Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT

Hon. W. Newman moves second reading of Bill 14, the Environmental Assessment Act, 1975.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have an opening statement?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, today I’m presenting to this House for second reading the Environmental Assessment Act. This bill and its amendments reflect this government’s continuing commitment to environmental protection, which was recently reaffirmed in the Speech from the Throne.

The process of environmental assessment is a means of ensuring that all undertakings can be commenced and completed without undesirable effect on the environment. This bill will accommodate this vital objective by placing the responsibility on the proponent of an undertaking to draw up and submit an environmental assessment to my ministry at the very earliest stages.

Since first reading, this bill has been subjected to intensive examination by environmentally concerned citizens, organizations and industry. We have received submissions and recommendations from many sources and have taken these into consideration in drafting amendments to our original bill.

We have never been doctrinaire in our thinking and we are always prepared to listen to, and adopt in our planning, ideas which we consider to have merit. Accordingly, we are presenting today for second reading an amended bill which we are confident will provide the people of this province with effective legislation without precedent in Canada.

I’d like to outline the procedure which will be established by this amended bill. The proponent of an undertaking which is subject to the Act will prepare an environmental assessment and submit this to my ministry. The public will be notified of a place where documents may be inspected.

Any proponent or individual who makes a written submission can require a public hearing on the undertaking. The minister can at his discretion order such a hearing or deny the request. A hearing would not be called it the minister considered the request to be frivolous, vexatious or, if in his judgement, a hearing would be unnecessary or could cause undue delay in the process of the undertaking.

Should a hearing be held, it will be held under the provisions of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, with exceptions relating to procedure at a hearing to be established at the discretion of the assessment board. Full notification of hearings will be provided to all interested parties.

I mentioned earlier that many suggestions and recommendations regarding this bill have been received since first reading. One recommendation considered called for the granting to the Environmental Assessment Board the authority to make the final decision. This government cannot accept this suggestion. Our amended bill, however, authorizes the board to make decisions, but the minister and cabinet have the jurisdiction to vary, reject or substitute their decision for that of the board or to require the board to reconsider its decision and to hold new hearings. The minister and cabinet may exercise this authority within 28 days of the receipt of a decision of the board. If no action is taken, the decision of the board is final. Questions of legal jurisdiction will, of course, be dealt with by the courts. The proponent cannot proceed with the undertaking until the decision becomes final.

I will briefly review the procedure which will be established under the Environmental Assessment Act and its amendments. We intend to apply common sense, flexibility and caution in the implementation of this bill when proclaimed. To apply this bill at its inception to all undertakings would result in administrative chaos which could defeat the purpose of the bill. We will proceed with caution and restraint.

Initially all undertakings of the Ontario government, its agencies and municipalities will come under the Act. However, to give our municipalities a further opportunity to examine the total ramifications of this bill, and to present any questions which they may wish to discuss with my ministry, we will be exempting the municipalities from this bill at the outset; but they will be brought under its provisions at a later time.

Undertakings by the private sector similarly will be brought under the bill at a time dependent upon our administrative capability and experience. The Act is designed to regulate and not to block or to hinder an environmentally acceptable activity in Ontario, and that intent is clearly spelled out.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask this House to refer this bill to the standing committee of the Legislature for a review of the bill and the proposed amendments. This will also permit concerned members of the public to make submissions and representations to the committee.

We believe that further public input and participation in this most important environmental undertaking will serve the public need and provide the environmental protection desired by this House and by the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that this bill has had a gestation period of over two years, and having studied the original bill very carefully, I am inclined to think that the minister intended the end result to be a stillborn fetus.

It is rather unfortunate that at the last minute we have been presented with an amended bill. We, on this side, have certainly not had occasion to peruse the amendments and so, therefore, we are unable to say at this time whether we can support the amended bill. However, Mr. Speaker, we in the Liberal Party certainly do not support the original bill in its present form.

While we believe that this province is in dire need of truly effective environmental assessment legislation, the principles upon which the government has based this legislation show that they are evidently not so concerned with the possible detrimental environmental effects of future developments in this province.

After a close scrutiny of this bill, we can only conclude that it is an Environmental Assessment Act in name only and lacks any semblance to truly effective environmental impact legislation. The bill which we have before us is a blatant hypocrisy. It contains no responsibility on the part of the minister to protect the environment from the negative effects of future developments.

The Minister of the Environment unilaterally will have the power to decide if an environmental assessment is necessary, if there is to be a public hearing and, ultimately, if the project will go ahead. These principles are in direct contradiction to any sound environmental assessment principles.

Surely, after the lack of action which this minister has already shown in dealing with nonreturnable bottles and noise pollution, just to mention two instances, it would be too much to expect this minister to have sole say in matters which will affect the entire public. Considering the amount of time which this government has taken to introduce this bill -- and as I mentioned, it is over two years -- surely we might have been presented with a more credible piece of legislation.

This bill is so vague in all crucial areas that it could mean almost everything or nothing. In its present form, I would submit that it means nothing. The bill is only to apply to such major commercial or business projects, government and municipal projects, as may be designated by the government by regulation.

It then authorizes the minister to define any development as a major one. This bill, therefore, will include only those projects that the minister defines for inclusion. If the minister designates nothing, the Act will apply to nothing. This government has repeatedly promised legislation on environmental assessment ever since the March, 1973, Throne Speech.

Again, in the 1974 Throne Speech, the government said that we would be asked to approve legislation during that session which would require an environmental assessment of major new development projects. Yet, it was not until March 24, 1975, that this bill appeared for first reading. It is completely beyond belief how this government can stall on important legislation year after year, and then produce an assessment bill that means nothing. The present inadequate situation which we now have regarding hearings on environmental issues will not he changed. The only changes will be in name.

Rather than an Environmental Hearing Board, we are to have an Environmental Assessment Board; but once again the public will have no say in protecting the Ontario environment. The public, however, will have a say in the next election when this government’s environmental record comes up for review -- and truly it is a dismal record.

When the green paper on environmental impact legislation was first introduced in September, 1973, it was billed as a basis for public discussion. Submissions were invited from interested parties. There followed a good deal of public response with 179 submissions. However, despite our repeated requests that these submissions be made public, and part of public discussion, they have never been discussed publicly and were only open for inspection at the Ministry of the Environment library a few days before the legislation was introduced.

Moreover, I have yet to receive a reply to the question which I had placed on the order paper April 8, inquiring of the minister as to which specific suggestions from the submissions to the green paper are contained in the Environmental Assessment Act and in what section each is reflected. I still await a reply.

The absence of any public discussion on the submissions, and the contained recommendations therein, is probably the true indication of how the government intends to carry out and practise the principle of public participation. In fact, nowhere is there the right of the public to obtain an appeal of any project that may be approved by the minister where the minister sides with the developer.

While the Premier (Mr. Davis) travels around this province and makes statements about his government’s commitment to protecting the Ontarian environment, it is truly unbelievable that they can bring forth this legislation.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Who wrote that for you?

Mr. Riddell: You don’t need to worry about who writes my speeches.

The people will not be fooled by this hypocrisy. This bill, Mr. Speaker, would require the assessment be done by the developer himself and submitted to the Minister of the Environment for approval before the project has begun.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): That’s pretty helpful, Jack. Three per cent.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): He is the potential agricultural minister.

Mr. Riddell: The minister would then review the assessment and notify the municipality where the project is to be constructed. There is, however, no requirement on the part of the minister, or the municipalities, to make any public announcement, or to inform concerned environmental groups.

Any person who may hear about the project may make a submission to the government within 15 days of the giving of the notice to the municipalities. The minister then considers the matter and either allows the project to proceed, turns it down, or accepts it subject to terms and conditions.

The bill is to provide for a five-member Environmental Assessment Board of non-government people to hold hearings on direction from the minister and advise the minister as to whether any environmental assessment referred to it should be approved, disapproved, or approved with conditions.

While civil servants have been barred from the board under this proposed bill, it does not clarify whether an individual may merely quit the civil service in order to be appointed to the board. Moreover, the minister is not bound by the advice of the board.

An hon. member: Sure he is.

Mr. Riddell: Under this bill, a hearing will be held only when the minister informs the developer he intends to amend the developer’s environmental assessment. The developer may then, if he wishes, require that a hearing of the board be held. However, the opponents of a project may not require that a hearing be held, nor is there any requirement in the proposed legislation that opponents of a project must be heard when the board is directed by the minister to hold a hearing.

According to the Minister of the Environment, we are told only Ontario government developments will be designated under the Act in the first two years after the legislation is passed. However, we are not told whether it is ever to be extended to the private sector. It is to depend on experience with the public sector. Surely we should have a time limit as to when the private sector will be included in any assessment legislation. This bill will protect private projects which may have an undesirable environmental impact.

