention and we hope we get some results.

1520

TOWN OF DUNNVILLE

The Chair: We would like to call the next presentation from the town of Dunnville. Welcome. Please come forward. You have 20 minutes for your presentation and we would ask that you leave a few minutes for questions from the members of the committee. Would you start by introducing yourself.

Mr Kelly: My name is Brett Kelly, a councillor from the town of Dunnville and also chairman of public works for that community, and I came today representing Dunnville town council and that community. For those of you who do not know, Dunnville is located near the mouth of the Grand River in the region of Haldimand-Norfolk in what was formerly the county of Haldimand. In preparing this presentation, I also spoke to the mayor of Haldimand, who shares our concerns about this bill. I also spoke to representatives of the region of Haldimand-Norfolk, the Haldimand Organization for a Pure Environment, or HOPE, and the environmental hazards team. I have also reviewed the presentations and documentation from AMO and Rage, which is Rural Communities Against Garbage Exportation. Many of the views of my council correspond to those of those groups mentioned.

This committee may wonder why a person such as myself from a place such as Dunnville would think it important to address you. There are actually several reasons. Primarily we are concerned with the further erosion of municipal authority that is found in Bill 143, and specifically the right of our municipality, via the region, to determine how we wish to operate and oversee our trash disposal within our boundaries. We feel this is a very important municipal right. We are concerned that Bill 143, if passed in its present incarnation, will further isolate people from the decision-making process by entrenching it in a bureaucracy and bestowing it on a director far removed from the affected municipality. We are concerned that this bureaucracy, located in Toronto, will make decisions that will impact on Dunnville based on the needs of Toronto and not on those of Dunnville.

We are concerned, because if one looks at a map illustrating the soil types found in this province, one would find that our area is blessed -- cursed? -- with an abundance of clay. This is not a revelation. We were victimized by map-gazers once before when the Ontario Waste Management Corp decided unilaterally to locate a PCB disposal facility in South Cayuga because of the clay. We are concerned that something like this will happen again.

I believe the most disconcerting section of this entire act must be the amended section 29 of the Environmental Protection Act. Under this section a municipality's right to decide on the necessity of extending, maintaining, operating etc a waste disposal system is removed, and the municipality can now be ordered, without consultation, to undertake these operations. Furthermore, this order can include "waste from such sources outside the boundaries of the municipality." Since the minister can delegate her authority to a director under the act, the decision-making authority is removed from any elected responsible body. The comment made was that this is the War Measures Act of garbage.

I have heard that the intent of this bill is to provide for a means of action should a garbage emergency arise. This is not as clear as one would hope it to be, especially the amendments to the EPA. The only indicator of this occurs under the statement that the director will act if he finds it advisable in the public interest. What determines this and what is the threshold? I would hope that he always acts in the public interest and I believe that acting in the public interest should be a part of his job description.

The amendments to the EPA are also unclear as to who will bear the burden of cost under this new plan. Although the province is assuming all control over regulation and how to administer, there is nothing that states the province will assume all costs. In fact, the amended subsection 136(4) would indicate through its wording that the costs will be borne by the municipality that has been ordered to provide the landfill.

We are also concerned to a degree with the first two sections of this act dealing with the Interim Waste Authority, primarily because it rides roughshod over the Planning Act, any district plans a municipality may have or any laws or agreements, and omits the OMB from the process. At present this portion of the act concerns the three areas named for landfill sites. However, once the political heat gets turned up in those areas to fight these sites, I am afraid amendments will be made that will then include other municipalities, such as our own.

These other acts were put in place to serve a purpose, one of which is to protect the citizens against their own government. We do not expect our government to merely discard them because they do not suit the policies of the present government or because the government wants to expedite a project, particularly in the area of the environment. I understand that this government was left with a tremendous mess to deal with, and if proper foresight had been used by the previous government, we would have dealt with this problem a long time ago. However, the way to deal with this is to plan properly, use the process for the purpose it was put into place for and do it right, and not to take shortcuts, which I believe this bill does.

While I am not here to say that Dunnville would never accept another community's trash, in particular Toronto's -- although it is my personal view that we should not -- what I am saying is that the decision to accept or not accept should be left to the host community, a decision based on the needs of that community made by its elected representatives in concert with the elected representatives of the community that has the problem. Therefore, we set the tipping fees, we determine what types of garbage and how much and for how long, and the minister's role will be to set the specifications for the safe transport of that material and for the regulations covering the specifications for siting and design of the landfill so that the landfill is constructed and maintained under the safest possible conditions.

I would also like to comment on several other areas of the bill, in particular, the sections dealing with landfill capacity. While I believe that much effort can and should be made in the areas of the 3Rs -- and this bill does begin to address those -- and that these will decrease the volume going to landfill, I do not feel that the 20-year capacity of a landfill should be based on projected reduced volumes. The goals are good and commendable; however, if they are not met, the lifespan of these landfills will be reduced and we will end up back where we are today. By basing landfill size on present needs and growth and then reducing volumes with the hope of achieving certain goals, we will extend the life of the landfill and save money in the long run and give ourselves time to better plan the next generation of landfills.

I would also like to congratulate the minister on her decision to eliminate incineration as an option to waste disposal. We differ from AMO on this point, and it is an important point. The AMO statement in its documentation that there is no empirical evidence for this decision could not be further from the truth. I would like to see stronger wording on this point from the minister. I would also like someone to tell me if it is true that the Minister of Energy still considers energy from waste, which is a nice euphemism for incineration, as a viable electricity source, because if this is so, then the problem has not yet been completely eliminated.

To conclude, I would like to reiterate a few important points. While I commiserate with the minister over the problems she has been left with, I hope she does not act in haste. I understand that tough decisions must be made. That is the burden of all ministers. However, those decisions can be made in the framework of many of the current laws of this province. There are good ideas in this act and they demonstrate that you are coming to terms with this problem. However, you must allow people to act through their elected representatives and you must allow them to have recourse to the laws that have protected them in the past. I would like to conclude with those statements.

Ms Haeck: Thank you, Mr Kelly. I represent a riding that is not too far from yours. I live in the city of St Catharines and have had the pleasure of going through your lovely community on numerous occasions.

I want to raise a point about host communities. We have the OWMC not going to South Cayuga but coming to the town of Lincoln, not far away. They have not exactly been jumping for joy about getting that one either. You make a comment that the community should decide, yet you are not happy with the fact that Toronto's waste may be visited on the outside, beyond the GTA.

Mr Kelly: Yes.

Ms Haeck: You say, "What I am saying is that the decision to accept or not accept should be left to a host community." Could you give me a clear definition of what you see as a host community?

Mr Kelly: I believe the community that has the trash problem has the responsibility to deal with it itself. If for some reason, due to soil factors or other geological factors, they are unable to place a landfill there, then obviously they would have to go outside their boundaries, in which case they would have to find another community that would take that trash, and then it would be up to them to try to enter into an agreement with that host community to receive it.

1530

Ms Haeck: Do you see any limitation on the distance? In the case of Kirkland Lake, that is rather a long haul.

Mr Kelly: Yes, it is.

Ms Haeck: There is a whole series of other environmental problems en route and there is even some question if Boston township, where that mine site is, is under the umbrella of the town of Kirkland Lake. It raises some questions. How would you deal with those kinds of anomalies?

Mr Kelly: Again, it would be up to the minister to put in specifications for the safe transport. Can you transport it by train? Do you want to transport it by rail or do you want to transport it over land using transport trucks? What would be the safer option? That is where the Minister of the Environment would have a role.

I understand that yes, Kirkland Lake is quite far off. I do not know and I am not sure of the history, but I believe perhaps that was initiated by Kirkland Lake and not by the city of Toronto, as far as being a host site is concerned. I am not entirely sure of that.

Ms Haeck: Toronto had a certain amount of a role to play.

Mr Kelly: Certainly; I imagine there was some communication back and forth. However, I think that is the role that has to be played.

Ms Haeck: Dunnville does not really want to be included as a possible site for any of this.

Mr Kelly: We would not turn you away immediately. We would want to be able to negotiate it and speak with our people, with the constituents, and see whether or not they wanted it and lay out the benefits and costs and then make a decision. But with the way the bill is worded now we would not be afforded that possibility. We would be told by the director that we would have to take it. There may be some clauses that allow for some consultation and presentation by groups, but the municipality that previously controlled it and any other elected body would be completely left out. I believe that is the crux of the problem we have with this bill.

Mrs Marland: Congratulations, Councillor Kelly, on being here this afternoon. You raise one important question when you say, "I would also like someone to tell me if it is true that the Minister of Energy still considers energy from waste, which is a nice euphemism for incineration, as a viable electricity source." I think it would be interesting to ask the Minister of the Environment if she still holds to her ban on incineration covering refuse-derived fuel. I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant. I gather Mr O'Connor is the parliamentary assistant for the GTA and Mrs Mathyssen is the parliamentary assistant for the Minister of the Environment.

The Chair: Mr O'Connor is carrying the bill for Mrs Grier.

Mrs Marland: Yes, but am I clear on their PA positions?

The Chair: Yes, that is correct.

Mrs Marland.: Okay. Perhaps Mr O'Connor could answer the question. I have a letter here from Mrs Grier dated 26 June 1991 -- hand-dated by the minister, by the way, which is unusual -- which says, "Refuse-derived fuel produced from municipal solid waste is covered by the ban I announced on 11 April 1991." I wanted to share that with you.

Mr Kelly: Thank you.

Mrs Marland: I think that would supersede whatever the Minister of Energy might think about garbage being a viable electricity source. It does not become a viable electricity source until it has driven the turbines by heating the water, I guess.

Mr Kelly: Yes, true.

Mrs Marland: Obviously we share the concerns you have brought to this committee in a very clear and deliberate way this afternoon.

Mrs Fawcett: Thank you for being here. I visited Dunnville last week for a little gathering.

Mr Kelly: Who are you campaigning for?

Mrs Fawcett: Actually, for Ron Eddy, I believe.

Mrs Marland: I was there for Mr Timms.

Mrs Fawcett: A lovely little place.

Interjections.

The Chair: You have the floor, Mrs Fawcett, and everybody else is out of order.

