Chair /
Président
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River L)
Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay / Timmins-Baie James
ND)
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke L)
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River L)
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park L)
Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe PC)
Mr John O'Toole (Durham PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant PC)
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood ND)
Mr Bob Wood (London West / -Ouest PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West / -Ouest ND)
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les
îles L)
Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River ND)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes
Staff / Personnel
Ms Anne Marzalik, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at 1555 in room 228.
MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT
The Vice-Chair (Mr
Alvin Curling): We are here today for consideration of
the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment. Welcome,
Minister.
We will commence with vote
1101, item 1. We will begin with a 30-minute statement by the
minister, a 30-minute statement by the official opposition and a
30-minute statement by the third party. Then the minister will
have 30 minutes for a reply. The remaining time of the total 7.5
hours will be apportioned equally among the three parties.
Minister, you may commence.
Hon Dan Newman
(Minister of the Environment): Chair, honourable
members, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the
standing committee on estimates. With me today are my deputy
minister, Stien Lal, and Dana Richardson and Carl Griffith, two
assistant deputy ministers within the ministry. We're also joined
by the ministry's division heads and some of its directors to
answer any technical questions that may arise.
I want to begin today by
saying that every member of the Ontario Legislature has been
deeply moved by the recent very sad events that have unfolded in
Walkerton. It's a terrible tragedy that has shaken all of us.
As you know, there are now
four inquiries and investigations into the circumstances
surrounding Walkerton, including a public inquiry being conducted
by Mr Justice Dennis O'Connor of the Ontario Court of Appeal. In
light of these investigations, I would ask the indulgence of the
members of this committee not to address specific questions that
would place in jeopardy the proceedings of these investigations.
I am prepared to speak generally to the issues related to water
quality and what my ministry has done to ensure the protection of
drinking water in Ontario, but I do not feel it is appropriate in
these circumstances to get into the specifics of the Walkerton
situation.
I want to speak in more
detail about the actions we are taking to bring forward a
drinking water protection regulation that sets out a clear,
strict regime of legal requirements that will have to be followed
by operators supplying drinking water in Ontario.
Later in my remarks today, I
will focus on our documented results, actions and future
directions. You will hear how, in many areas, we are delivering
effective environmental protection and meeting our mandate.
I also have to advise you
that, because of a non-confidence motion tomorrow in the
Legislature, I will not be at estimates, but my place will be
taken by my parliamentary assistant, Toby Barrett.
For the fiscal year 2000-01,
$229.1 million is the proposed allocation for the Ministry of the
Environment. The largest share of our resources, $187 million, is
allocated to our major core business, environmental protection.
It is this area that I will focus on today.
It is almost trite to say
that protecting drinking water is an important goal for all of
us. Having said that, there is always room for improvement. As a
result, we are taking strong measures to protect drinking water.
We are developing a regulation that will make our standards for
drinking water protection among the toughest in the world. A
draft regulation was posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights
registry for public comment.
In my original announcement
of May 29, the draft regulation included the following mandatory
components.
(1) All laboratories,
including laboratories at water treatment plants performing tests
on drinking water, must be accredited by an agency such as the
Standards Council of Canada, which works in tandem with the
Canadian Association for Environmental Analytical
Laboratories.
(2) Municipalities must
inform the Ministry of the Environment if they change the private
laboratory facility that is testing their water. This will ensure
that the ministry will contact the new lab and inform it of its
role and obligations.
(3) Notification requirements
will be made absolutely and unequivocally clear. If any
laboratory finds that a test result indicates unsafe drinking
water quality, it must immediately inform the Ministry of the
Environment and the medical officer of health, as well as the
municipal water facility operator.
The ministry will require a
municipality to immediately notify all three if they find a
problem, and the ministry will require every waterworks to do so
itself unless they are sure notification has already taken
place.
As you can appreciate, the
regulation is still undergoing changes, and I can tell you that
there will be several more components, including a provision to
ensure that all residents are notified in a timely manner of any
problems with their drinking water.
In addition to the draft regulation, the Ministry of
the Environment is undertaking an inspection of all municipal
water treatment facilities in Ontario over the next six months to
ensure that they meet current and new standards.
Second, a review of
certificates of approval for all municipal water treatment
facilities will be completed. The review will focus on three
areas: (1) making sure disinfection is appropriate and adequate,
(2) protection of the water supply from contamination and (3)
consolidation and updating of all certificates of approval.
With this new approach, each
municipal water treatment facility in Ontario will have one new
certificate of approval that clearly sets out what is approved,
reaffirms the requirements in the new regulation and incorporates
appropriate and necessary site-specific conditions for operating
the facility.