Mr. Speaker, in order to make clear many of the deficiencies in this bill, it would be most useful to analyse briefly the problems inherent in the present Environmental Hearing Board and assess whether this proposed bill will do anything to solve these problems. We have learned much from this present board of what an Environmental Assessment Board must contain. This board has been the captive of the legislation which has established it, and can, by no means, take responsibility for its lack of power and limitations.

While this present government has finally decided to introduce this long-awaited piece of legislation, it would only seem logical that the unfortunate experiences and legislative deficiencies of the present board not be repeated. However, a careful reading of this proposed bill clearly indicates that this will not be the case.

In the future an Environment Assessment Board will have to assume great importance both for those people whose environmental rights will be determined, and for the province as a whole. It is of great concern to myself and to my party that this board have the powers to deal effectively with the environmental questions that will come before it. Under this proposed bill, however, these powers will be non-existent.

Presently, the Environmental Hearing Board has been without power to make decisions. Rather, they have merely made recommendations to the minister. Moreover, they have been relegated to the role of assessing that material which is submitted to them. Generally the only people who can afford to submit research scientific background documents are the industries. Because of this lack of power, the board has ended up interpreting the interests of the industries that it is supposed to regulate.

In this bill the assessment board, again, will merely have the power to make recommendations to the minister which he can accept or reject. The public, again, will be unable to require an environmental assessment of a proposed project, nor are they to be informed by the board of any proposed developments. Only the proponent of a project is to be given notice of a public hearing, if one is to be held. The private individual has usually been left out of the process because of the cost involved. While industries can write off studies against their income, the public must absorb their own costs. It has been a very uneven struggle indeed.

If the environment is even to mean more than an individual merely stating of a project, “I don’t like it”, the sources must be made available to opponents of a project. However, no provisions for financial assistance have been made in this legislation to ensure that there are adequate resources available for such purposes.

Financial aid would enable citizens or environmental groups appearing at impact assessment hearings to place themselves on a more equal footing with project proponents who may spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to support their case. Why should the public, at their own expense individually, have to come forward to try to battle a team as may be assembled at the board? The present Environmental Hearing Board has not been subject to the safeguards of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act or the Judicial Review Procedure Act, the legislation designated for the protection of individuals in civil liberties in Ontario.

The board must have the power to swear witnesses, as well as subpoena them to come forward. If there is important evidence, the board must have the right to obtain it. It is believed that the board is not, in fact, determining rights of persons and, therefore, does not need the power to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, compel responses to questions, cite for contempt, and so on. However, environmental problems in the 20th century to some extent injure all members of the public at large. The board, therefore, in all practical sense is, in fact, determining rights of people.

In terms of the importance of the issues that an environmental assessment board will have to deal with in the future, it will be essential that it have the same kinds of powers as a royal commission, which has the power to determine rights. The board must be equipped with the kinds of powers that make it something more than a powerless body merely making recommendations to the minister as is presently the situation. Moreover, this bill contains no previsions for opponents of a project to appeal a decision in cases where the minister sides with the developer.

Surely an appeal procedure is one of the more basic of all rights of natural justice that must be afforded to all citizens of this province in matters affecting their lives. Under this bill the public would net have status to be at board hearings, would not have rights of appeal and would have no right to even a proper hearing. It is imperative that these basic rights be contained in any environmental legislation.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, contains no requirement for the Minister of the Environment or clerk of the municipality to make any public announcement of proposed projects and public hearings. Persons may inspect environmental assessment documents if they manage to hear about them. Under present legislation the government is tinder no obligation to make public any information about a proposed project or even to disclose the fact that something is under consideration at all.

Meaningful legislation must require that notice be given to all those likely to be affected by a project, and early enough for them to have effective input into the planning process. Moreover, a person’s rights to sound environmental planning should not be dependent on whether he has a direct and immediate interest. Everyone concerned should have the right to be notified and to appear before the board, and any person must have power to require a hearing.

Also, it is simply inadequate for this proposed board to give 15 days’ notice of a hearing. Any environmental assessment ports must be made available to all concerned, and must be given out at nominal costs. As the situation now exists, reports submitted to the Environmental Hearing Board cannot be taken out. These reports may only be located at a few places throughout the province. These reports may cost individuals more than $100 a copy to duplicate.

Any Environmental Assessment Board should be required to file enough copies with the board, so it can hand them out as long as people request them. Other boards in Ontario and in Canada have developed a practice for the circulation of the publication of notices of hearings to all interested parties well in advance of the hearings. It is our submission that this can also be done, and should be done, in this legislation.

When the government knows that people are violently opposed to a project, to leave it up to them to come forward with 15 days’ notice of something published in the paper, does not seem to attach any serious consequences to their recommendations.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, we can conclude only that this bill merely has the title of an environmental assessment bill and is void of any basic requirements for truly effective environmental impact legislation.

This bill would provide a built-in, unfair advantage for sponsors of projects which may have undesirable environmental effects on this province. In fact, this bill will do nothing to provide necessary changes in our present inadequate situation regarding environmental hearings under the Environmental Hearing Board.

The proposed board will be equipped with the same powers, but have a new name.

Under this bill, the minister will still have full authority to make all decisions affecting the lives of all the province without public input. Citizens affected by a project will not have the power to require a public hearing by an independent assessment board. Citizens affected by a project, or other concerned environmental groups, will not be required to be notified that a project is being considered -- nor will they be notified of public hearings.

The bill will apply only to government projects, not private undertakings. No financial assistance will be provided to opponents of a proposed project, who may be concerned that its environmental damage will outweigh its benefit. There is to be no public input into the regulations which will govern this bill. The assessment board is to be a powerless body merely making recommendations to the minister, and will not make decisions.

The Environmental Assessment Board has so few safeguards that it may, in effect, merely become an arm of the government -- a truly hypocritical piece of legislation. We in the Liberal Party cannot support it in its present form. After we have had a chance to look at the amended bill -- and if substantial changes are made to the bill -- I would say we, in this party, would be prepared to support it. But the substantial changes would have to be as follows:

Both proponents and objectors would be able to ask the minister for a public hearing -- and it would be the minister’s obligation to accommodate this request unless the minister could substantiate the frivolous or vexatious nature of such a request. Such hearings should also be opened to the public. All projects would require assessments, except for those specifically exempted by regulation, rather than assessments required only for those projects specifically included by regulation.

If the private sector, municipalities and some government departments -- notably roads and housing -- were to be exempted right away, then there must be a firm timetable for the eventual inclusion of these areas. Exemptions must be by way of notice of motion on the order paper so that the Legislature can get a look at them. Notice must be given to the public when the minister receives an assessment, and any person could make submissions to the minister within 30 days. Notice of decisions must be given to all persons making submissions.

The Environmental Assessment Board would make decisions with final approval by the minister. The Public Inquiries Act, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Judicial Review Procedure Act would apply and the effect of the application of these Acts would be that hearings would be run like a court, with standard enforceable procedures that must be adhered to.

These are some of the amendments that we would be looking for in the amended bill. Again I say, if such amendments are in that bill, then we will be in a position to support it. In its present form, as the original bill which was introduced, we certainly cannot support it. It is really a meaningless bill. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, the Environmental Assessment Act has long been heralded and it now appears before us as Bill 14. The Throne Speech of March 20, 1973, promised, and I quote: “Legislation to establish a permanent agency for environmental protection, having the responsibility for a comprehensive system of assessment and evaluation of the environmental significance of activities of government ministries,” and so on. A year later, the Throne Speech on March 5, 1974, announced, and again I quote: “You will be asked to approve legislation which will require an environmental assessment of major new redevelopment projects”. There was no qualifying, Mr. Speaker, of that “major new development projects”. It didn’t say merely the public ones or the government ones. It was unqualified.

About six months later, a green paper was issued inviting public comments on the ministry’s plans for environmental impact assessment legislation. In June, 1974, the minister was telling those who inquired that it was the intention “to introduce the legislation at the earliest opportunity.” In October, 1974, the minister’s office was agreeing that “public participation will be a most important component of the environmental assessment process. There was also the acknowledgement of questioners’ concern that there be full public access to assessment information, and provision for financial support to groups acting in the public interest”. Now, it is true that the ministry expressed neither agreement nor disagreement with this concern, merely pointing out that it would not be appropriate to reveal details of the proposed legislation.

With all these public announcements and private assurances, it was natural that the public and members of the Legislature expected a first-class bill when it was eventually introduced shortly before Easter of 1975 -- on March 24, I believe. Imagine our disappointment when we found that there was not only no provision for providing financial support to any group acting in the public interest, but also that the public would have very little opportunity to participate at all.