Mrs Fawcett: I too share your concerns about the sweeping powers that seem to have been taken away from the municipalities and are now with the minister, but I wonder what your thoughts are on the inspectors who now have been given extra powers too, I think, and who certainly seem to take away some civil liberties of land owners, and I have to say farmers, and you have that lovely clay land.

Mr Kelly: I had not really given too much thought to the inspectors who would be coming in to do the testing of the land. Again, I believe the way it is worded is jumping the gun. If they are going to consider a community, I think the community should be notified first and then a decision can be made from there and a site found.

Mrs Fawcett: Maybe if the municipality had a say in this.

Mr Kelly: Yes, that is correct. But simply to say, "We want to come and do some soil testing and take some core tests because we think this is a good place for a dump," I think sets everybody off on the wrong foot.

Mrs Fawcett: Right, and they will not just say, "We want to"; they will say, "We're coming."

Mr Kelly: No. Most of them duck-hunt.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you for coming here. We appreciate the information you bring. I wonder if you were aware that in her opening statement to this committee the minister indicated that her power under section 26 would not be delegated and that the bill would be so amended. She also said that transfer of waste would be limited to five years, and that part III of the bill is strictly limited to landfills in the GTA and cannot be applied elsewhere. Did you receive the minister's statement? Were you aware of it, and could you respond to these changes now that I have mentioned them to you?

Mr Kelly: No, I was not aware of the minister's statements with regard to those areas. I understand that yes, it is limited. It may be limited to the GTA, but how far does the GTA extend? How far south does it extend? Is there a map available to us?

Mrs Mathyssen: I believe there is a very specific area that is designated as GTA.

Mr O'Connor: The regional municipalities of Durham, York, Peel, Halton and Metropolitan Toronto are the GTA.

Mr Kelly: Okay. With regard to the statement that it would be only for landfills, that is fine. It was not made clear that the Environmental Protection Act was being amended strictly for the greater Toronto area. In my reading of the bill, I did not see anything that specifically said these amendments apply solely to this area. The way I read it was that these amendments were for the Environmental Protection Act.

The Chair: That is part IV of the bill. Just to be helpful, would the ministry clarify? Does part IV of the bill apply to everyone in the province?

Mr O'Connor: That is correct. Parts I and II deal with the IWA, part III deals with the gap and part IV deals with the province and the Environmental Protection Act.

The Chair: I think it is important that be clarified.

Mr Kelly: Yes. Thank you.

The Chair: There is one minute if you would like to sum up.

Mr Kelly: No, just that I am very thankful and grateful for the opportunity. This of course is a new experience for me, as it has all been for the last four months, and I hope to come back soon.

The Chair: Councillor Kelly, thank you very much for appearing before the committee today. We appreciate your presentation. As I have told others who have appeared before the committee, if there is additional information you think might be helpful to committee members, please feel free to communicate with us in writing.

Mr Kelly: Are there transcripts available?

The Chair: Yes. Transcripts are available, Hansard, through Publications Ontario, which is at 880 Bay St. It usually takes a few weeks before the final Hansards are available at Publications Ontario. If you contact any of the committee members, we sometimes have a rough draft if there is something you are specifically interested in earlier than that. That is not always possible.

The clerk has just informed me that each witness and presenter who appears before the committee will receive a copy of the Hansard of his or her presentation.

Mr Kelly: That is great. Thank you.

1540

COUNTY OF SIMCOE

The Chair: I would like to call our next presentation. County of Simcoe, please come forward. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. Could you begin by introducing yourselves to committee members, and if you would, leave a few minutes at the end for questions from committee members.

Mr Caldwell: My name is David Caldwell, county councillor and vice-chairman of our environmental services committee, and the person in attendance is Steen Klint, our director of environmental services.

Mr Caldwell: It is a real pleasure to be able to attend before you and make a presentation today, and I appreciate your time. We have not had a great opportunity to review this at the local level so there may be some dialogue later that we wish to get into.

The preamble of the county of Simcoe's response to Bill 143 is that in February 1990 the county of Simcoe passed a bylaw empowering the county to assume all the waste management powers, assets and liabilities of the county's 33 member municipalities.

The county operates 16 active landfills, three active transfer stations, a recycling depot, a recycling processing centre and three ongoing waste management master plans. Of the three master plans, south Simcoe has identified a preferred site, north Simcoe has an adjourned EAA hearing that possibly may resume in 1992, and the Georgian Triangle master plan in west Simcoe has identified six candidate areas for landfill for further testing. In three of those areas, access to the candidate areas for inspection and testing purposes has been denied, and the master plan site selection process is stalled while these difficulties are being resolved.

Finally, the warden of the county of Simcoe at the direction of county council has written to the Minister of the Environment for approval and funding of a waste management master plan that would include the rest of Simcoe county. The letter from the warden of the county to the minister has been unanswered and unacknowledged for more than a year despite direct inquiries from the county and despite the matter being brought to the attention of the Legislative Assembly in November 1991.

The following are the recommendations for amendments to Bill 143 that we see at this point.

Recommendation 1: The municipalities of Ontario should be consulted from the outset on legislation such as Bill 143. The Honourable David Cooke, Minister of Municipal Affairs, in his remarks to the 1992 Rural Ontario Municipal Association conference expressed the province's desire to become equal partners with the municipalities of Ontario and expressed a desire to receive input on all issues. Bill 143 has not taken this consultative approach, and the legislation as it stands does not treat the municipalities as equal partners. Further consultation on Bill 143 and any amendments to Bill 143 should take place before any further readings of Bill 143.

Recommendation 2: All municipalities in Ontario should be included in any changes in the legislation or on legislation such as Bill 143. Bill 143 seems to be based on a sudden perceived need for waste management solutions in the greater Toronto area or GTA. There are waste management needs that must be addressed in other Ontario municipalities such as Simcoe county as well.

Of the county's original 33 member municipalities, 16 municipalities are disposing of waste under the authority of emergency permits. The county as a whole will have no remaining physical capacity in an estimated six to eight years. Many of the county's individual municipalities will have pressing waste management needs sooner than that as a number of Simcoe county landfills will have to close in the next several years. Any legislation that may help the GTA avoid a crisis should also be available to Simcoe county.

Recommendation 3: Sections 6 through 10, inclusive, concerning the appointment and training of inspectors, powers of entry, inspection for testing, restoration, compensation and other aspects of testing and inspecting property for waste management purposes should be available to other municipalities such as Simcoe county. One of the Simcoe county waste management master plans has been stalled for a year over this very issue of access to private lands for evaluation purposes.

Recommendation 4: Subsection 11(4) concerning offence and obstruction should include corporations and municipalities. Section 11 should also include a subsection that would address the penalties involved.

Recommendation 5: Section 12 concerns the location of landfill sites within designated municipalities. This section of the act, which streamlines the selection of a waste disposal option for a municipality by predetermining that certain geographic areas will receive a landfill of a pre-designated capacity, should be made available to other Ontario municipalities as well as the GTA. If there is a solution to the current deficiencies in the EAA process for selecting waste management disposal options, it should be made available to municipalities such as Simcoe county.

Recommendation 6: Section 13 concerning waste diversion estimates should be made available to other municipalities such as Simcoe county.

Recommendation 7: Section 14 concerning environmental assessment should be made available to other municipalities such as Simcoe county.

Recommendation 8: Section 15 concerning policies, environmental assessment and approvals should be made available to municipalities such as Simcoe county. However, the policies referred to in subsection 15(1) should be clearly defined prior to the implementation of Bill 143.

Recommendation 9: Section 16 concerns participant funding. The applicability and intent of section 16 is not clear and should either be removed, revised or clarified.

Recommendation 10: Subsection 17(4) concerning compliance of waste management systems should be clarified to indicate which municipalities subsection 17(4) refers to and which municipalities are referred to in clauses 17(4)(a), (b) and (c). Furthermore, the general principles of section 17, if they are to be made available to the municipalities of the GTA, should be made available to other Ontario municipalities.

Recommendation 11: Section 18 concerning certificates of approval should be made available to all other municipalities if it is to be made available to the municipalities of the GTA.

Recommendation 12: Subsection 18(4) concerning notice should be amended to include a newspaper of general circulation in the area municipality in which the system or site is located.

Recommendation 13: Subsection 18(6) concerning submissions should be amended in consultation with other Ontario municipalities to allow for a longer period of time for submissions. A minimum period of 90 days is recommended. This period of time would allow for municipal consideration of the notice, the acquisition of expert technical advice, a legal opinion to the municipality on the expert technical advice and endorsement of a submission by council.

Recommendation 14: Section 20 concerns regulations. Clarification is requested on the intent of this section.

Recommendation 15: Section 26 concerns amendments to section 29 of the Environmental Protection Act. In the proposed amendments, subsection 29(1) should be amended to read "minister" rather than "director" for the purpose of providing accountability to the electorate.

Recommendation 16: Section 26 concerns amendments to section 29 of the EPA. In the proposed amendments, clause 29(2)(a) concerning the collection and transport of waste and clause 29(2)(b) concerning the acceptance of waste should be deleted. Upper-tier municipalities such as regions and counties should be given sufficient power and authority to effectively deal with waste management within their municipal boundaries. This can be accomplished through the implementation of some of the provisions of Bill 143 if they are made available to all municipalities of Ontario on a fair and equitable basis.

Recommendation 17: Clause 33(2)(j) concerning the regulation of financial management of municipalities by the Ministry of the Environment should be deleted. Municipalities need to determine the method of financial management satisfactory to the electorate. Other provincial ministries such as the Ministry of Municipal Affairs are available to assist local municipalities. Other acts such as the Municipal Act, RSO 1980, c 302, and the Municipal Affairs Act, RSO 1980, c 303, regulate local municipalities.

Recommendation 18: Clauses 33(2)(k) to (t) regarding various aspects of waste management in municipalities should be deleted from Bill 143 and developed in consultation with the municipalities of Ontario before these regulations are introduced.

Recommendation 19: The title of Bill 143 should be amended to read as follows: "An Act respecting the Management of Waste in Ontario and to amend the Environmental Protection Act." Perhaps that one should have been first, but I have it last. Those are my comments.