I want to turn now to the
documented improvements in Great Lakes water quality. According
to the Third Report of Progress Under the Canada-Ontario
Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Ecosystem, the lakes are
cleaner than they have been in 50 years. Among the report's
highlights:
Ontario's industrial clean
water regulations-our municipal-industrial strategy for
abatement, or MISA, program-have cut toxic pollutant discharges
into Ontario waterways by at least 70%;
One of these regulations, for
pulp and paper, has led to an 82% reduction in discharges of
chlorinated toxic substances into the Great Lakes. It has also
eliminated aqueous discharges of dioxin and furan from this
sector;
Significant reductions have
also been made in discharges of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
cyanide, zinc, lead and chromium;
Most of the high-level PCBs
previously in storage have been destroyed;
Beaches are remaining open
longer in Toronto, Hamilton and other lakefront communities.
I should mention here that
although the Canada-Ontario agreement has expired, our work
continues to achieve the goals of the Canada-Ontario agreement.
We are negotiating the renewal of the Canada-Ontario agreement
with our federal counterparts, with an eye to improve upon the
last agreement, which was signed in 1994.
We're stimulating new
partnerships that are investing millions of dollars to continue
the vital work of cleaning up, conserving and protecting the
Great Lakes and our other water resources through the Ontario
Great Lakes Renewal Foundation. The foundation was established
with an initial provincial contribution of $5 million in seed
money. This investment has generated several times that amount in
the form of in-kind and financial support from other sources.
Some of our ongoing Great Lakes work includes lake-wide
management plans for each of the Canadian Great Lakes and
remedial action plans for each of the 17 areas of concern
identified as requiring special cleanups.
I also want to mention, with
respect to groundwater, that Ontario will provide $6 million over
three years for a groundwater monitoring network in 38 key
watersheds. This includes $3.6 million allocated in 2000-01. The
network will help establish an effective water management and
drought response strategy in order to ensure the sustainability
of Ontario's water resources.
The network is a partnership
effort between the ministry, conservation authorities and local
municipalities to measure water levels in more than 350 wells
across Ontario, to complete hydrogeologic mapping to show
availability of groundwater and to undertake chemical analysis of
groundwater samples.
Water treatment is also an
important focus of our $200-million provincial water protection
fund or PWPF. This fund was established in 1997 to address local
water and sewage treatment problems. That money has funded 91
construction projects and 84 studies. In 1999-2000, the
provincial water protection fund funding was accelerated to
provide municipalities with the resources they need for water and
sewage. To date, this ministry has allocated $52.8 million in the
2000-01 budget. I am confident that this government's strong
commitment to a clean supply of safe drinking water will continue
to be seen in future endeavours.
I want to add a few thoughts
here with respect to SuperBuild, the Ontario government's
five-year, $20-billion initiative to renew, rebuild and expand
public infrastructure. SuperBuild envisions innovative
partnerships with municipalities and the private sector to build
and improve municipal infrastructure projects and environmental
initiatives.
The budget initiatives that
are relevant for the Ministry of the Environment are the
Millennium Partnerships initiative, which will invest $1 billion
over five years in infrastructure in urban centres, including
environmental projects. Also, the Ontario small town and rural
development program will provide $400 million over five years to
help rural areas and small cities with infrastructure projects.
The ministry will work closely with the SuperBuild Corp to
address critical water and sewer infrastructure needs and ensure
that priority is given to these.
SuperBuild is a potential
source of funding for needed environmental infrastructure work.
As well, the province is negotiating with the federal government
to use funds from the federal-provincial infrastructure program
for Ontario projects.
With respect to cleaner air,
protecting and improving air quality in Ontario is an ongoing
important priority for the ministry. The ministry's Air Quality
in Ontario reports provide us with the indication that we are on
the right track. The latest edition of the report, Air Quality in
Ontario 1997, shows that steady improvements continue to be made,
despite significant growth in population, in vehicle travel and
in the economy.
For example, contaminant
reductions over the past 10 years include total reduced sulphur
compounds, 50%; carbon monoxide reduction, 32%; sulphur dioxide
reduction, 23%; and
nitrogen dioxide reduction, 10%. Ontario's air quality index
indicates good to very good air quality readings 95.5% of the
time. While these are positive developments, the ministry
recognizes that major challenges remain in ensuring the quality
of air that Ontarians deserve. With this in mind, we are taking
action on many fronts to address smog, acid rain and other forms
of air pollution.