In June, 1974, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) explained to questioners, “This assessment system will, of course, include an opportunity for public participation, allowing concerned citizens the opportunity to review any new proposal and voice their opinions and concerns”. It would appear that no public hearings will take place if the minister accepts the assessment statement as adequate for his decision-making, and if he then approves the project.

The minister might give approval to a nuclear plant at Goderich and the only opportunity for the public to object would be after the municipal clerk had received notice when and where the public could see the proponents’ environmental assessment statement and the minister’s officials’ review of that statement. The members of the public might then make submissions. These submissions, one must assume, would be in writing. Is there provision for any alternative?

I am aware the minister has made an announcement this evening about some changes. It may be he has relented in this respect. May I suggest to the minister that he is making the same mistake the federal Minister of the Environment made some two years ago. The environment minister at that time, Jack Davis, chose an administrative procedure wholly inside his ministry, with no independent board and with no public input. Federal officials at that time indicated that having public participation would be a political headache.

The federal proposal was for an Environmental Review Board independent of the civil service with power only to make recommendations, not decisions. The same proposal is now made by our minister, Mr. Speaker. As I mentioned, this is the same mistake made by the federal minister. Whether this mistake contributed to Mr. Davis’ defeat during the election, I don’t know, but the possibility raises an interesting speculation on our minister’s electoral future.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): That is the other Davis. The minister had better get out of this department while the getting is good.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): The member for Brant liked that one, eh?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Agriculture is more inviting.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): He would do better in agriculture.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Actually the back-bench looks pretty good.

Mr. Burr: Before I become too critical of Bill 14, Mr. Speaker, let me say the principle of environmental assessment before a project begins, rather than 20 years after it is found to be polluting the environment, is obviously commendable. How much better if the Pickering airport project had faced such a requirement. How much better for the James Bay natives if the federal government had had such legislation requiring a study before the project commenced. That just about exhausts my store of compliments for the bill.

A good example of the pressing need for this Environmental Assessment Act is the situation at Timagami where open-pit mining carried on by Sherman Mine, a Canadian company managed by an American management firm, is threatening the 1,339 inhabitants of the old village of Timagami. Lumbering, which has existed in this district for many decades, has lived with various restrictions, including those that preserve the aesthetic qualities of the area. For example, no harvesting is allowed in the areas that would spoil the view from the lake. Why then should the mining industry be allowed to assault the villagers with dust and noise?

Sometimes the blasting cracks the light bulbs in the homes of the villagers. The villagers maintain that roads leading to and from the centre of operations should be dust-proofed and that there should be some protection against the noise that pervades the community. Worst of all, there seems to be a conspiracy of inaction on the part of the government to squeeze the villagers out. Even this might be tolerable if there were some plan to exchange a home for a home. But there is no such plan. Why should the villagers be subjected to this assault on their environment? Why should they be forced to give up their present homes which they can afford for different homes that they cannot afford?

The people of the old village are placing great hopes in Bill 14 -- false hopes, I fear, because this ruinous operation, the open-pit mining, is a private project not likely to be brought under the Act for some time, unless the minister can be persuaded to make some changes in this Act.

The fanfare for Bill 14 was, as so frequently happens with Tory bills, “one of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced into this province.” It is true that the bill provides for the creation of an Environmental Assessment Board composed of people who are outside the civil service. This board replaces the Environmental Hearing Board, which included civil servants, but how else will it differ from this board?

Both the old board and the new board will have no power except to advise the minister. This is the first question to which I should like the minister to give me an answer when he replies. Apparently when an Ontario government ministry, or eventually a municipality or a private enterprise, wishes to proceed with any project of a kind to be designated in some future regulation, this is what will happen:

Step 1: The proponent will do an environmental impact assessment which will be submitted to the minister.

Step 2: The minister will cause a review of the assessment to be prepared.

Step 3: The minister will notify the proponent and the appropriate municipal clerk or clerks and anyone else the minister chooses (a) that the assessment has been received, (b) that a review of the assessment has been prepared, and (c) of the place where these two documents may be inspected.

Step 4: Any person may inspect the environmental assessment and the minister’s review of it, and will have at least 15 days in which to make submissions.

Step 5: The minister makes his decision to accept the environmental assessment or to amend it based on (a) the assessment itself, (b) the review of it made by his staff, (c) submissions by the proponent or any member of the public, (d) any reports he may have requested, and (e) the recommendations of the Environmental Assessment Board if the minister has requested that a hearing be held by the board.

Step 6: If the minister decides the assessment is satisfactory to enable him to reach a decision as to whether the project should or should not go forward or whether it should proceed only under certain conditions, then the minister “shall accept the assessment and give notice thereof to the proponent.” Notice of what? Notice that the project is rejected although the environmental assessment is “accepted”? Notice that the project has approval to proceed? Or notice that the project has qualified for approval? This is not clear.

One would assume that section 9, when read in conjunction with section 10, would indicate the proponent is to be notified if his project has been approved. Yet taken literally, section 9 requires that the proponent be notified merely that his environmental assessment is good enough to permit the minister to make a decision on the project and that this decision may go in any of three directions -- for, against or maybe.

In fact section 13(2) notes that the proponent can appeal at this point. Obviously he would not appeal a favourable decision; this, then, is the second question on which I should like clarification from the minister: What is the content of this notice mentioned in section 9?

Section 10 tells us what happens if the assessment is not good enough to enable a decision on the project to be made. The minister then must notify the proponent that he, the minister, proposes to make certain amendments to the assessment. The proponent may ask for a hearing before the board. Nevertheless, before the minister declares the assessment satisfactory or unsatisfactory, he may demand further research, investigations and studies from the proponent and have them reviewed and made part of the assessment and of the review. Presumably the clerk of the municipality and others should be notified again and given another chance to inspect the amended environmental assessment and the revised review of it.

I presume the second opportunity would be given to the public, but section 11 doesn’t say so. This is my third question for the minister: Is there a second public notice? If not, why not; and if so, where does the Act tell us so?

Before the minister accepts an environmental assessment as being satisfactory to enable him to make up his mind about a project, he may require the board to hold a hearing. As far as I can see then, the minister may ask the board to hold a hearing -- section 8 -- before he makes op his mind about the assessment and a proponent may demand a bearing of the board, if he does not like the rejection of his assessment by the minister or the amendments proposed by the minister.

I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I do not see the need for the two-stop decision the minister is required to make, whether to accept the environmental assessment as satisfactory and then whether to approve the project. Why could this not be telescoped into the one important decision; that is whether or not to approve the project, the decision being based on the validity of the proponent’s environmental assessment as checked out by the minister’s staff? Why do we have these three elaborate steps summarized in block letters in the heading of Part II of the bill just before section 5 begins; namely acceptance, amendment, approval?

What everyone is interested in, of course, is the rejection or the approval or the qualified approval of the project. The environmental assessment statement is just one means toward reaching this decision. This bill seems to be trying to give the assessment statement top billing or at least equal billing with the merits of the project itself.

Section 14 could be considered the heart of the bill. Sections 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 add little but confusion to the bill itself. I suspect these sections, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, have been worked out and put into the bill in order to make Bill 14 appear to have some substance. Actually, it has little.

What the bill has contrived to do is to permit the public as little participation as possible in the environmental assessment process. Nowhere can any member of the public ask for a hearing. If a dam or a Hydro transmission corridor or a nuclear plant or a pipeline is to be constructed, according to this Act only the proponent and the minister can require a hearing.

Section 14(2)(c) requires the minister to consider “submissions, if any.” This is the only point at which the public can have any input prior to a hearing of the board. As far as one would gather from the bill, the only persons likely to appear at a public hearing of the board would be the proponent and his representative. The only members of the public who will be directly notified of a hearing are “such other persons as the minister may determine.”

I find nothing in the bill that would lot a person or a company that is a proponent know that his particular project came under the Act. No doubt the regulations will clarify this. I should like the minister to comment on this apparent omission.

Speaking of regulations, surely no project should be exempted in the Act. The regulations should be used to make temporary exemptions and these exemptions should be cancelled as soon as possible. Bill 14 makes no provision for class actions whereby a group of citizens could oppose some project proposed, for example by Ontario Hydro. This project might be a dam, a fossil fuel plant or a nuclear power plant.

Individual citizens, even a large number of neighbours, would rarely, if ever, have the financial resources or the technical expertise to oppose the huge pool of professional engineers and lawyers available to a proponent the size of Ontario Hydro. If the public is to be assured of proper protection there must be some provision made for a group of concerned or threatened citizens to have access out only to technical information but also to sufficient funds to present this information to the Environment Assessment Board, to call expert witnesses if need be. Bill 14 very carefully and deliberately has prevented this possibility from happening.