1550

Mr Sola: In regard to recommendation 1 where you quote David Cooke in his statement saying the province wishes to become "equal partners" with municipalities in Ontario, I wonder how equal you feel with Bill 143 where the Minister of the Environment can by decree make all the decisions and yet unload all the responsibility upon the municipalities.

For instance, she can decide what garbage is, she can decide where it will be placed, can disregard all the safeguards we have had to date like the EAA and the EPA, can decide which boundaries will prevail, whether they are political boundaries or any other kind, and can decide whether environmental concerns will be considered or discarded, but she will use the municipalities to do the dirty work. They will have to do the collection, will have to do the disposal, will have to pay for doing the dirty work and as well will wind up getting the flak from the public if it is dissatisfied. They will get the flak for having to raise taxes to pay for the job being done and also for dumping the garbage in somebody's backyard. Do you consider that an equal partnership?

Mr Caldwell: That has been one of the concerns, that the decision-making could be made by one individual, the way this legislation is set up, without any regard to how it may or may not affect people or groups of people. One of the concerns was that it appears, the way the legislation is written, that only the GTA would have that ability. The concern is, is the rest of Ontario second-class citizens or not citizens at all, given the fact that the GTA, as proposed here, would be given the ability to have powers that no other municipality in the province would have?

Mr Sola: In other words, even that is not an equal partnership. The GTA is a senior partner and the rest of the province are junior partners in this three-way partnership with the province.

Mr McLean: Welcome to the committee from Simcoe county. In recommendation 5 you talk about landfill sites designated. Is it your interpretation of Bill 143 that the minister could designate any garbage from Toronto to go to any site in Simcoe county?

Mr Caldwell: Anywhere in Ontario; it does not say otherwise.

Mr McLean: I thought not long ago the ministry made a statement that the GTA would look after its own garbage and then instructed Britannia and Keele Valley to expand without an EA, but I did not think in that announcement it would allow garbage to go from Toronto to Simcoe county.

Mr Caldwell: As I recall the announcement, each municipality was going to look after its own garbage. I took the term "municipality" to mean Metropolitan Toronto would look after Metropolitan Toronto's garbage, a region would look after a region's garbage, a county would look after a county's garbage, and if it is a small municipality and it has not formed into a group yet, then it would be responsible for its own garbage. Basically the intent of what I understood to be said at the time was that the GTA would certainly look after garbage within the GTA, but that is not what the legislation as proposed says, in my opinion.

Mr McLean: Does the county of Simcoe waste management committee fear that there will be garbage directed from the GTA to your jurisdiction?

Mr Caldwell: Very definitely.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you for presenting this. You have given us a lot of quite interesting ideas. I just wondered if you were aware that two discussion papers are planned for the very near future. They are coming out soon, one from the Ministry of the Environment that will look at waste management planning and one from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that will look at waste management powers. I believe this has already been discussed at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and I wondered if you were planning to be part of that consultation and discussion process.

Mr Caldwell: I was not aware of the papers and I would not mind receiving copies.

Mrs Mathyssen: I guess you can get in touch with AMO. They are coming out very soon and they address this whole issue of consultation so that municipalities can have planning and the powers they need to manage waste.

The Chair: Thank you for appearing before the committee today. We appreciate your presentation. If over the course of our deliberations there is additional information you think would be helpful to us, please submit it in writing through our clerk. Is there anything you would like to leave us with, any summation?

Mr Caldwell: No.

Mr McLean: Can I get a question on the record for the ministry, Madam Chair?

The Chair: By all means, Mr McLean.

Mr McLean: The question I would like to put to the ministry is that I asked the question here with regard to GTA garbage going to anywhere in Ontario. I got nods from the member for Durham-York that my impression is not true. I would like it in writing from the ministry if it is true that GTA garbage can go anywhere in Ontario under Bill 143.

The Chair: Is the next deputation ready to proceed? Mr Longo?

Mr Millard: Just to comment, Madam Chair, Mr Longo is not here.

The Chair: We will be happy to recess until he is here. You are scheduled for 4:20. If he is here before then we can reconvene earlier, but until he does arrive, if that is acceptable to committee members, we will recess until you are ready to proceed.

Mr Millard: Fine, we will advise as soon as he arrives.

The Chair: The committee stands in recess. We will reconvene as soon as the delegation is ready to proceed. Please do not go too far away; five minutes at least.

The committee recessed at 1558.

1606

ANTREX DEVELOPMENT CORP

The Chair: The standing committee on social development is now in session. I would like to call the next presentation. Please begin by introducing your delegation to the committee. You have 20 minutes for your presentation. We would appreciate it if you could leave a few minutes at the end for questions.

Mr Longo: My name is Longo and I am a solicitor at Aird and Berlis. With me is Mike Millard of Milran, a consultant to Antrex Development and other developer-landowners surrounding the Britannia site. Dominic Conforti is the director of land development in engineering at Antrex (Lakeview). I have provided to the committee clerk a copy of our written submission, which has in it about five or six pages of notes together with accompanying background material that I will be referring to during our brief presentation.

There are many things we would like to talk about concerning Bill 143, but recognizing the time restraints this committee is working under, we would like to focus on one aspect today that deals with section 19 of Bill 143, the compensation section. We have been attempting to follow the submissions this committee has received from various delegations over the last two weeks, and we fear that much that has been said of this section has maligned it unfairly. We would like an opportunity to indicate our submissions as to why we believe this committee should recommend that it be maintained in the bill.

As you can see from page 1 of our submission, it is our recommendation that section 19 be retained but be revised to explicitly provide for the following: first, designate who is to pay the compensation; second, establish an expeditious and fair process for the determination and payment of compensation; third, clarify that the compensation for developer-landowners includes their carrying costs, which is the financing and taxes associated with their deferred developments that result from the extended use of the waste disposal sites referred to in Bill 143.

Perhaps I could provide a brief background concerning this matter. As you have heard already, Bill 143 completely suspends Antrex's legal rights -- statutory, contractual and common-law rights -- to develop its lands pending the ultimate closure of the extended operations of the Britannia site. I reference subsections 17(5), (8) and (9) of Bill 143.

Mr Millard and I represent Antrex as well as other developers around the Britannia site, including Orlando Corp and H & R Developments, but we thought it would be of assistance for this committee if we focused on one particular case study to appreciate the concerns we wish to raise, so we have chosen Antrex as an example of how this legislation affects this developer-landowner.

Antrex purchased its lands in 1986. Its lands are found on page 6 of the brief we have submitted to you. When Antrex bought in 1986, it purchased with the knowledge of and reliance upon the then existing planning and contractual regime in the region of Peel. As you can see from page 2 of our brief, we extract for the committee's assistance the sections of the official plan of Mississauga that indicated the Britannia landfill site was to be limited to a maximum of 12 years. That is found in section 4.9.7.1, subsection (b), of the official plan.

The official plan was implemented by zoning bylaw 161-78. As you can see from the bottom of the page, that indicated that the lands were to be zoned 01, which was an open space zone, to allow for the ultimate use of the site for golf course recreation. It noted that the sanitary landfill site would be permitted, "provided however that such use shall be permitted only for a maximum of 12 years from the date this section comes into force." That bylaw came into force on May 31, 1978, and therefore was to expire in May 1990.

Not only were the official plan and zoning policies in place in Mississauga, but Antrex also relied on a binding legal agreement between the region of Peel and the city of Mississauga, which I have extracted on page 3. I provide the entire agreement on pages 12 and 16 of our brief.

As you can see on page 3, clause 3 of this 1977 agreement has the region agreeing to the official plan and zoning bylaw provisions I have just referred the committee to. Furthermore, you can see that subclause (c) of the agreement provided that the region "Agrees that it will restrict the sanitary landfill operation to elevations not to exceed the contours shown on" certain engineering drawings "with a view to limiting the landfilling operation to a maximum of 12 years."

That agreement was entered into by the region and the city, and as a result of that agreement being entered into, the Ontario Municipal Board was presented with the official plan and zoning bylaw I have referred to. If you look at page 9 of the brief, the second paragraph from the bottom, you will see that when the OMB granted its approval to these documents: "It was suggested that the region should seek a larger site. The point is debatable. This site is only to be used for 12 years at which time it is to be converted into a park. If a larger site were acquired, this period would be prolonged to the discomfort of the adjacent owners."

In 1990 the 12 years were just about ready to run out, but the region recognized that it had not yet reached the contours that had been agreed upon back in 1977. What the region requested the city of Mississauga to do was to amend the zoning and official plan to take away the 12-year period and replace it with a limitation that said, "We will agree that the landfill could be used until the agreed-upon contours have been reached."

Our client expressed concerns with the city at that time indicating that we had purchased and were expecting to develop by the 12-year end, but we recognized that as the contours had not been met, that was an issue where the region could ask the municipality to amend the bylaws, and so it did. It is our submission that Antrex has justifiably relied upon this binding contract and the provincially approved land use policies.

If we turn to page 4 of our brief, I would like to outline in a very concise way the nature of the holdings of Antrex (Lakeview). If you look to page 6 you will see that there are three specific holdings of Antrex.

The first I wish to refer to is the one that is located to the east of the Britannia landfill site with the initials T-86071. The diagram has cross-hatching across that land. That land is draft approved and it is zoned. We have proposed 1,400 plus residential units to be constructed there. The difficulty with developing that land unfortunately is that for some of its services it requires the Rivergrove lands, which are located to the south of Britannia and which are held up by the 500-metre buffer. We have draft approved lands that are ready to go but because Rivergrove is not able to develop, our client is not able to develop that land for 1,400 residential units.

The next section of land is immediately to the west of the land I have just referred to, T-89034. There Antrex has proposed 706 residential units, single family and street town houses. The official plan designation for those lands has been deferred by the province notwithstanding the fact that both the region and the land owner have asked the province to lift the deferral and designate those lands.

Finally, the third piece is located just to the north of the existing landfill site, T-87049. Again, that designation is deferred by the province notwithstanding our request that it be either approved or referred to the Ontario Municipal Board.