One of this government's most
important initiatives to promote cleaner air is the anti-smog
action plan or ASAP. The anti-smog action plan brings together a
wide range of partners, including industry associations,
companies, government and its agencies, and non-government
organizations, to reduce smog-causing emissions, including
nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, by 45%. At the
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment meeting in
Quebec City on June 5 and 6, ministers agreed to Canada-wide
standards for ozone and PM 2.5.
Over the past two years, we
have worked hard with stakeholders to achieve the 45% reduction
goal for nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds by 2015.
While the goal was an excellent step towards reducing smog, I
decided it was not ambitious enough. We all have to work together
to reduce smog, and I believe we can do it. That is why Ontario
went to Quebec with a goal in mind: a 45% reduction five years
earlier and a commitment from the federal government to obtain
the same commitments from the US Environmental Protection Agency.
This will be a significant contribution to our fight against
smog.
Another key element of our
fight against smog is our anti-smog actions of the Drive Clean
program, which has a $24-million allotment in these estimates.
Drive Clean targets the number one domestic source of
smog-causing pollutants, the automobile. It is achieving
impressive results to date. Since Drive Clean testing began in
April 1999, more than a million and a half cars and light-duty
trucks have been tested. During Drive Clean's first year, we
estimate that smog-causing emissions from cars and trucks were
reduced by an estimated 6.7% in the two program areas, those
being the Greater Toronto area and the Hamilton-Wentworth
region.
The reductions we've achieved
have been accomplished with the program covering less than a
third of the more than five million cars that will be covered
when the program is in full operation in 2004. We're on target
for a 22% reduction in smog-related emissions from vehicles in
the program areas by that time. We're also achieving reductions
in smog-causing pollutants through the testing of more than
200,000 heavy-duty trucks and buses each year across the
province.
Inspections and repairs under
the Drive Clean program are complemented by the Smog Patrol,
which targets grossly polluting vehicles on Ontario's
roadways.
1610
We're actively recruiting
facilities for phase two of Drive Clean, which will see the
program extended to urban areas from Peterborough to Windsor, as
well as the Niagara Peninsula. The equipping and accreditation of
facilities will be continuing until October 2000, when the first
notices go out to motorists. Mandatory testing will begin in
January 2001.
We are looking into ways to
require oil companies to post their sulphur content. This will
give motorists the knowledge they need to make environmentally
sensitive choices.
With respect to the
moratorium on the sale of coal-fired electricity plants, one of
the Ontario government's most significant challenges is ensuring
that environmental protection remains front and centre as we
create a more competitive electricity market in Ontario. This is
why I recently announced a moratorium on the sale of coal-fired
generation plants.
Ministry staff are reviewing
the effects of individual stations, as well as the environmental
controls in place. We are developing options to improve these
controls and to ensure that the environment and our air are
protected before any of these plants change hands. Options that
will be examined include, but are not limited to, conversion to
different fuels, especially natural gas; limits on emissions from
individual stations; and requirements for particular emission
abatement technologies.
This past January, we
announced a series of new actions to protect Ontario's air. These
actions include monitoring and reporting regulations as well as
emissions limits. Ontario electricity producers make up the first
sector subject to our new monitoring and reporting requirements.
As of May 1, 2000, all electric power generation companies and
their facilities in Ontario's electricity sector must report
annually on emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide as
well as other substances including mercury and carbon dioxide.
Larger generators, which are defined as facilities producing more
than 25 megawatts, must use continuous emission monitors for
emissions of NOx and SO2. All facilities
will be required to submit annual emissions reports, as well as
quarterly reports on smog-related emissions.
We're also developing a
regulation for the industrial, commercial and municipal sectors.
It will require the monitoring and reporting of some 357 airborne
contaminants, and we expect the regulation to take effect January
1, 2001.
A proposed regulation to make
all private and public sector electric facilities subject to the
Environmental Assessment Act has been posted on the Environmental
Bill of Rights registry for public comment. To date, the act has
applied only to projects undertaken by public sector
organizations. Under the new requirements, assessments will be
triggered by the environmental significance of an electricity
project, rather than by whether the proposal is from the public
or private sector.
In addition to creating a
level playing field, our new standards will further prompt the
electricity industry to consider alternative sources, thereby
increasing business opportunities for all energy producers. This
is where alternative energy sources such as natural gas can truly
make an environmental difference.
With respect to emission limits, the electricity
sector will also be the first sector to be subject to emissions
caps. The government is setting a cap on the level of emissions
to be allowed from electricity generators for 2001 and beyond.
Caps will be lowered over time to ensure the sector contributes
its fair share to meeting the target. The ministry will impose
limits on emissions from other industrial and institutional
sources in the coming years.