To sum up, Mr. Speaker, this bill has major shortcomings. First, the public is effectively excluded from any meaningful role in environmental assessment. Second, there is no provision for class actions or their funding. Third, the Environmental Assessment Board has no decision-making powers.

In my opinion, it should have powers similar to those of the Municipal Board whose decisions can be overruled only by the cabinet, a procedure rarely followed but one that leaves the final responsibility where must people believe it should rest with the elected representatives.

Four, the bill should apply to all potentially hazardous projects, especially industrial ones, most of which are in the private sector. Five, Bill 14 leaves too much to the discretion of the minister without provision for appeal against a minister’s decisions.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, unless we find on reading the minister’s amendments carefully that they make substantial changes in this Act, we shall be unable to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member for Huron has spoken very thoroughly and knowledgeably of the position of this party on this bill. There are a few things I would like to say.

The history of this bill goes back to several Throne Speeches ago when promises were made one year that we would be dealing with legislation. In the other year, I think the Throne Speech said legislation would be introduced to deal with the whole matter of assessing projects as to their environmental acceptability.

Ontario Hydro, with its vast grid system across the province, its helter-skelter taking of land and its development of networks which have cut across our landscape in the past few years and the magnitude of Hydro’s projections for the future, has probably more than anything else contributed to the public awareness of the need for this type of legislation. Included in Hydro’s whole setup, of course, is the Arnprior dam situation.

The green paper and the many submissions; the controversy over whether or not the ministry was even looking at the submissions; our inability to get the codified and tabulated results of the submissions; all are very vivid in our memories. For the past year we have tried to get from the minister what people were saying in the submissions. Is there any common thread? We believe there are common threads in the submissions made and one of these common threads has to be that there must be public participation; there must be an independent group looking at this. All these have been sources of frustration to those who have had a very genuine and deep interest in the whole matter of the assessment of projects as to their environmental acceptability.

Undoubtedly, opposition within the various ministries has led to much of the delay. It has been stated by some that the Minister of the Environment, being a junior minister, has had the Minister of Transportation and Communications; the minister of municipal affairs --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Upwardly mobile to Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Good: -- and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food -- some of these others are on his neck. The Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) in particular has been on the minister’s back over this legislation. Perhaps that was one of the major reasons the bill was first brought out in such a watered down and ineffective form.

The minister, I’m sure, is aware of the great controversy that arose over Hydro’s in-house assessment of the Bradley-Georgetown route for their high-tension power lines.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Pretty disappointing.

Mr. Good: The Solandt commission, the first of its kind, was appointed to look at the other route from Nanticoke to Pickering; and did a very good job, I assume, after much detailed analysis of the situation. Finally, after a delay of more than a year and a half, the Bradley-Georgetown route is now going to undergo further studies, because it has been proven that Hydro’s environmental study had been slanted to its own uses.

I asked them at the public meetings: “How did you do this?”

They said: “Well, the various colours on the map show those areas that we try to avoid and those which we try to go through when we are putting our high-tension lines down.”

“How do you establish those? Is it because of their environmental aspects or the taking of prime agricultural land? What is it?”

“Well, some areas we avoid because there are communities there.” That’s understandable. “Other areas we avoid because it’s tough to build the Hydro transmission lines through them.”

It really wasn’t an environmental study, because we all know that it’s only in the past seven years that Hydro first learned that their power lines could bend. Before that they just went the shortest distance from one point to another. I think it was the Indians at the Six Nations reserve who told them they’d have to bend their Hydro lines around their reserve; and they did, for the first time.

All these things, and particularly activities of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, have made the public of Ontario aware that we can no longer go about, helter-skelter, building huge projects, no matter whether they be in the government sector or the private sector, and expect to protect our environment for future generations.

The drafting of the regulations which under the new amendments, as I have read them, will now exclude projects, is of very great and vital concern. The original bill indicated that everything would be exempt and the regulations would opt in. As I understand the new amendments -- and I’ve had some two or three hours to look at them -- and as I understand the explanatory notes, everything will be in and regulations will excuse certain projects, municipalities and what not.

This is of great concern, because we, as members of the Legislature, can’t properly assess the value of this bill until we know what the minister is going to exempt in regulations, what the timetable will be, when other projects and other agencies will be included as having to carry out an environmental assessment. That is one of the weaknesses which we see in the bill.

Of course this is standard practice in much of the legislation that’s brought before us in the House in that there’s more meat in the regulations than there is in the bill. In many instances the bill just gives the minister power to make regulations, which in effect lets him do what he wants by orders in conned. This, of course, is one of the major disadvantages of trying to debate a bill intelligently as an opposition member.

One of the major concerns, in which I’m sure the minister will pride himself, having amended it to a slight degree, is that under the original bill the minister or the proponent of the project could ask for a public hearing. Now, as I understand his amendments, he has added the fact that a member of the public, someone who has made a submission on the original assessment by the proponent, may also ask for a hearing.

While that, on the surface, might appear to be a great step forward, the fallacy of it is simply that no one is guaranteed a hearing except the minister. It’s still at his discretion. Now this is contrary to other aspects of government policy dealing with matters that are no more important than is the protection of our environment.

Let’s just look for a minute at the procedures that are followed if a zone change is going to take place, or if a decision of some other nature is made in the municipality, such as a water or sewer project to be established in a municipality. If there is one objector, you are guaranteed an OMB hearing so that all the facts may be heard. That is not before a board which then makes a recommendation to the minister, who, in the final analysis, can make the decision. People are protected under that type of legislation. If there is just one objector to the proposal, there is guarantee of a hearing.

That principle has to be in this bill before it can become acceptable. Now I grant, Mr. Speaker, the minister has to have the right to dismiss frivolous objections the same as the OMB can under their statutes. But if there are valid objections, and submissions have been made to that effect, then I think it is incumbent upon the minister to allow a hearing to those people who have shown enough interest in the whole matter to make submissions and have in their mind a valid objection to the project.

There must be a right of a hearing. I think it is equally if not more important that we demand these hearings for the protection of our environment as it is to have a hearing now under present legislation if there is an objection to a sewer or water project in a municipality from a financial point of view.

What the minster is saying, Mr. Speaker, is simply that the public have no legal or legislative rights to demand this government to hold a hearing to protect the public from projects which are environmentally unacceptable. The citizen has no legal right to ask the government to protect him. It is only at the discretion or whims and fancy of the minister that the people of Ontario can expect this government to hold the necessary hearings to protect them from unacceptable projects.

I think this is demonstrative of the whole policy of this government, which has demonstrated under the parks Act, where the court ruled the citizens of the province had no legal right to expect the province to protect their recreational requirements. This was demonstrated in the court decision which upheld the province’s right to sell off part of that park in eastern Ontario.

This is the best you can expect, Mr. Speaker, of this government. They protect the public only if it suits their purpose. The public has no legal right to expect the government to protect it. This, I think, is the great weakness in this whole bill.

There has to be an independent board; that is not guaranteed in the bill. There has been a minor amendment which does allow the board to make decisions which are then passed along to the minister. He may, or may not, act on the decisions of the board.

Those are the salient objections I have. There is much more in the bill which needs to be looked at more carefully. This, I think, can best be done in committee. There are such minor matters as the availability of reports at a nominal cost. We can talk about remuneration for objectors, as has been given to those people appearing before Justice Berger in the Arctic Pipeline hearings in the Yukon. When we listen to reports on the radio I was amazed at the people appearing before Mr. Berger. The federal ministry involved did provide certain funds, as I understand it, or the hearing expenses themselves did provide funds for those purposes.

Now many of these things we can get into during the clause-by-clause discussion. I fail to see, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments have done very much in many of the important areas to modify the original principle of the bill which we opposed.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Sandwich-Riverside, detailed our opposition to the bill and we certainly cannot lend our suffrage to the bill.

I suppose the first thing we should ask the minister is what the Leader of the Opposition asked, sotto voce, across the floor a little while ago. Is he going to pilot this bill through not only second reading but the standing committee?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Renwick: We are not going to find that we have a minister who hasn’t participated in this debate conducting the hearings of the standing committee? Is that correct?

Hon. W. Newman: It is my anticipation.