The point is that the type of product Antrex has been building is in the majority affordable units under the provincial housing statement. The suspension of Antrex's development rights that result from this bill have a detrimental effect on Antrex's proven ability to meet the affordable housing needs.

As an example, I can advise the committee that Antrex has a site at Matheson and Highway 10 in Mississauga. Phase 1 consists of 1,000 units. They have already sold 750 of those units and closings are taking place this month. All of those units are affordable. They do not have one cent of government money, one cent of assistance or subsidy. These are market affordable units. The market has responded very vigorously in accepting the marketing of these units. Our proven ability to provide that sort of product is being frustrated by the effect of Bill 143.

Second, the bill affects in a very negative way Antrex's ability to carry the land I have just referred you to. You will recognize that this land has to be financed with mortgages. We have to pay taxes on it. If this bill takes effect and Britannia is extended, our ultimate development rights probably are not affected but our ability to develop is suspended for up to five years. Someone has to pay the mortgage and someone has to continue to pay the taxes to carry that land. It is our submission that this is the very thing that should be addressed. I will get to that briefly in a moment. Third, the effect of freezing this land has resulted in losses in employment creation in the construction and service industries.

There are three key issues I would like to deal with. One is, who should pay the compensation? Minister Grier has written to the Peel chairman and advised that the province is not going to pay compensation under section 19. The region of Peel's own accounts indicate the region would be fiscally irresponsible if it did not extend Britannia.

I enclose with our submission at pages 17 and 18 the region's own report that indicates if Britannia is extended it will save the region $284 million in five years. That is $1,200 per household in the region. The reason the region can save that money is that the tipping fees it generates are $120 million, and it saves about another $160 million in transportation costs. I know Mayor McCallion was in front of you and said we should call this bill the Developers' Guaranteed Profit Act. With the greatest respect to the mayor, I think this bill could be retitled the Region of Peel Windfall Profit Act -- $284 million if Britannia is expanded.

I know chairman Kolb was in front of you just two days ago. He was insisting in his submission that Peel had spent $8 million looking for a site. "Since the province has taken it over we, Peel, should get our $8 million back." But in the same brief he says, "Don't give to the developers because they want their damages for speculative business loss." That is the farthest thing from what our submission is to this committee. Our submission is that Antrex and the other developers' legal rights are being suspended by this act.

1620

Readily quantifiable costs -- How much does it cost to carry the land? How much does it cost to continue to pay taxes? -- are quantifiable and should be compensable. We are not asking for speculative business loss. We are looking for compensation just to be able to carry the land so that we are kept in the same position so that when we do get a chance to develop, we have at least been able to receive some compensation for the loss of not being able to develop it now.

It is true there are certain flaws in section 19. They have been raised, I think legitimately, by some municipalities. One of them was, who should pay? The city of Vaughan did not want to have to pay if it was an unwilling host, an unwilling recipient. Section 19 said they maybe would have to pay. I would tend to agree with that submission.

While there are flaws in section 19, they should be corrected and the section should be maintained. It should not be discarded as the minister and some municipalities have said. If you remove section 19, you are removing the one section that ensures a measure of fairness to what is otherwise a draconian piece of legislation in denying existing rights.

There are, briefly, one or two other issues I would like to address. Antrex supports the six-point program that has been submitted to this committee by the ratepayers in Mississauga. This committee may be aware that on February 6 of this year, ratepayer groups, union reps, developers, and city and provincial politicians met at city hall at Mississauga and were united in their common concern over Bill 143 and the necessity to receive assurances of the limited nature of the proposed expansion and the need to process development applications around Britannia.

Our requests to the regional and provincial governments for information and action have so far gone unanswered. It is certainly our hope today that this committee will recognize the serious effects the suspension of our rights will have on land owners such as Antrex (Lakeview) and will recognize a modicum of compensation for the loss of their development rights pending the completion of the landfill site. That concludes our remarks and we would be glad to answer any questions the committee might have.

The Chair: There is very little time remaining. What I am going to suggest is that members put their questions and then you will have an opportunity to respond to all of those that have been placed.

Mr McClelland: I would like the parliamentary assistant to take notice of my question as well because I would be interested in the response from the ministry. In terms of section 19, to the extent that it originally provided for injurious compensation to be paid for by the upper-tier government, would you care to comment in terms of a proposed amendment or a solution that would be acceptable to the municipalities, inasmuch as it is the result of an action or order of the minister, Ministry of the Environment, that such compensation be paid in a scheme more or less consistent with section 44 of the Environmental Protection Act? In other words, to borrow from the spirit of the Environmental Protection Act, maintain the right of compensation but do it in a framework that is consistent with existing legislation.

Mrs Marland: I am aware of your dependence on the Rivergrove developments. When they were here this week I asked them whether they would be willing to sign a waiver agreement and register on title the concern the ministry has about any future questions about the ongoing operation of the Britannia site. Although we have received an interim answer from the ministry to that question, I am wondering if that is an aspect that you would be willing to look at also.

The Chair: There are just a couple of minutes remaining. Perhaps you would like to sum up, and if there is anything you cannot complete, please feel free to convey it to us in writing.

Mr Longo: If I can deal first with the last question from Mrs Marland. Yes, we would agree to that sort of scheme and in fact that is what we have been inviting the minister to do. We have been saying not to hold up the designation of these lands. Approve the designation and recognize that when you do subdivision approval, you can secure in subdivision agreements that warning clauses will be given on title to people advising them of this. I think it is something that can be looked at in an effort to continue processing to approval these developments I have referred to. We would certainly welcome that as a way of breaking the logjam that exists right now.

To respond to Mr McClelland's point, the trouble with section 19 right now is that it says compensation shall be paid, but everybody is going like this when you say who is to pay the compensation. I think this committee should recognize which level of government is the best one to handle compensation. I put forward the fact that Peel has suggested it is going to make $284 million by an extension of the Britannia site. I am not suggesting it be the province or the region; it should be one of them and the act should say who it is so there is no more finger-pointing and saying it is not me but the other arm of government.

Second, with respect to Section 44, it does provide a system for a right to compensation and outlines a process to be followed, and that is something similar to what we are looking for. We believe there are common-law rights now that exist that would allow us to seek compensation. But as you know, one lawyer can give you an opinion that they are there, and when we go against the region or the province to ask for it, it will find a lawyer saying, "Show us and prove it." That is unnecessarily complex and unavoidably litigious. If the people who criticize section 19 say they already have the right to compensation, why is it so hard to put it in the legislation and remove all that work that keeps lawyers happy, but unfortunately is not the most productive way of society ordering its affairs? That is the type of proposal we would like to see.

The Chair: We appreciate your presentation. As I pointed out, if there is additional information you think would be helpful, please submit it in writing. All members of the committee have received your written brief and we very much appreciate your coming before the committee today.

STELCO INC

The Chair: I would like to call Stelco, the next presentation. Please begin by introducing yourself and your delegation to the committee. We would appreciate it if you would leave a few minutes at the end for questions. You have 20 minutes in total for your presentation.

Mr Schuldt: My name is Al Schuldt and with me here today is Sandra Stewart, public affairs manager. I am director of environmental control for Stelco. I am representing the company today in the presentation to the committee.

Our presentation today will deal with resource recovery, an alternative to waste management as it pertains to Bill 143. I will be reading the text that has already been distributed to the members of the committee. I will take about 14 minutes for that and I am certainly prepared to answer questions the committee might have regarding our presentation.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee regarding Bill 143 and Stelco's views and vision regarding waste management. Stelco's experience and expertise in environmental control activities including waste management is described in the written documentation that has been provided to the clerk for members of the committee. The information includes comments Stelco submitted to the Honourable Ruth Grier regarding Ontario's waste reduction program and points out the significant alignment between the government's objectives and Stelco's current practices. The material speaks for itself and I will not repeat it in detail this afternoon.

1630

Stelco is a major Canadian steel manufacturing company that is composed of many different businesses. Steelmaking is not a single-process, single-product operation, but is in fact a richly diverse and complex activity that requires careful coordination and management activities. In spite of the complex nature of our business, we have discovered opportunities to recycle internally a broad range of materials such as large amounts of water, acids, scrap metal and oil, just to name a few, and we are keen to do more.

We should be clear that our comments today focus on resource recovery, the philosophy Stelco has adopted regarding industrial waste management, rather than the other aspects of the bill that relate to municipalities. In our opinion, however, the same resource recovery philosophy would be an equally effective tool for municipal waste management.

Let me start by saying that we support the legislative intent of the bill, which is to achieve significant progress in the area of the 3Rs: reduce, reuse and recycle. We have many examples of this at Stelco. We are focusing on reducing chemical consumption through the use of recovery technologies, reusing spent oils as an alternative energy source and recycling vast amounts of society's scrap metal. All of these materials result in new steel products for consumers.

Our interest in Bill 143 is very straightforward: We want it to be effective. To this end we are here to discuss three points: resource recovery, market development, and targets and voluntary programs.

The first point I want to deal with is resource recovery. There are two fundamental ideas embodied in the proposed initiative. One attempts to convert Ontario to a conserver society and the other charts a partnership approach between people and organizations. We support those ideas but strongly recommend that Ontario take a much bolder approach. Our society needs to make a complete shift from its current waste mentality to a resource recovery perspective. In view of some of the disposal problems we face, the timing for such a shift could not be better.

We have developed resource recovery committees within Stelco and have found this new focus to be very beneficial. Shedding the negative connotation of waste has helped us to be more creative in achieving the 3Rs.

Here is an example of how a resource recovery focus has helped in creating another pathway for reusing materials in our operations. Stelco requires refractory brick in equipment to make steel and to heat steel products. From time to time refractory brick liners must be replaced, and traditionally used bricks were sent to landfill. Today when it is not used as a construction fill material it might be used as a fluxing agent in ironmaking operations. Here the used refractory is converted to a slag for which other uses exist. In addition, a new idea developed. Why not return the used brick to brick manufacturers as a raw material for making new bricks?