The government has also set
long-range targets of a 50% reduction by 2015 in SO2
emissions from the current limit set under Countdown Acid Rain.
The countdown program was established in 1986 to require Inco
Ltd, Falconbridge Ltd, Algoma Steel Inc's ore division at Wawa
and Ontario Hydro to reduce their combined sulphur dioxide
emissions. The limit set in 1994 was a maximum of 665 kilotonnes,
which is a 52% reduction from the 1986 limit.
With respect to emissions
reduction trading, along with January's announcement of
monitoring and reporting regulations and emissions limits, the
ministry has proposed an emissions reduction trading program.
This provides incentives for companies to find ways to remain
even further below the caps.
Emissions performance
standards were also announced. Effective January 2001, the
government will implement emissions performance standards for
electricity generators in Ontario and for generators outside
Ontario selling into our province. This will ensure that even
imported electricity that is used in Ontario is produced in
compliance with the province's tough new emissions standards.
As I mentioned a moment ago,
vehicles are the number one domestic source of smog-causing
pollutants. More than half of Ontario's smog originates from US
sources. In some areas of Ontario, US emissions can be as high as
90%. We are pressing our case with our American neighbours.
Ontario made a written submission to the US Court of Appeal in
July 1999 and made oral presentations in November 1999 in support
of anti-smog efforts by the US Environmental Protection Agency.
The EPA had called for the reduction of transboundary movement of
ground-level ozone and nitrogen oxides from several US states.
The court ruled in favour of the EPA in March of this year.
Right now, ministry staff are
in Washington supporting the federal government in its
negotiations for an ozone annex.
Another issue that we're
dealing with is climate change. Global climate change is another
transboundary issue being addressed by the ministry. Ontario is a
leader in the Canadian efforts to address global climate change.
The province has established a climate change fund to develop
provincial actions and spur all sectors, including governments,
industries, communities and individuals, to find the most
effective ways to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
Our monitoring and reporting
regulations cover emissions of CO2, which is a key
contributor to climate change.
The ministry's air protection
programs have multiple benefits. For example, fighting smog leads
to the reduction of greenhouse gases. Reductions and releases of
NOx and SO2 will also lead to reductions in
CO2 emissions.
A year of Drive Clean has led
to an estimated reduction of 18,500 tonnes in emissions of carbon
dioxide and, as I indicated earlier, greater reductions will be
realized as this program expands.
Ontario is leading by example
in the fight against smog. We have set a target to reduce
climate-change-related emissions by 40% in 2000. We have passed
the 32% mark and are well on our way to exceeding the 40%
goal.
These actions to improve air
quality are complemented by better methods for informing the
public about the state of their air. The air quality Ontario
initiative was launched May 1, 2000, to provide Ontarians with
expanded information about current and forecast air quality. The
initiative will run each year during peak smog season between May
1 and September 30. During that time, the ministry will provide a
two-tier, air-quality forecast that will provide up to three
days' notice when poor air quality is predicted. Since May 1,
when the initiative was launched, there have been more that
370,000 hits on the Web site devoted to providing air quality
information.
Air quality Ontario builds on
the more than $5 million in government investments since 1995 to
upgrade the province's air monitoring infrastructure. This
unprecedented investment in air monitoring enables
state-of-the-art emergency-response capability, establishes a new
smog alert program and allows dissemination of air quality data
to the public through several media, including the Internet.
1620
Investments include $3.5
million for a new telemetry system which allows the rapid
retrieval of air quality data from 74 continuous air monitoring
stations across the province and for state-of-the-art air
analyzers. There's $1.5 million for a new mobile air quality
index unit and two new mobile trace atmospheric gas
analyzers.
With respect to waste
diversion results, I'd like to turn to our conservation
stewardship initiatives, another core business of the ministry.
One of the ministry's main objectives is helping achieve a 50%
reduction for diversion of municipal solid waste, and we're
seeing strong results today. The ministry expects that as we
report on our progress for 1998, Ontario will be close to a waste
reduction rate of 40% per capita.
Here are some of the
achievements that have been made between 1994 and 1998:
Municipalities increased their total waste diversion rate from
860,000 tonnes to more than 1.25 million tonnes. Diversion of
organic materials through backyard and central composting
increased by 57% and municipal participation in centralized
composting is up 55% since 1994. Central composting programs
currently divert some 290,000 tonnes of organic waste annually.
Six thousand tonnes of household special waste was collected and
safely managed. Blue box
recycling has grown by 43%, from 450,000 tonnes to 650,000
tonnes.