Mr. Renwick: That is his understanding. All right. The next question is, to the best of his judgement -- and without telling me it is not his responsibility to tell us when this session of the Legislature will be prorogued -- does he anticipate this bill will go to committee tomorrow? Will the bill go consistently to committee throughout the rest of this week and next week so that the bill can be completely dealt with, reported back to this House and acted upon and given royal assent in accordance with the terms of the bill? That is the second question I would hope the minister would answer at one point. Perhaps he would care to answer that now if that would not destroy my right to speak further on the bill.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, my intention is to take it to standing committee. I understand the standing committee on Bill 100 is sitting at this point in time. There is also an estimates committee sitting. I would anticipate I would follow in line in the standing committee downstairs. I am not sure it is fair to have three committees operating downstairs at the same time. I would follow on with this bill in standing committee as soon as Bill 100 is moved out, the OLRB bill, I guess, is going down -- I am not sure exactly what is going to happen to it -- but I anticipate going to standing committee with the bill.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Good.

Mr. Ferrier: It will be about Labour Day, will it?

Mr. Renwick: The other matter which is of concern is what is the procedure the ministry is going to follow to give notice to the public, as well as to all of the people who have made submissions -- most of which we have received information about; many of which we have probably not received any information about -- so they will have adequate notice of when the committee is likely to sit and the intentions of the government with respect to it?

The minister can answer at the point in time when he replies to second reading of the bill.

Hon. W. Newman: They will be notified on all those notices --

Mr. Renwick: Is he going to publish notice in the press, in the newspapers? Is the minister going to announce it over the radio the way the government announces so many other relatively unimportant matters? So that the people throughout Ontario will be --

Mr. Speaker: Maybe the minister will withhold his remarks and answer the member for Riverdale when he makes his reply.

Mr. Renwick: I think it is most important, considering the number of people around the province who have been involved in this bill and concerned about it, both from an environmental point of view and from an industrial point of view, that they be given an opportunity -- and an adequate opportunity -- to get to Toronto and have their opportunity to make their presentations to the committee; otherwise it is not really going to be worth a great deal. Unless these amendments, which have been introduced to the assembly in this bill presented tonight have been available for some considerable time, they are not going to be able to give them the time, study and attention which they deserve.

I think the ministry has to have a specific plan as to when the standing committee will hear the bill; when notification will be given; and an expression of intention by the government that the committee will sit until such time as the bill is passed and reported back to his House so that it will become part of the legislation of this province before this session prorogues.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Prorogues?

Mr. Renwick: I think prorogue is right.

Mr. Bullbrook: It’s hard to tell; with the equivocation of the Premier, it is hard to tell.

Mr. Renwick: Does the member think we are just going to recess?

Mr. Bullbrook: It’s hard to tell. We might recess; we might prorogue; we might die.

Mr. Renwick: What about a dissolution?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, the fundamental flaw which has been referred to by members of the opposition and also by my colleague, the member for Sandwich-Riverside, revolves around the government’s conception of what they, in their paternalistic way, are prepared to say to the people of Ontario about their rights, as distinct from the position which this party takes as to the nature of the rights which are involved in this bill. I have never seen, in the course of time that I have been in the assembly, any of the environmental legislation which is prepared to give a right to the people of the Province of Ontario for the protection of their environment.

I would guess that no more paternalistic statement could appear in a bill than the statement set out in section 2 about the purpose of the bill. That section is unusual in a bill because we usually don’t have a statement of what the government’s intention or purpose for a bill is. The purpose of this Act is the betterment of the people of the whole, or any part of Ontario, by providing for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of environment.

Apart from the problem I have in understanding what those words mean, I can conceive of no more paternalistic attitude by a government about the extent to which it is prepared to extend rights to people. I would have assumed that if the government were serious about the purpose of the bill, it would have phrased the clause somewhat as follows, that the purpose of this Act is to establish the right of the people of Ontario to the protection, conservation and wise management of the environment. It would have seemed to me that would be a forthright way of saying exactly what the government intended.

That’s the kind of statement we in this party expected to see, and would support if it appeared in the bill; because then, of course, if that clause were so stated to be the purpose of the bill, an immense number of other things would flow automatically from it and be consistent with the purpose of the bill as so stated in the way in which I think it should be expressed. We would then have a number of the other matters dealt with which have been of such extensive concern to so many people in the two-year period this bill has been available for public scrutiny and study.

For example, the bill would then have to clearly set out who had standing before the Environmental Assessment Board. Standing is the question of who has a right to appear, either before a court or a board which is vested with the kind of authority which the Environmental Assessment Board will have in the amended bill. I might say there is, I believe, a reasonably substantial improvement in the bill in the amendment which is now before us for that particular section.

Standing is extremely difficult. You can be certain the Environmental Assessment Board, by the nature of the rules with respect to standing in courts and with respect to standing before other boards, will be required by the nature of the jurisprudence involved to limit the persons who can have standing.

I don’t know what the minister means by his amendment when he says that now he is going to give notice to the public and he’s also going to give notice to such other persons as he considers to be necessary or desirable. My colleague, the member for Sandwich-Riverside, draws my attention to this. Which people are going to be necessary and desirable in the sense that they are going to receive the notice? Surely it would have been sufficient to say that he is going to give notice to the public as well as to the proponent of the scheme; to whom naturally he is going to give it in any event.

Surely if the minister is going to grant even the limited access of the public, which the amendments introduced tonight would indicate that the minister has considered, it should be sufficient to say he is going to give notice to the public. The ministry can then decide who the persons are who represent the public of the province and the means and the method by which that notice is going to take place. I don’t know whether or not there is going to be any opportunity for a person to take the kind of position to the court that was attempted in the case of the sandbanks down in Prince Edward county in the case of Canada Cement where Mr. Justice Lieff, if my memory serves me correctly, simply said no, the person didn’t have any standing because he couldn’t show any special or distinctive concern apart from the rest of the people in the Province of Ontario about the destruction of the sand dunes and the method by which the government had tolerated that destruction.

By the way, so far as I know, we never have heard what the government finally paid, if anything, to get back those sand dimes, but perhaps we can ask about that at another time.

I simply say to the minister that the bill, either in its original form or in the amended form which is before us, doesn’t clarify but indeed makes extremely difficult the question of standing. We can argue about this in committee. I don’t think it should be up to the minister to decide what is frivolous or vexatious about a person’s making written submissions and requiring, if that’s the term which is used in the bill, a hearing to be held; and then giving the minister the overriding right to say if it frivolous or vexations. Any board, the Environmental Assessment Board included, can well decide itself whether or not in the course of a hearing some submissions is a frivolous or vexatious one. Then the minister can vitiate all entirely by simply saying he doesn’t consider it to be necessary to have a hearing; or he can also say it would cause undue delay.

Anybody who understands anything about weasel words understands that words like “undue delay” are words which are subject to immense misinterpretation and immense misunderstanding as to what the purpose of such words are when they appear in a statute. They have an element of inexactitude about what they mean sufficient to make them for practical purposes meaningless.

Then, if the minister were to adopt the proposal as we stated it as to the purpose of the bill, that instead of what the minister has said in section 2 of the bill he would substitute and accept our proposal for that statement that the purpose of this Act is to establish the right of the people of Ontario to the protection, conservation and wise management of the environment, not only would the bill be clear, as I have tried to illustrate, on questions related to standing, but it would be clear as to what kind of documentation would be made available to an intervener who wanted to intervene either on behalf of himself or on behalf of himself and any number of other citizens in order to have standing before the Environmental Assessment Board so that he would have the kind of documentation and the kind of information available to him, not for inspection but as his right to receive copies of the information so that it could be adequately studied, reviewed and assessed so that at the point in time where he is going to make submissions to the Environmental Assessment Board, the person could be prepared to do so. Again, if the government were to accept the principle in the way in which we think the purpose of the bill should be stated, it would be absolutely clear that the government would have to provide a facility for providing financial assistance to those persons who wanted to make interventions before the Environmental Assessment Board. The record itself, not just the assessment review at the beginning, would be available to those persons who were going to be intervenors in the course of the proceedings.

Again, if the government accepted the purpose of the bill in the language in which we would state that purpose, it would be obvious that we would not go through this elaborate routine of excluding the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, because that was involved with the rights of citizens as against their government. The procedures were set out in that Act as part of the implementation of the recommendations of the McRuer commission report for the purpose of assuring people that they would have a fair and proper hearing.

I have quoted as often as I can in the Legislature the basic, fundamental, simplistic statement about the natural justice of persons before governmental boards, which were stated many years ago in the Board of Education vs. Rice. I used this quotation on two other occasions in the assembly, once when we were talking about the Ombudsman and on an earlier occasion when we were dealing with a similar situation to which we are now addressing ourselves. I quote the clauses which are significant:

“In such cases the board of education will have to ascertain the law and also to ascertain the facts. I need not add that in doing either they must act in good faith and fairly listen to both sides, for that is the duty lying upon everyone who decides anything.”