The idea of rent-a-brick has been created and our suppliers have been invited to join us to find ways to make brick recycling possible. More source separation will be needed within our operations and brickmakers will need specialized equipment for grinding and remanufacturing used brick into new brick shapes we need. It required us to convince the brick manufacturers to work with us to develop the idea of rent-a-brick, where in essence we pay a user fee and return any unused material as a resource instead of a waste for remanufacturing purposes. We are excited about the partnership approach and we see it as an effective method of bringing other experts into the equation. The result is that we want to do more along similar lines.

Our experiences suggest that the existing rules that govern waste should be renamed to focus on effective management of resources. The residuals that ultimately exist would continue to be managed under existing waste rules provided they are overhauled and integrated into the new initiative. This leads us to recommend that a new resource recovery initiative be developed to encourage resource stewardship, provide greater opportunities for new process development, and more important, avoid the negative image and regulatory barriers associated with waste.

The recommendation we have today is to modify and rename the waste management strategy to create a resource recovery initiative.

Moving to the next point, we want to talk about market development. We agree with the government's objective of developing a stronger market system through which recyclable materials are turned into new consumer or industrial products. This is a necessary and ambitious plan. A viable and diversified industrial base is needed, one that is capable of using the materials that are derived from collection systems. Users are needed and intermediary processes are required to close the loop for recycling. Manufacturers must be profitable and produce goods that are in demand. In our opinion, a much higher priority must be given to creating demand for recyclable materials. As a start, it means finding more ways to produce the highest possible quality of secondary materials at attractive prices. Poor quality, high prices and lack of guaranteed supplies are barriers to recycling.

The business of developing markets is a slow process and one that requires a multistakeholder approach through which all the sectors involved in recycling can participate as required. The role of government ought to be to facilitate the development of a market system by bringing people together to solve demand and supply issues and to provide leadership by development objectives and targets. A fundamental task of government is to act as a catalyst by providing financial incentives and technical information and by raising the awareness level about the business and benefits of resource recovery. Much is already being done, but more is needed.

Barriers that impede market development must be eliminated. It has been our experience that more can be achieved in the area of market development if we view all materials as a resource rather than a waste. "Waste" labels tend to create psychological barriers in addition to regulatory complications. Waste-derived products generate an image of inferiority and suspicion that the products are not as good or as reliable and are potentially hazardous. If the products are also more expensive to buy, it is unlikely that the goods will be in demand.

As an example, let me talk about a case we have at Stelco. Spent pickle liquor, the acid used to clean steel, is deemed to be a waste. As a result, difficulties were encountered in using the spent pickle liquor from Stelco as an effective chemical in sewage treatment facilities for removing phosphate contamination. Here the "waste" label hindered the development of markets for a high-quality product.

In addition, the regulatory obligations introduced further difficulties in terms of marketing the product. Spent pickle liquor must be sent directly to a sewage plant and cannot be warehoused without first obtaining other types of government approval. In contrast, this is much more onerous than any restriction placed on new materials that are equally dangerous and move relatively freely in commerce. Free movement is a desirable arrangement so that useful products that society demands can be delivered. The reuse of waste oil within Stelco is a further example where the combination of labelling and regulations acts as a barrier to recycling.

1640

We are forging partnerships with suppliers to get them involved in our agenda geared for reduction, reuse and recycling of materials we need to make steel. Past experience again dictates the value of market development. The market for blast furnace slag, a material that was once considered of little value, has developed to where it is a significant construction material. One of the three major constituents of Toronto's Scotia Plaza complex, for example, is blast furnace slag, which replaced stone in making concrete.

The recommendation we have for you is that to support the resource recovery philosophy, the Ministry of the Environment should make market development a top priority.

The final point we have this afternoon is about targets and voluntary programs. We believe that targets of 25% reduction by 1992 and 50% by the year 2000 that have been set for municipal waste form a useful vision for initiating a new waste reduction program. They provide a clear message and give direction. These waste reduction goals, coupled with a strong mechanism for self-auditing, would build on the willingness of people who have already demonstrated a commitment to recycling and to reducing the rates of waste generation. The progress might seem slow at a first glance, but it is happening and it is accelerating.

The strength of the program should not be founded on a complex system of regulation, but rather on fostering voluntary participation in activities that benefit both the environment and the participants. Monitoring can ensure that results are attained. This is a role for government to undertake without being intrusive or hindering progress. We are encouraged by the notion of self-auditing without filing complex documentation. We believe this is a wise approach, as opposed to a procedure where written reports would be demanded for perusal and approval. The measures would minimize non-productive and costly activities that affect both the generator and the government.

When Stelco reviewed waste management approaches, we decided we wanted a new model, a new way of thinking to achieve constant and never-ending improvements. The idea was to increase the awareness level and commitment throughout the organization to enhance the work already being done. The plan was to develop a greater sense of ownership and improve resource management efforts by developing long-term goals and creating a vision, developing an organizational structure and establishing visibility, and prioritizing the activities and providing focus.

This process has resulted in a formal structure for communication and reporting, which is essential for making things happen. On the premise that the impetus and policy direction comes from the "top of the house" and the implementation comes from the bottom, it is important that all parts of the organization get involved.

An organization was developed for a senior management committee to direct a resource recovery program, set objectives and review progress. Today, regular reporting ensures momentum is maintained. The interest level has shifted and now we are finding that people want to be part of the action and part of the solution. A work culture change has been useful for Stelco and might also be a model for managing the new initiatives that are being proposed. The point I want to leave with you is this: Our model is working without a lot of rules.

The recommendation we have this afternoon is as follows: The Minister of the Environment should develop a less intrusive model based on goal-setting, self-auditing and monitoring while minimizing mandatory controls and/or regulations.

To summarize, then, at Stelco we have adopted six key operating priorities and developed a Health, Safety and Environmental Vision Statement. These are non-negotiable tenets that we use as instruments to focus our organization and our people in their daily activities. They describe our agenda for the 1990s, which is aligned with the intent of Bill 143.

We have pointed out that our experience suggests that a positive view focusing on resource recovery instead of waste management has merit. This would be enhanced by aggressive market development. In order to bring about an attitudinal shift to a conserver society, we recommend a voluntary program in which government's role is to set targets, monitor and educate.

Mr Martin: I am really impressed with your presentation, the positive and constructive suggestions you have made here, in light of some work I will be doing in the not-too-distant future around waste management and recycling in the north. We are a resource-extraction industry up there. You make some good points. With regard to the voluntary nature of setting goals and standards, you have set some in your industry. Do you think they will really work? Do you think voluntary --

The Chair: Question, Mrs Fawcett. Do you want to place it on the record? We really are very short of time.

Mrs Fawcett: Okay. I am just wondering if this good presentation was more or less included in what you presented to Ruth Grier and how it was received, because I especially notice that you say, "A fundamental task of government is to act as a catalyst." I am just wondering whether that has --

The Chair: Question, Mrs Marland.

Mr Schuldt: Some of the points have been included --

The Chair: I suggest that you let them ask their questions. Then there will be about two minutes. You can respond to as much as you can now and submit the rest in writing.

Mrs Marland: Would you be willing to meet with ministry officials to give them some advice from your perspective in developing these markets that have to be there for the end solution to the whole program?

Mr Lessard: Is there anything more you can suggest to remove barriers to market development that you can provide for us that we might include in regulations?

Mrs Mathyssen: I noted you said that one industry's waste was another industry's resource. You participated in the Ontario waste exchange, which basically matches up people who need the waste with those who have the waste --

Mr Sola: What do you find more stimulating, incentives or penalties?

The Chair: You have two minutes to sum up. If you want to submit further information in writing to the committee, we would appreciate that as well.

Mr Schuldt: Let me address the first one, if we are prepared to meet with the ministry to provide further suggestions. Yes, we would indeed. We are ready to do so at any time. We have already submitted to the minister, the Honourable Ruth Grier, some of the documentation we have in mind. So we would do that.

To talk about setting goals, yes indeed, we feel that setting goals is a very important aspect of waste management. That is something people need in order to target their effort and also to provide focus to their activity. The goals should be set in such a manner that they can be achieved, yet also provide some stretch so that you can then go beyond them. Our suggestion is that the goals should not be set in a regulatory framework, but rather as a voluntary target. Then if they are not being achieved adequately, perhaps the regulation could take over.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation today. I know all members of the committee probably would like to spend a lot more time and get into a lot of discussion. They will have an opportunity, because we are going to recess for just a few minutes, to discuss it with you if they wish. If there is additional information you would like to table with the committee, you may do so in writing.

I have been informed that our next presentation will begin at about 5:05. The committee stands in recess until that time. I remind all of you that our next presentation, from the Recycling Council of Ontario, is for one hour.

The committee recessed at 1650.

1703

RECYCLING COUNCIL OF ONTARIO

The Chair: Our 5 o'clock presenter, the Recycling Council of Ontario, has just arrived, right on time. You have one hour for your presentation. We ask you, if you would, to leave time for questions from committee members.

Mr Hanson: My name is John Hanson and I am the executive director of the Recycling Council of Ontario. Thank you very much for inviting the Recycling Council of Ontario to comment on Bill 143 this afternoon.

I would like to take a few minutes to provide you with a fairly complete picture of the mandate and activities of the council. I think it will provide the framework for our perspective on the proposed legislation, that of a multistakeholder organization firmly dedicated to waste reduction in this province.

The RCO is a non-profit environmental organization. Its mission statement is to strive for the elimination of waste through the 3Rs: reduction, reuse and recycling. Our membership consists of individuals, businesses, industry associations, grass-roots organizations, recycling program operators and others who share our belief that society must make wiser uses of its resources through reduction, reuse and recycling.

The RCO has been in existence since 1978. Many of our members participated in the earliest efforts to establish recycling in this province, collecting materials in neighbourhood depots and in small neighbourhood-based collection programs. In 1989 we were honoured with a United Nations environmental award for our role in helping establish municipal curbside recycling in Ontario.

Our organization has witnessed the development of 3Rs activities in the province with pride. We have seen small private businesses become recycling program operators for large municipalities. We have seen the expansion of municipal waste disposal services to include blue box collections, the diversion of household hazardous waste, and recently the distribution of backyard composters.

We have seen the growth of the provincial government's very strong philosophical commitment to waste reduction, demonstrated through its financial support to the many 3Rs projects currently being undertaken around the province, and we have seen extraordinary achievements by businesses determined to implement waste reduction strategies, realizing that sound environmental practices also make good business sense. We have seen fundamental change at the household level as home owners recycle, compost and alter their shopping habits to include more bulk purchasing, fewer packaged goods and fewer toxic products.

As we work with representatives of all these groups, we are increasingly aware of the commitment and interest that exists in all sectors to reduce waste and establish a sustainable conserver society.

Just to give a sense of the growth of this interest, four years ago our annual conference was attended by approximately 300 delegates. Last year in Toronto approximately 700 people attended from across Canada, the United States and Europe to share information about topics such as recycling technologies, how to develop markets effectively, new legislation, environmental advertising and large-scale composting.

In April our annual waste minimization awards will take place. At this ceremony we recognize outstanding individuals, companies, municipalities and others who are working to implement 3Rs solutions in communities and workplaces throughout the province.

Each autumn we are impressed by the creativity and enthusiasm of communities, businesses, schools and others who participate in an RCO-sponsored Waste Reduction Week, and throughout the year the RCO provides 3Rs information by means of a province-wide toll-free hotline. Each year we receive thousands of calls and letters from householders, students and businesses on all aspects of the 3Rs. We receive many letters from other jurisdictions around the world asking for information about Ontario's blue box program, and we are very proud to share information about what is being accomplished here.

To ensure this information is current and accurate, we maintain extensive computer databases on market development, municipal recycling programs, relevant contact information and other useful data. To give you a sense of how this information has grown, two years ago our list of recycled product markets in the province was about 10 pages long; today it is about 150 pages long.

The RCO also maintains open to the public a reference library in which we maintain up-to-date publications and reports on all aspects of waste reduction. The volume of new information we receive constantly reminds us that we are dealing with an information explosion. Information that appears to be state of the art can be obsolete six months later, so we feel it is important that anyone providing information to the public with respect to 3Rs issues have concern for its accuracy.

It is this concern for accuracy that has made our publication, Ontario Recycling Update, so respected in the field throughout North America. We have now undertaken the publication of two more quarterlies, the Composter's Journal and the Renews Bulletin.

The recycling council is also active in the promotion of backyard composting through our home composting education programs. These programs employ trained volunteers who spread the word about composting in their communities. These programs synthesize local action and conserver society principles to achieve organic waste reduction.

We are also involved in ongoing public education campaigns on pertinent issues including the distribution of unsolicited direct mail, the equitable allocation of municipal recycling costs, the balance between public and private sector interests in the field, the relative environmental impacts of products and environmental labelling issues. Position papers on these issues reflect a consensus process on a number of well-balanced, multistakeholder committees in the RCO.

This year our activities are being further broadened to provide assistance to Ontario businesses and institutions in conducting waste audits and 3Rs action plans. Already a number of seminars have been planned for this spring and fall.

Thank you for bearing with that rather lengthy introduction to the organization. I simply wanted to reinforce how broad our organization is and how balanced we think the positions are that we try to put forth in a public manner.

To preface our specific comments on Bill 143, I would like to point out that while our broad, multistakeholder constituency enables us to define and foster dialogue around issues, it does not always allow for a consensus. So in my comments today, I will focus more on aspects related to the 3Rs than disposal options, although in some cases we realize there can be no separating them.

In general, the council feels that aspects of Bill 143 favourably impact on the future direction of 3Rs initiatives in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area and the rest of the province by providing both enabling and specific legislation targeted at reduction, reuse and recycling measures.

1710

Over the past year or two, it has become evident that while Ontario has moved far more quickly than virtually any other jurisdiction in North America in establishing source separation programs -- not just curbside blue boxes but also in the commercial, industrial and institutional sectors -- the front-end support systems for this activity, mainly market development and equitable cost sharing, have been left wanting.

By now we are all familiar with the complaints of municipal governments as to the high per-tonne costs of providing blue box service, the television images of stockpiles of newspaper, glass or plastics languishing in public works yards and of course the editorials implying that somehow the Ontario public has been hoodwinked into investing in a system that diverts a mere 4% or so of all municipal solid waste.

Well, there is no question that since the implementation of recycling programs, various markets have had their problems. I would call them growing pains and I would be the first to admit that they have hurt: the interim export of newspaper when Metro blue boxes came on stream, and again when the Quebec and Ontario Paper Company went on strike; the landfilling of contaminated glass when Consumers Packaging tightened its market specifications; most recently the stockpiling and hand-sorting of plastics in the wake of the Superwood plastics receivership.

But this does not constitute failure. Rather, it constitutes a normal market development scenario in a field that is still very much in its infancy. The many planned de-inking mills are not all up and running but they are being built. More sophisticated processing technologies for glass and plastics sorting are steadily being developed and implemented, while many new recycled content products are being introduced into the marketplace.

We in the field who are cognizant of the many advances being made have serious concerns with the one-sided and misleading representations about the viability of recycling. For example, no less an authority than pollster Martin Goldfarb wrote in the Toronto Star on Monday of this week that, and I quote, "Most of what is collected is not recycled." How totally irresponsible. On average, 95% of what is collected through curbside programs is recycled, here in Ontario, and the existing markets have committed to continue to recycle this material in future.

When it comes to the minimal 4% blue box diversion rates so often referred to, it is worth bearing in mind that the figure is relative to the entire waste stream, 60% of which is commercial-industrial garbage, paid for by the private sector.

Why on earth minimize the significant accomplishments of residential programs when they clearly were never intended to serve the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors? It is like saying that municipal garbage collection programs are failures because they too ignore the private sector.

If one does a quick survey of what curbside programs in Ontario really are achieving relative to the residential waste streams they are intended to address, the results are very encouraging indeed. Consider these 1991 diversion rates: region of Halton, 25%; city of Mississauga, 18%; city of Barrie, 18%; town of Richmond Hill, 16.8%; town of Lindsay, 17%; Pittsburgh township, 24%; town of Markham, 30%; Bluewater group of municipalities, 30%. This is very encouraging and it certainly stands in stark contradiction to the negative perspectives put forward in the media over the last six months.

The challenge lies in establishing new markets for the many other recyclable components that must be separated from the garbage stream. Paperboard and boxboard products, rigid and film plastics, wood, construction and demolition wastes, foil products, various high-grade papers, magazines and compostable organics are materials that are already being collected in a number of forward-looking municipalities, and by and large there are viable markets for them.

It is not the development of technology that poses a problem. Witness the Canadian breakthrough in the plastics industry and the introduction of a 75% post-consumer recycled content bottle, or the results of the Quinte pilot program and the new detergent board made from virtually 100% old boxboard.

While we can fully expect there will be growing pains in these industries, in time these markets will stabilize. The challenge is to promote consumer and business acceptance of recycled content products like grey or black plastic bottles instead of brightly coloured ones, or paperboard packages that have minor imperfections. To stimulate the adoption of these new technologies the concept of providing business with a level playing field is critical. The biggest single obstacle to overcome is the reticence of companies to invest in such a new infrastructure if their competitors do not.

The Recycling Council of Ontario is firm in its conviction that in spite of the demand-side obstacles to expanded curbside and commercial recycling programs, we must continue to move forward and build on the momentum established by curbside programs.

The conservation of resources and avoidance of waste requiring disposal that result from maximizing 3Rs diversion must continue to be priorities for all sectors. The government needs the authority to stimulate adequate market demand to ensure this happens.

Before I make more specific comments on part IV, dealing with 3Rs measures, we do have a few brief comments on parts I to III of Bill 143. With regard to part I, the continuation of the Interim Waste Authority and its mandate to locate long-term sites in the GTA, we have some questions about the role of this body once sites are found, and about the equity issue of the province funding only the GTA's site selection process when so many other jurisdictions faced with similar capacity problems must assume the costs themselves.

The RCO would like to recommend that the IWA's mandate be further clarified, especially with regard to responsibility for site operation and how the IWA will be funded. It is also suggested that a sunset clause be attached to the IWA based on a specified time limit or the finalization of the site search. We would also like to question the appropriateness of the IWA, as an arm of government, acting as a proponent in the environmental assessment process.

Regarding part II and the requirements for assessing long-term sites in the GTA, the RCO is supportive of the concept of scoping site capacities on the basis of waste diversion estimates. However, there needs to be further explanation of the methodologies proposed to calculate the diversion. It is important that the public, particularly municipalities, have the opportunity to review and have input into this process.

With regard to the assessment of disposal options, the RCO believes that a public review process involving scientific evaluation of all competing options should take place before these options are for ever limited under the Environmental Assessment Act.

However, to clarify what has been and will continue to be a very difficult issue for our organization, the RCO has historically objected to incineration technologies. Quite apart from the environmental impacts associated with emissions and ash disposal, we view incineration as a resource destruction technology that competes directly for materials that will increasingly be recycled in the future. But we are unwilling at this time to conclude that it is a less desirable option than landfilling, which has its own very measurable negative impacts and also competes for recyclable materials, depending on how cheaply it is priced.

That said, I would like to reiterate our conviction that reduction, reuse and recycling must form the basis of any integrated GTA waste management strategy and that we definitely perceive all disposal options as competing, especially in light of current collection, processing and recycled product advancements being made in many materials sectors.

Under part III, while we recognize the need to act quickly to circumvent a short-term situation in which the GTA disposal capacity is inadequate, we believe public hearings should be held on GTA landfill site extensions wherever possible.

1720

I would like to preface our comments on part IV with a recommendation that part IV be separated from the rest of the bill and used as the basis for a Waste Reduction Act unto itself.

Part IV is a highly diverse collection of amendments to the provincial Environmental Protection Act. This section deals with such disparate issues as the protection of the environment beyond Ontario's borders, the powers of the minister to fund various types of projects and establish waste management systems and the power of cabinet to designate certain products as waste management problems. To be honest, we were quite overwhelmed by the scope and detail of the proposed legislation.

On working our way through part IV, we found the meaning of provisions unclear. This lack of clarity has been raised by other deputants, who in some cases have speculated as to the government's intention in enacting these sections, particularly where the sections affect their rights or interests. As a general observation, we think it would be helpful if the summary that precedes the bill incorporates statements of intent or some background information that would enable the reader to place these sections in a policy context and thus clarify their meaning -- certainly those sections relating to the powers of the cabinet to categorize certain products as disposable or as constituting waste management problems.