Succinctly stated, that is what the Statutory Powers Procedure Act was about; it was to establish a procedure, a codification of a procedure by which people would be entitled to a fair hearing, that the principles of natural justice would not be denied them. But the minister has denied them in this bill because he has excluded the Statutory Powers Procedure Act from the bill, or he has referred to it in such gobbledegook that it is now not possible to understand what it is about.

In section 18(12) of the bill, the minister has introduced the amending words:

“Notwithstanding anything in the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, 1971, the board may determine its own practice and procedure in relation to bearings and may, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, make rules governing such practice and procedure in the exercise of its powers in relation thereto and prescribe such forms as are considered advisable.”

There, the minister has said that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act is not going to apply; and the very principles which flowed from the McRuer commission report, which was designed to provide a statutory formula for protecting the rights of citizens, are being ignored by the government. It just reinforces what I have said earlier, that the minister has no understanding of granting rights to the people of the Province of Ontario with respect to their environment. He insists upon the inadequate, paternalistic system he followed under the Environmental Protection Act, which we passed here in 1971. He seems to think that that’s the way he can deal with the problem, because he won’t grant the people the rights to take the action on their own behalf.

Then, so far as I can tell -- and mind you, there is another reference to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act a little later on which is also gobbledegook, because it says: “Except as provided in this Act the Statutory Powers Procedure Act applies to the proceedings of the board.” In one place the minister says that notwithstanding that, the board may make its own procedures; then he says, to the extent that the board doesn’t exercise its power to exclude the Act, the Act will apply, which is my version of legal gobbledegook.

But, in addition to that, because you don’t grant anybody any rights, you also exclude the Judicial Review Procedure Act, and you insist on having a privative clause in the bill which is before us for consideration, which totally excludes the court from any review. There isn’t even a provision for the Environmental Assessment Board to go to the court to ask for advice on a question of jurisdiction. There certainly is no right for any citizen to require that board to go before the court, if the justification is there, or the allegation of the justification is there, under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

I would commend to the ministry its own book -- not the book of the Ministry of the Environment, but the book of the Ministry of the Attorney General dealing with the practice and the procedures and an elaboration of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Judicial Review Procedure Act and what the McRuer commission was about.

I warn the minister that one of these days, somewhere in this government they’re going to have to grant the public rights in situations such as this. The people of Ontario include the proponents of undertakings, because the word persons, of course, is broadly defined to cover almost anybody.

I think I have said enough about the distinction that we in this party make about a government ensconced in power for such a lengthy period of time, and its view that it must, of necessity, be paternalistic in the tradition, as it does, of inheriting the mantle of the Family Compact of Upper Canada. You can’t get around to the point of granting rights to the people of the Province of Ontario in matters which affect them. You always know better, the government always knows better, the executive council always knows better on questions such as the immensely important questions which are involved in this whole area of the protection of the environment, not historically by correcting things which have gone wrong, but prospectively in the way in which any reasonable Act would have been designed for this purpose. This Act does not meet the intentions expressed in such glowing terms by yourself when you introduced the bill, or in the words of the Premier when he referred to the green paper assessment which was going to be made and the opportunity for people to have an input into the bill.

Until you introduce the kinds of amendments which will give effect to the grant of rights to people with respect to their environment, then we, perforce, are going to have to oppose the bill, because the things which would flow from granting rights are nowhere evident in the bill, either in the way it was originally introduced or in the way it is before us this evening for consideration in its amended form.

Let me turn for a moment to the question of the application of the bill. I think there is a reasonable argument that the minister has made from the time he first introduced the bill until now, about the problem of the staff and the qualified staff and the people to do the job. Everybody knows that. I think there’s a reasonable argument that can be made that some care and caution need be exercised.

But why do it in the order that you are pretending to do it? Why do you opt in the government of the Province of Ontario and all the agencies of the government and the other public corporations that are involved, ether than the municipalities, and continue to opt out the major industrial and commercial enterprises in the province and the undertakings proposed by those bodies? Surely, the government has under its control now the actions of the government, the actions of the Crown agencies of the government, and the actions of bodies such as Ontario Hydro.

In order to give the ministry time to build up knowledge and expertise, surely the minister’s colleagues, the responsible ministers for those various aspects of government, should at this point in the history of the Province of Ontario have enough wit, wisdom and background of experience to know that any significant project in their ministry requires an environmental assessment.

If the minister wants to relieve his ministry of the burden of all of them, that is the way he should lead those ministries with responsibility to the public, which they in their turn, have to work out their own environmental procedures. It has been done before on an ad hoc basis. Surely it could be done on an ad hoc basis now.

The ministers responsible will get into enough difficulty if they don’t do it; the minister doesn’t need to bring them immediately under his Environmental Assessment Act. What he does need to bring immediately under his Environmental Assessment Act is significant government projects, on which the ministers could agree in the cabinet among themselves as to whether or not they should come under his ward.

The minister should bring in immediately a requirement of notification of all undertakings by industry in the province. All industry or commercial undertakings that will have an environmental effect should be brought in. Start here and require that right at the initial outset of the bill, that they be subject to the bill.

Subject, as we all know, to the ministry having an intelligent appreciation of the size of the undertakings about which he would have concern and the extent, through regulation, by which he can delimit, or allow small undertakings. Perhaps they can take place in a restricted form or a less elaborate form than the full grown procedures which are set out in this Act for the Environmental Assessment Board.

I can’t conceive that this ministry can seriously say at this point to the people of the Province of Ontario that a complex, such as Petrosar in Sarnia, can go forward without an environmental assessment. I can’t conceive that there can be any view in the government that there should be any more delay than there has been in the gestation period of this bill, of saying to Petrosar: “You have to go through the Environmental Assessment Board. True, you may have problems because you are going to be the first one, but we want you to go through it because we are not going to allow a chemical complex of that magnitude to be established in the Province of Ontario without the environmental hearings that we project for the purpose of protecting the public.”

That is exactly the kind of assessment which is required; otherwise we are again going to be in the historical situation of clearing up what has gone wrong in the beginning; this ministry is not going to have any control over it and it is going to be done before the ministry is finished with it.

It is true some big commercial or industrial undertaking is going to have to be first. There are going to be problems and there are going to be the difficulties as with any teething operation of this magnitude.

What other ones could we name? Presumably we could name the steel industry’s plans for the expansion of their various plants. Surely we could name the immense contract which has been let, as I understand it, in my colleague the member for Cochrane South’s riding, with respect to the expansion of the activities of the Texas Gulf, which is partly owned, if not controlled, by the government of Canada through the Canadian Development Corp. Surely the minister can’t concede that kind of undertaking can go ahead without an environmental assessment -- even at this late date -- and requiring them to go through the processes which are required?

I am quite certain that members of this House could name any number of other similar projects, because that’s where the problem is. The government, through its own ministries, has control over the kind of environmental assessment the individual ministries would do and the kind of public participation. The public would far rather wait for those to be brought under the aegis of this minister in this Act, and to have those large industrial conglomerations, with their extensive expansion plans and their extensive tax benefits granted continuously by this government to foster their expansion and development, subject to this kind of environmental review, more than any others. It seems to me that makes very good sense.

It seems to me that would be an equally realistic way for this ministry to face up to the shortages of the skills which are required, not only for those who are the proponents of undertakings before this new board but the skills required within the ministry itself and the Environmental Assessment Board to do the kind of job which is required to make this Act a meaningful one.

If I may move on to the other and really the last point in the bill which is of major concern to me: I don’t know what the minister means by environmental assessment as distinct from feasibility. The word feasibility didn’t appear in the bill until these amendments were introduced tonight. Feasibility tends, in my judgement anyway, to be a study which should be done after the environmental assessment because there is the whole question involved of whether we need it or don’t need it.

Feasibility connotes, in its very terms, that the decision has been made that we need it and then we find out whether or not it’s feasible in social and economic terms. The decision has already been made that it’s economically needed hot is it feasible to go ahead with it and is it feasible to go ahead with it at that particular location? The bill, as I understand it, says the commercial and industrial enterprises can go ahead with feasibility studies and without being involved in any delay with respect to feasibility studies.

I think in any event the minister is going to find those companies will have gone so far on the feasibility question that it will be almost impossible to say no, even after an Environmental Assessment Board hearing, either by the board, the cabinet or the small group of ministers who, in consultation with the minister, may make the decision. There will be little if any nay-saying if the Act is left the way in which it is presently drafted.

One of the fundamental questions which must of necessity be before the board at all times is “On balance, is this necessary?” If it is not necessary, we don’t have it because the social and economic cost of that project is too great. It’s not just the proposition which seems to slip off the minister’s lips from time to time; it’s that every economic activity is, of necessity, necessary and all we’re really trying to do is do it in such a way that causes the least damage to the environment.