Here are some of our specific comments related to section IV as it is written. Further comments will be provided in writing.

First, under section 22, related to protecting the environment beyond Ontario's borders, if the intent is to limit the flow of garbage to other jurisdictions, the issue of defining what is a resource and what is garbage becomes most important. For example, there are markets for certain used plastics in the United States that do not exist in Ontario, but if the material is considered valueless here and is therefore characterized as garbage or waste, could that preclude the successful marketing of it elsewhere?

Under clause 23(1)(g) we are most supportive of the mechanisms for stimulating economic development in 3Rs sectors through grants and loans; however, given current fiscal conditions, we would suggest that other economic measures, such as tax rebates, augment the grants and loans defined in this section.

In clause 23(1)(h) of this same section, which empowers the minister to establish and operate waste management systems and disposal sites, we believe the government's role needs to be clarified vis-à-vis the Interim Waste Authority. Does this mean the future GTA sites may be operated by the province?

Under section 27, which repeals section 74 of the Environmental Protection Act, we are generally supportive of measures that by broadening the act from litter and packaging to include disposable products and those which pose waste management problems, will enable the government to designate as recyclable or regulate those components of the waste stream for which 3Rs measures are not being applied. However, we strongly recommend that the criteria for determining what constitutes products that are disposable or are to be considered waste management problems be more clearly defined.

As many of you are likely aware, evaluating product or material impacts in terms of their energy and resource requirements and the pollution they generate at all stages of their life cycle, from primary extraction through to their ultimate disposal, is a complex undertaking. This developing scientific discipline is commonly known as life-cycle analysis or environmental profiling. While many of these life-cycle analyses are controversial, especially when used in product marketing, we now know that disposal of a product or material is only one of many impacts and not always the most significant.

Therefore, we would be concerned that actions under this section could result in the removal of certain products from the marketplace even if the overall net impact of the product were less than a competing product or package that because it was being dealt with or disposed of or recycled in an environmentally sound manner, would remain on the market. That is not to say we do not also think all packaging should ultimately be either reusable or recyclable.

The same concerns apply to studies to determine environmental appropriateness as defined in section 28. Will these studies in fact take into account full life-cycle considerations of packaging and products? If so, this should be clearly specified.

The Recycling Council of Ontario is generally supportive of section 30, which again broadens the range of products and packaging that can be regulated to conform to 3Rs measures. For example, we would see this section enabling the government to move beyond the very limited soft drink regulations by requiring greater refillability. However, as previously mentioned, we believe the criteria for defining products that pose a waste management problem should be clearly set out and that other life-cycle considerations should not be ignored in making this determination.

We believe these criteria take on added significance if effective enforcement mechanisms are to be established. Given the difficulty in enforcing the soft drink regulations, one cannot ignore the fact that without clearly defined criteria, enforcement of a broader constituency of products could be even more problematic.

With regard to section 33, mandating waste audits and action plans, the RCO is also generally supportive and will be submitting comments.

That concludes my remarks to the committee. Again, I would like to thank you for inviting us here today and I would welcome any questions you have.

Mr McClelland: Mr Hanson, one of the difficulties with the blue box program has been, if you will, the failure of a lot of companies to willingly participate. At the same time, there is no current agreement or protocol that has been established with companies that are participating. I am sure you are aware of that, and there have been many suggestions that the blue box program is in jeopardy until OMMRI can get itself in a position where it has some assurance of the so-called level playing field legislation that it has been waiting for, or at least directives.

In terms of the Recycling Council of Ontario, how do you see the relative importance of establishing the participation of companies through OMMRI in a continuation of that? Do you see ways this can be enhanced or changed? Has it served its time? Should it be continued? What do we need to do to continue it, if you believe it should be continued, to make it work? How do you see that being kept alive, hopefully, and then advanced?

Mr Hanson: I certainly hope it will be kept alive, because I think it is a very unique mechanism in the world where you have a variety of competing industries within sectors and a number of different sectors participating together to address stewardship issues related to their products.

Clearly they are having difficulties in getting other members onside because of the fact that the government's intentions are not clear and they have been unable to reach a memorandum of understanding with the government. I have not been privy to the discussions, so I cannot really comment on that memorandum, but we certainly are supportive of voluntary industry efforts. It is desirable from our perspective not to have to regulate and enforce. We think the creation of markets for materials will be done far more effectively if industry is a willing player rather than being regulated into it.

Mr McClelland: Do you feel then that the regulatory scheme if there is one -- the writing is on the wall and it is inevitable it will be forthcoming -- should take into consideration the fact that many industries have voluntarily complied? As you know, it is 0.03% of sales that those participants contribute to OMMRI. Many willing participants would see that they were being punished for their voluntary participation. In short should the regulatory scheme, if there is one to come, recognize and credit those who have willingly participated financially in the establishment and launching of many of the recycling initiatives in this province?

Mr Hanson: Certainly those companies that have voluntarily contributed financially should be credited. I think there is a general willingness among some very forward-looking companies to continue to contribute, but this is not going to happen if there is a not a level playing field and their competitors do not get into the ball game. Therefore, backdrop regulations are required to penalize those companies that are not participating. I would hope that simply the threat of regulation would be sufficient to get all companies involved.

1730

Mrs Marland: You made some reference to the demise of Superwood Ontario in Mississauga. Their explanation was that the end product just was too expensive. I wonder what you see as a solution to that kind of dilemma, that kind of problem that faces a company that took a recycled material and made a very good end product.

Mr Hanson: I do not want to comment on the end product that was produced because Superwood is in receivership, but it is not clear what the future holds for it.

Mrs Marland: Forget the name.

Mr Hanson: There are other, similar technologies that are succeeding in other jurisdictions in Canada, right across the country. Our feeling is that in any recycling endeavour, we should try to produce the highest quality products possible. The Superwood technology mixes various resin types together into a relatively low-value plastic material. Where I hope we are heading in the long term, with the various sorting technologies that are being developed and the shift in the manufacturing sector to use higher-value plastics, are systems where more of the plastic containers in the waste stream are separated out into high-value uses where the high-density polyethylene is kept in one stream, the polypropylene in another and the polystyrene in another. That, I think, is going to be more viable in the future.

Mrs Marland: Do you think we could double, triple or quadruple our recycling of aluminum and steel cans if we had the deposit system? I am talking about soft drink containers. If we had a deposit system similar to many in the United States -- even Quebec has it; I am not sure. Does Quebec still have it?

Mr Hanson: Yes.

Mrs Marland: Do you think that would be a worthwhile initiative as a requirement of the government in Ontario?

Mr Hanson: There is no question that deposit legislation results in very high return rates, depending on the price sensitivity of the deposits. In California, where it is one or two cents, it has not been nearly as effective as in other jurisdictions where it is 10 cents or more per container.

Our concern is that, yes, while the recycling rate for steel cans and aluminum cans and so on would surpass what the blue box is collecting at this point in time, we would like to see a system that collects a very broad range of materials, and we think it is inappropriate for retail stores, which pay very high -- in fact the highest -- square-footage fees of any business, to serve as depots for these materials.

If a deposit system were to be widely considered, it would be appropriate to also consider the establishment of a separate depot network, much the same as what Alberta has to deal with. Retail stores are very expensive locations to handle used materials. Certainly in terms of comparing the costs of running return-to-vendor programs, they are far in excess of what it costs to run blue box programs. If blue box programs are typically $130 to $180 per tonne, in retail locations the handling costs are closer to $700 or $800 per tonne. You still have all the fixed costs associated with collecting the other material in the blue box at curbside. You are still spending that $130 to $180 a tonne, and this retail network would be an additional parallel cost, so I think a financial analysis has to accompany it.

The short answer to your question is, yes, you can attain a higher recycling rate at this point in time by using deposits.

Mrs Marland: The concern I hear you expressing about this bill we are discussing today is that as soon as you make something mandatory, especially in terms of industry and commerce, it becomes a disincentive rather than with a voluntary program. We have a lot of evidence that the voluntary programs are really growing in this province. They grow probably at a greater rate because of their voluntary nature and because the incentive is there when that industry that is involved with its own design for recycling, reusing and so forth sees the cost-benefits directly, without doing it as a directive from a dictative government.

Mr Hanson: I think that is true. Certainly with regard to mandated audits, action plans and so on, there is concern in industry circles about the costs of it. I know the Ontario Ministry of the Environment is working to minimize those costs if and when those regulations take effect, but the voluntary efforts to date, the things we have seen at companies like Quaker Oats, Neilson and so on, have resulted in significant cost savings to those companies. However, they are forward-looking companies and I think there are other companies that perhaps need to be mandated into doing it. They will still derive the benefits.

Mrs Marland: We heard this morning from representatives of nursing homes and homes for the aged; health care providers. They were talking about how impractical it is for a nursing home, for example, to have all recyclable containers in the form of individual food-serving portions and that kind of thing, how impractical it is to give them the same directive. In their case, it is as much a health issue to protect their patients and residents by not having a communal serving dish for any of the food commodities served to their residents and patients.

Do you think some of those problems could be alleviated if government were willing to put some money -- dare I say this? -- into research and development of alternatives for that kind of application, such as a health care centre where the spread of infection or the risk of infection has to be the primary responsibility of that care giver, over being able to use either non-recyclable or recyclable items that are also collectible?

They were talking, for example, about disposable diapers. Disposable diapers in a home setting for one baby is an entirely different challenge and obviously a very easy conversion for that family, compared to an institutional setting where you are using very large disposable diapers on hundreds of adults in the same setting.

Mr Hanson: I suppose so. But in those institutions where they have switched, they are generally quite satisfied with the performance and the systems. The Queen Elizabeth Hospital here is one example of an institution that switched over from disposables, both diapers and incontinence pads. They are quite happy with the performance and certainly the costs are competitive, but there is a very significant reduction in waste.

Obviously health care facilities require special attention if you are talking about potential vectors for the transmission of diseases. Obviously that takes priority over waste management concerns.

1740

Mrs Marland: But how far back would we go? Would we go back to sterilizing syringes and needles? How far back do we go between being a conserver society and protecting the health of individuals?

Mr Hanson: I think what you are asking is the basis of a fairly complete study of the health care industry. We expect to have a study with some recommendations on how the health care industry can make significant reductions in its waste, but I am not in a position to comment on the results of the study yet. It will be released within a month. I would be very happy to provide it.

One of the things we have been particularly gratified to see in the last couple of years is the very specific focus on products in the waste stream. A few years ago we were talking in broad generalities about categories of products. Today the focus is on the types of inks used to print, the kind of computer ribbons that go into your printer.

There are very few products that are avoiding scrutiny, whether they are hypodermic needles or the types of plates used in a health care institution. I think it is up to the people in charge of administering these institutions and facilities to look at every single component they can and to make whatever judgement they have to. I am not an expert on hypodermic needles and how much waste they cause.

Mrs Marland: But you are an expert on recycling and the thing is that the government is coming down with this. The ideology of conserving the environment is something everybody supports, but in speaking for the Recycling Council of Ontario, I think you would possibly have a more practical approach to what really is realistic when we are talking about what should be used that can be recycled, rather than a government that is saying, "No matter what, this is what we want, even if it isn't in the best interests of the health of patients or residents," for example.

In some cases it is obviously more expensive to use disposable syringes and needles than to sterilize them, but the types of sterilization equipment have improved over the years. They are varied, so somebody is going to bring in that kind of argument. The point is that the risks sometimes outweigh the conservation psyche and I think that is something that has to be addressed.

Mr Hanson: There are numerous examples of that, even the bulk food issue where you can avoid a considerable amount of packaging, but there are concerns about exposure from a lot of people going into bulk food bins. The solution is you make more sophisticated bins where you do not have the human contact with the contents.

What you are touching on is part of what is missing out of life-cycle analysis: the comparison of different products, materials and systems, where you take into account the environmental issues, the energy issues, the raw material, the waste issues and the social considerations, the convenience, the safety, all those sorts of things. That is a very complex analysis and that is why we think it should form the basis of a lot of the criteria and the definitions that are being used to determine what kinds of products are and are not acceptable.

Mr Martin: I just want to say at the outset that it is really refreshing to hear you speak of recycling and some of the success stories that are there. I come from northern Ontario and certainly we have a very specific concern around the whole business of recycling, because it impacts very directly on what we do for a living up there, which is resource extraction. It is having, and will have, some significant effects. In the not-too-distant future, I am going to be leading a group that is going to be looking at that whole recycling-waste management challenge that we have in front of us in the north.

There is certainly a concern about some of the legislated levels of recycled material that will be in product. A lot of the states have done it and we are looking at it in Canada more and more. It will take away from the demand for raw product that we produce and we are afraid that it will also diminish our ability to add value to some of the product we produce up there. We want to do all in our power to be able to add value to our forest industry and our metals industry.

In your experience, is it more cost-effective to add the recycled material closer to the market or closer to the source? What would have to happen to make it more cost-effective? What kinds of realities would have to be brought into the mix to make it more viable to perhaps do it closer to the source of the product rather than in the southern Ontario area?

Mr Hanson: What would it take to make large-scale recycling facilities viable in the north as opposed to in the urban areas in the south.

Mr Martin: Yes. There is some talk that: "You might as well save your energy, because they're not going to do it anyway. It's more cost-effective to do it down here than it is up there, so forget it." Is there in your experience any reason for following that maybe a little bit further to see what could be done?

Mr Hanson: I think you outline the problem quite well. Clearly there is already dislocation in the paper industry, especially in the newspaper industry, and I think it will continue into other grades of paper.

I do not honestly have any suggestion how you increase the cost-efficiency for the north, aside from utilizing backhaul for those materials going from northern communities to the south. We see primary resource industries facing some long-term dislocations as secondary resource industries become more and more competitive with economies of scale. I really do think this is going to happen, whether it is plastics displacing petroleum or a greater utilization of metals displacing mining. Paper certainly is the most immediate. I am sorry I do not have suggestions.

Mr Martin: Maybe to be a little bit more specific, there is certainly the suggestion in front of this committee that rail-hauling waste material to the north would produce significant job opportunities and industrial development. I am struggling with the cost of doing that versus the resultant benefit, and if, looking at the economics of it, it would be feasible to do in the long haul.

Mr Hanson: Our preliminary examination of the proposals to rail-haul to the north lead us to reject the concept. The transportation costs in both directions are very significant. To ship materials 600 kilometres for processing and ship them 600 kilometres back to market them is very hard to support, not just from an economic position but with all the other impacts, the energy impacts and so on. When you look at that proposal, which would require the air-conditioning of railway cars in the summer to prevent the material rotting, and heating of the railway cars in the winter to stop the material freezing into each car, it just does not make sense.

Certainly we are not supportive of the use of the Adams mine for the residue garbage. We do not believe it can adequately contain the leachate that would flow into the groundwater, so frankly we do not see how you would make that kind of an operation economically viable.

1750

Mr Wiseman: I was interested to hear your comments -- the last few at any rate -- because it sounds like the garbage is going to live better than people if they have to ship it in air-conditioned and heated compartments to the north.

I have two questions. The first one has to do with the feasibility of separating material and storing it so that it can later be used in processes as needed. I read somewhere that they are doing this in Germany. They are putting paper, glass, bottles and tins in above-ground storage containers. Have you done any work in looking at the economic feasibility of above-ground storage for products that could then be used later on?

Mr Hanson: We have not really done an analysis of it. We have tried to look at what sort of products could be suggested, and I suppose plastics comes to mind. Boxboard and paperboard cereal boxes and so on also come to mind. Whether it is done above ground or below ground, I am not sure matters, providing you can allow for clean, below-ground storage, which you can.

The concept of heterogeneous landfills we think is an inappropriate one. What we should be moving to in modifying landfilling technology is monofills, which consist of various cells in a landfill, where, if materials become more economically viable in the future, they can be recovered fairly easily.

Above-ground storage requiring buildings and so on to keep materials dry does not necessarily make sense. Certainly with paper products you have a fairly short-term deterioration of them. Newspapers, for example, you generally cannot store for more than four to six months at a time.

We have not taken a position on materials storage, but it is certainly problematic. What would really be more desirable from our perspective, if we are talking about plastics for example, is that instead of storing a very mixed stream of plastics, the plastics industry would move towards a much more homogeneous use of plastics, manufacturers would use a far more homogenous mix of plastics, so that if they were to be stored, they would have a higher value. It is a matter of putting value in at the front end that could possibly justify the economics of storage. But we have not done an in-depth analysis.

Mr Wiseman: What kind of market-share shift has to take place for the private sector to respond on its own? How much of a market share do they have to lose in order for them to decide that the private packaging they currently have on the market has to be changed for them to regain their share of the market? Have you done any work on that at all?

Mr Hanson: No, we have not. But I know that in this fiscal period, companies are very sensitive to losing any market share at all. In fact it is one of the reasons that we believe many corporations are reticent to make investment in new recycling technologies.

I alluded to the new 75%-content recycled plastic container. A company in Brantford, Ontario, Resource Plastics, is producing the resin for Plax in Burlington. This is a Canadian development and a very significant one. But that particular package is not widely available in the marketplace because it is grey or can be made in black, and of course most of us desire packages and products that have nice, bright colours and denote a particular market brand. There are very few companies that are going to be willing to jeopardize or risk any market share at all to move their products into a new container like that, even though there is no question it is far and away the environmentally superior container, and that is what all plastic containers should be made of.

I do not know. I guess, to answer your question, it is probably relative to how much of the market they have.

The Chair: I have a request from the parliamentary assistant. Mr O'Connor, you have the floor.

Mr O'Connor: I know we were talking a little bit earlier on -- Mr McClelland raised it -- about the blue box program and some of the problems around the funding and what not. I know a multistakeholder group has been struck to deal with it and maybe, David, you can respond and explain a little bit of what the process is going to be and who is involved in it.

Mr McRobert: I believe that Mr Hanson has been involved with the multistakeholder group. The group is called the Waste Reduction Advisory Committee and this is an advisory body that advises the minister. They were asked to review options regarding who pays for recycling and waste management. Was it early in 1990 or was it early in 1991?

Mr Hanson: It would have been in 1991, I believe.

Mr McRobert: Right.

Mr Hanson: I do not remember the date.

Mr McRobert: In any case, my understanding is the recommendations based on their work have been forwarded to the minister and that work will be put into the policy development process undertaken by the waste reduction office on the question of who pays for recycling and for 3Rs in Ontario. We are not at liberty to disclose the details of that work, but I think it shows a great deal of promise, and perhaps Mr Hanson can comment on it.

Mr Hanson: What has been proposed to the minister I am not at liberty to release, but I could comment on the interim report, which advocated a shared model with industry contributing far more significant finances to the operating costs of municipal programs, as opposed to just the front-end capital costs, which has been the pattern to date.

The Recycling Council of Ontario did a paper of its own called Who Should Pay for Recycling? in which we advocated that industry assume the lion's share of the costs of operating municipal programs. Clearly we are supportive of any systems that are going to reduce the municipal burden to run these programs. As long as municipalities are required to pick up 100% of the operating costs of programs, we are going to have dissatisfaction. Anyway, we are in support of the shared-model concept that has been submitted to the minister, which calls for industry to assume a significant proportion of operating costs.

The Chair: Is there anything you would like to say in summation before the committee?

Mr Hanson: Nothing further, thank you. We have a few policy papers I will append to the written comments that we submit next week.

The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing today. You were pleased that we were able to schedule you in at this time. I know you were not well and we are glad to see that you have recovered and were able to make an excellent presentation before the committee and answer many of the questions committee members had. If there is any additional information you think might be helpful to us, we encourage you to communicate with us in writing in the future.

The standing committee on social development stands adjourned until 10 am tomorrow morning. We do have a change in the schedule, I want to alert all members. We have had a cancellation for 10 o'clock, but the clerk has scheduled in a deputation from Jolly Bottoms.

The committee adjourned at 1800.