That isn’t what the bill is about, as we understand it. There may well be situations in which the damage to the environment is the least possible for that economic activity to go on but is intolerable for the community of the Province of Ontario or the community in which the particular undertaking is to be located. I think in committee we are going to have to have a much clearer understanding of what the ministry means by feasibility and what it means by environmental assessment and what it means by indicating industrial enterprises can go ahead with their feasibility studies without being subject to any of the penalty consequences which flow from the bill. The two matters have got to be clearly defined and clearly understood or there is going to be immense confusion. The only club which the minister will have will be vitiated, if he ever tries to enforce it, because he will get into that never-never land of trying to lay an information against somebody to fine for breach of the statute and he is going to have a very fine argument as to whether or not it was an environmental assessment or a feasibility study which was being undertaken.

As I say, the conception of environmental assessment as stated in the original Speech from the Throne over two years ago; the further assessments which were made in the green paper; the input which various interested people, both industry and environmental persons concerned more directly with the protection of the environment, have made; and the amendments which have been introduced tonight, show no real understanding by the ministry of the kinds of problems we are trying to talk about.

We say the nub of it relates to the question of the way in which the government expresses the purpose of the Act. I think the purpose of the Act as set forth in section 2 is what is wrong with the bill and the consequences which flow from that flaw in the bill are so serious that we could not under any circumstances support the bill on second reading.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): In September, 1973, this government published a green paper on environmental assessment. The paper promised that for the first time in any Canadian jurisdiction it would be required by law that the environmental consequences of new projects be foreseen and where possible prevented. Then in March of this year, the Minister of the Environment introduced Bill 14, saying at that time it was one of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced in this province. Tonight he has introduced an amended version of that bill which on first examination doesn’t appear to do very much to alter or soften in any way the very strong criticisms the original version of Bill 14 attracted from a wide variety of interested groups.

In the next couple of minutes I would like to put on the record some of the salient comments by interested organizations, because like many other members of this House, particularly on the opposition side, I have no guarantee whatever that the standing committee of this House that will be given the task to study this bill will have its proceedings recorded. Therefore, I think it is important that in the Hansard of the House the comments of the interested groups be recorded, because as I have said we have no guarantee that these comments will go on the record of the committee because there will probably not be a record kept of the proceedings of the committee that will study Bill 14.

The Canadian Nature Federation said Bill 14 does not meet the expectations raised by the green paper of 1973. It said:

“A careful reading of the bill leads us to conclude that it will be neither powerful nor far-ranging. The bill provides for the establishment of an Environment Assessment Board appointed by the government with no legal powers. It can only make recommendations which the minister is not bound to follow.”

Commenting in April on Bill 14 the Conservation Council of Ontario said:

“Environmental assessment will not realize its potential as a planning tool so long as it is within the power of the Minister of the Environment to unilaterally exempt any project from compliance with the law.”

Pollution Probe at the University of Toronto:

“The bill is so diluted it’s a wonder so much time and money was spent putting it on the order paper. It gives the minister far too much power. The public is almost entirely shut out. The scope of the bill is far too limited.”

Pollution Probe concludes:

“If the bill is to be effective, it must consider such broad but very real and practical consideration as energy consumption, land use and industrial sprawl, all of which may enter into the long-term costs of a project.”

The Canadian Environmental Law Association said:

“The bill imposes no duty upon the minister to use his powers, nor does it provide any means of appeal or redress if he fails to do so.”

The Canadian Labour Congress in April of this year:

“The entire assessment process could, and in most cases probably would, take place within the government from start to finish, without the public finding out about the proposed project until the bulldozers come.”

A member of the fourth estate who has been around the Legislature for a long time, Harold Greer, wrote a column on Bill 14 which appeared in the Montreal Star on March 29. In that column, he said:

“This legislation truly boggles the mind, not only for its blatant hypocrisy but for its Orwellian surrealism. If this bill is enacted as it stands, ‘Big Brother’ has arrived in Ontario.”

I think the one aspect of this bill that disturbs me most is the word “discretion.” The minister has almost unlimited discretionary powers to decide which projects will be the subject of some kind of environmental assessment. In his remarks at the beginning of second reading of this bill tonight, at the bottom of page 2, the minister says:

“Any proponent or individual who makes a written submission can require a public hearing on the undertaking. The minister can, at his discretion, order such a hearing or deny the request [and where] in his judgement a hearing would be unnecessary or could cause undue delay in the process of the undertaking.”

As in so many other things in Ontario which have been outlined by my colleagues from Huron and from Waterloo North, this government is again proceeding by the device of ministerial discretion; and we know from history that it just doesn’t work.

Finally, the other aspect of this bill that disturbs me is that it is so weak at a time which follows a peak in public interest in education in this field in the past few years. In short, the people of Ontario not only are ready for strong law in this field, they are asking for it. In the face of this reality, the Minister of the Environment has brought in not just a new bill but an amended bill that will be widely condemned unless he listens to the very strong and very valid criticism that has already been directed at the original version of Bill 14. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Riddell: It’s just window-dressing.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to concur with what has been said by my colleague who has just resumed his seat. I can’t understand the minister leaving the bill in its original form before the House these many weeks and then presenting a new bill which he indicated in his statement he wants to be considered in this second reading.

It’s true, the new bill is labelled “reprinted for consideration by committee,” but there is no way I can count the amendments that have been included. I would be prepared to say that the minister, being a reasonable man, should expect us to talk about the new bill; it might have been better if we had had it sooner, but I don’t even want to criticize him for that. I just want to make it clear that under our system the bill that has been before the House is the one obviously on which we have to express our views at the present time. If the minister wants to present a bill for consideration by the committee, it’s useful to have it now but really we cannot discuss it in principle on the basis of the many amendments. I can’t count them; really, there must be 30 or more. I look at the black hands and the underlining in the bill -- I don’t know which one is separate, if one counts it section by section. I suppose there can’t be more than 47 amendments since that’s all the sections there are but in the longer and detailed sections, there are many amendments. I still believe the minister has fallen short of the requirements which we, as the opposition, feel are necessary in a bill which is a landmark concept, if this bill is not a landmark itself.

Mr. Speaker, I know you peruse the Liberal campaign documents, election by election, very carefully and you would know that since 1967 we have had a commitment to the concept supposed to be embraced in this bill. That is, there be an environmental hearing which is not under the thumb of the minister or any agency of the ministry; which does not exclude any public or private development. We believe this bill, in its vagueness particularly, does and may exclude many important developments.

I will tell you I believe in responsible government, Mr. Speaker. The concept here that all projects do come under the ambit of the bill, except those which by regulation or ministerial fiat can be excluded, is an interesting one but we, on this side, believe that any project of any significance of government or the private sector -- which may have an impact on the environment should be reviewed under the most stringent and independent processes and the recommendations publicly made to the government.

The minister, on his recommendation to his colleagues, may reject those recommendations because we believe that under our constitution the government has the power to reject those recommendations because it is responsible. In other words, the government, representing the people, can decide that on balance a project must go forward even though its impact on the environment has been judged to be of a certain level of seriousness by the review procedure. The idea of excluding projects from the hearing itself is one which I feel is a serious weakness in the bill.

I think my colleagues have made a number of important points. In the case of a municipal hearing, one objector will require a hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board but under the procedures outlined by the bill as amended, even for committee perusal by the minister, this is not a requirement We feel that if it is to be landmark legislation, it should not exclude either public or private projects from the assessment which we believe is necessary if this concept is going to be meaningful now and in the future.

We are glad that the minister, with the advice available to him and after the comments which have come in from the community, has seen fit to change the bill in some respects. We object to the fact that the minister did not withdraw the original bill and submit a new bill for first reading. That is the procedure which should be used when the amendments are as extensive as they are here, but frankly we believe that even the amended bill falls short of the principles we are prepared to support.

We believe there should not be the exclusions, and the power in the minister to grant exclusion, which are contained in this bill. We believe these are powers which the minister should exercise only after a hearing has been held and he is using his undoubted authority and power to recommend to his colleagues to proceed with a project even though the hearing board has given a judgement which might indicate there is an impact on the environment which would be deleterious. We think tinder those circumstances the democratic process works. The minister and his colleagues are then responsible, but to obviate a hearing itself simply by order in council or by the procedure that is outlined here for the exclusion of certain projects is unacceptable in our view.

I must be frank, Mr. Speaker. We believe that the concept of environmental hearing and assessment is an important one and one which has been postponed far too long. The last three Speeches from the Throne -- I believe it’s two or three -- have indicated quite clearly that the government is prepared to accept this principle, but this is the first time that a bill of any significance has appeared before us. I’m not saying that this bill will not be significant in its applications, but we feel it falls far short of the principles which have been put forward by the government, put forward by both opposition parties, and which I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, would have gained support on both sides.

I believe the flaw in the principle is the fact that the public and private projects are not, without exception, subject to these hearings. For that reason, as my colleagues have stated, we cannot support it in this diluted manifestation that we have even in the bill that has been presented by the minister here. I would say that the minister may have one or two other bills before he has a change in his responsibilities. I think it is very important that when there is this kind of far-reaching amendment, the way to proceed surely is to request the withdrawal of the bill, which certainly would be approved on all sides, and the resubmission of this bill for first reading.

That’s the way the democratic process is best served, rather than asking us, Mr. Speaker, to consider a bill so extensively amended for discussion and debate in principle. Number one, we really must discuss the bill as it was originally put forward, which was seriously deficient in many respects, both in general and in detail. But even in its reprinted form, we feel that it falls far short of the principle that we are prepared to support, and that is, the review by an impartial board, without exception, of those public and private projects which may have an impact on the environment, with a recommendation to the minister which he then, in his responsible capacity, must respond to. For the reasons put forward by my colleagues, we cannot support the bill in principle at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak on second reading of this bill?

Mr. Ferrier: The member for Oshawa (Mr. McIlveen) wants to speak.

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I must say that in the amended bill, of which I gave a copy to the Leader of the Opposition and a copy to the New Democratic Party this afternoon, the mechanics of the bill have been changed a great deal but not the principle. Thus, the bill is coming forward in the amended form. I think I said in my opening statement originally that we were talking about preventive medicine in this bill. It was after a lot of long and lengthy deliberations that we made the amendments, and I would say that I think the amendments are very good amendments.

I’m just going to run over some of the comments that members made tonight, because we will be having an opportunity to discuss this clause by clause and detail by detail as we get into the standing committee on this bill. One of the things that we’ve changed in the bill is that all government agencies are in the bill at this point in time, under the general principle of the bill in that respect.

Anyone has a right to ask for a hearing. Both the proponent and the person who is opposing has a right --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But they haven’t got a right to a hearing.

Hon. W. Newman: -- in writing to ask for a hearing.

Mr. Good: Big deal.

Hon. W. Newman: We put it in so that they both have the opportunity.

Mr. Ferrier: We won’t get it.

Mr. Good: We won’t get it.

Hon. W. Newman: One of the things the members talked about was, why were we so long in bringing it forward in second reading. I think they will see by the amendments that we had a lot of meetings. I had a lot of meetings with various interested groups and with industry regarding this bill, end thus the amendments have come forward for second reading tonight. The public, in the new bill, will be given a lot more notification, a lot broader notification, of the opportunity to speak before the Environmental Assessment Board. It will be a much broader notification. This is one of the amendments in the bill.

The green paper was open for public scrutiny, yes. It was opened up last March I think, or shortly before or after I introduced the bill. The file is quite high and it is open to public scrutiny.

Mr. Good: What is your time-table?

Hon. W. Newman: We will be giving notification to all the people who are involved. As far as the hearings on the assessments are concerned, all those who have written in and shown an interest will be given the opportunity. The five-member board will probably be a great deal larger than a five-member board in the final analysis because there will probably be a lot of hearings across the Province of Ontario. As I said, the opponents can ask for a hearing which is new. I think it was the member for Huron who said in its first two years it would be government only. I didn’t say that. I originally said that we would start out with government agencies and get a little bit of experience on this particular matter. We will be taking up the municipalities until such time as we have had some lengthy discussion with the municipalities.

I think the hon. member mentioned this will protect private projects. This is not so, because under the Environmental Protection Act now -- and I think this is very important -- any proponent of a new industrial development or heavy commercial development that has any discharge at all must get an approval through the ministry. That doesn’t mean they have to have an environmental assessment but they have to have approval.

This is one of the reasons why industry has found that by coming to the ministry first -- and many of them on a co-operative basis as of now are coming to us on a regular basis -- it’s much easier to build any abatement equipment that is needed into present industrial or commercial enterprises, than after the fact when it’s far more costly to put in abatement equipment. Abatement equipment after the fact is twice as costly. They are coining to us on a voluntary basis even now, I think partly in anticipation of this legislation and also partly because of our environmental protection.

The board will be given powers to make decisions and, should a hearing be held under the provisions of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, with exceptions relating to procedure, at a hearing to be established at the discretion of the Environmental Assessment Board. This is one of the new amendments. All the people will be notified about any new project that is going to be done. The 15 days the member was talking about as far as submissions are concerned have been changed in the amendments to 30 days. That is new. We have changed that from 15 to 30 days.

As far as I am concerned, it will be done by order in council -- the independent board, like our Solid Waste Advisory Board, will be appointed by order in council. I really believe that it is an independent board. It is working independently and the people who are on that board come as well-qualified people.

I am just trying to cover the points the member brought out. Both sides will be given the opportunity to ask for a hearing and there will be notice of decisions to all people who were involved in the hearings. There will be public participation in the hearings and they will be given the right to make their presentations.

The member mentioned Timagami, which comes under the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier). We’ll be working with them on that. I think the member for Sandwich-Riverside brought up a point regarding industry. We are having a great deal of co-operation with industry now and we will be bringing them in. We are not saying exactly how soon, but certainly it will be before very long. If we see a particular problem arising, we can deal with it under the present legislation.

I think one of the members asked what sort of work they would be doing. A good example is the fact that the Environmental Hearing Board is now doing a Hydro hearing. The Environmental Assessment Board, I would assume, outside of the Porter commission’s long-range plans, would be doing a great deal of work.

I could go on at great length about the various comments that were made. I do appreciate them. Some of them I agree with, and some I don’t. We’ll get into detail in committee when we talk about public notification, feasibility and other matters that were discussed tonight be the various opposition members. When we get into committee will be quite glad to deal with them on a detailed basis.

What we are really saving here tonight is that this legislation is new. There are a lot of changes. I really believe this is a step forward and in the right direction. With the amendments we have made, which allow both sides to be heard and which allow the board to make a decision, the bill is much fairer and more equitable than when it first came in.

Let me say this on the principle of the bill. We feel it is a good bill with these amendments. We are quite prepared in the standing committee to listen to suggestions of the various opposition members and of any group that wishes to snake a presentation. I’d like to make it very clear to the member for Riverdale that we will be starting, as of tomorrow morning and preferably by phone, to notify all those who have shown an interest in this bill, so that when we do go to standing committee they will have an opportunity to make their presentations.

We will try to notify all those involved as far as the bill is concerned so that they will have adequate opportunity. Hon. members will find that many amendments in the bill are as a result of discussions we have had with various groups, but I think everyone should have a chance to come before the standing committee. Mr. Speaker, I will leave it at that until we get into the standing committee and into clause-by-clause discussion.

The House divided on the motion for second reading of Bill 14, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes	Nays
Allan Beckett Belanger Drea Eaton Evans Gilbertson Grossman Havrot Henderson Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton) Jessiman Kennedy Lane Leluk MacBeth Maeck McIlveen Meen Morningstar Morrow Newman (Ontario South) Nixon (Dovercourt) Nuttall Parrott Root Scrivener Smith (Hamilton Mountain) Turner Villeneuve Walker Wardle Welch Wells Winkler Wiseman -- 36.	Bounsall Breithaupt Bullbrook Burr Campbell Deacon Deans Dukszta Edighoffer Ferrier Good Haggerty Martel Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) Nixon (Brant) Paterson Renwick Riddell Ruston Samis Singer Smith (Nipissing) Spence Stokes Taylor (Carleton East) -- 26.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 36, the “nays” 26.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the bill is to be ordered to the standing committee. Is that correct?

Agreed.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, I would like to call the order of business for tomorrow and subsequently. I’ll name the items and not necessarily the bills: Nos. 3, 4, 5, 30, 29, 8, 7, 28, 19, 20, 21, 11 and 15, to be followed by 16 and 17.

Hon. R. Welch (Minister of Culture and Recreation): That’s just for tomorrow. Wait until they see Friday’s list.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, that’s just for tomorrow.

Mr. F. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Why doesn’t the House Leader just say everything, plus what might be introduced?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Before the adjournment motion is put, I wonder if the House leader can give us some indication of how he proposes that we deal with all of this legislation in the standing committees, since quite obviously there are a number of committees that are going to be sitting simultaneously if we’re going to proceed with this bill, the labour bill and the education bill plus the House?

Mr. Martel: Plus the estimates.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Things are tough all over.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I understand we will be conferring, possibly tomorrow. We’ll try to resolve that problem. With the two committees sitting at the moment I would not like to call another one this evening.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:45 o’clock, p.m.