Today, Ontario municipalities
provide blue box and other waste diversion services for more than
90% of Ontario's population; 99% of single-family homes in
Ontario are served by the blue box and other waste diversion
initiatives. As well, some 1.1 million backyard composters have
been distributed to residences.
The Ontario government is
committed to the long-term sustainability of the blue box and
other municipal waste reduction initiatives.
With this in mind, we formed
the Waste Diversion Organization, or WDO. The WDO is a voluntary
partnership of industries, municipalities, the Recycling Council
of Ontario and the province, and I'm pleased to report that it is
indeed up and running. The WDO will provide municipalities with
the funding and tools they need to drive greater waste diversion
to meet and potentially exceed the 50% waste reduction goal and
ensure the long-term financial sustainability of the blue box and
other waste diversion initiatives.
The
Vice-Chair: You have one minute, Minister.
Hon Mr
Newman: The key objective of the WDO is to develop a
long-term sustainable funding plan, includeing up to 50% of the
net operating costs of the blue box program.
We've had other actions as
well to conserve and protect resources. There are new standards
under the Environmental Protection Act for new and expanding
landfill sites that are among the toughest in North America.
We've also had a six-point action plan to deal with the Taro site
in Hamilton. We immediately amended two parts of the regulation.
Three further amendments are being consulted on. As well,
certificates of approval at a number of sites in the province
have been changed.
I would like to turn to a
matter which the opposition likes to talk about endlessly;
namely, the reductions to the ministry's staff and budget and
their alleged impact on our ability to do the job. I would like a
moment to set the record straight.
The
Vice-Chair: If you can do it in 30 seconds, it's
fine.
Hon Mr
Newman: Over the last decade we've seen many changes in
the ministry's programs, but a focus on compliance has always
been maintained. It is important to look at the historical trends
to see the functions that have been retained and how, as programs
change, staff numbers and functions have also changed. It is very
important that we all know the facts. I propose to outline the
exact way in which reductions to the ministry's budget have been
applied.
Let me say upfront that in
1995-6 the compliance function had 961 staff positions and $71.9
million. Today this critical activity has 741 staff and $63.4
million; a decrease of about 10% in funding compared with an
overall ministry funding reduction of 44%.
The Ministry of the
Environment now focuses on policy, standard setting, compliance
and enforcement.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. There is a
quorum call in the House for those who choose to go.
The next 30 minutes will be
allotted to the official opposition, Mr Bradley.
Mr James J. Bradley
(St Catharines): Thank you very much. One almost doesn't
know where to start in the estimates of the Ministry of the
Environment. This is the fourth minister, I think, in the Harris
government who has had to go through this procedure, because they
keep changing ministers for some reason or another.
The most condemning page I
can find in the estimates is indeed what we call page 7, which
deals with the fact that the government has made massive cuts to
the Ministry of the Environment budget. In the category of
administration, it is up 1.6%; environmental protection, down 4%;
conservation and stewardship, down almost 13%; infrastructure
development, down 77%; ministry total operating capital, down
43.7%.
That tells the story itself
because if you want a ministry to be successful, if it's a
Ministry of the Environment, the minister requires the resources
and the staff to be able to do this. This ministry, since the
Harris government has taken office, has been cut in its budget by
over 40% and has had approximately one third of the staff fired
out the door. In addition to this, it has had, let's say, its
clout within government reduced considerably because many in the
government were elected on the basis that they were going to get
the Ministry of the Environment out of people's faces.
I can tell you that's one
promise this government has kept, getting the Ministry of the
Environment out of the faces of some of the polluters in this
province, people who did not believe that the rules and
regulations we had in this province were to apply to them because
they would affect their business adversely in some way or other.
In fact, it was ironic that we had the Red Tape Commission
re-established under the co-chairmanship of the member for
London, Mr Wood, and the former member for Lincoln, Mr Frank
Sheehan. Of course, red tape is often something that people who
don't like the Ministry of the Environment try to eliminate. I
think we should have a green tape commission, which in fact puts
in place regulations designed to protect the environment instead
of constantly removing them at the behest of those who have never
wanted to comply with the rules and regulations of the Ministry
of the Environment.
That page in itself, the
overall budget cuts, tells us once again what the priority of
this government is because neither this minister nor any other
minister can do the job without the appropriate staff, without
the appropriate funding and without the clout.
I am very concerned as well
when I hear ministry officials are told to be "business
friendly." That doesn't take much of a translation. That means,
"Don't get in the face of business." You cannot set up a ministry
that was established, that was once strong, that had clout within
this government, and then turn around and make it a ministry with
little clout, with little action within government itself, that gets elbowed aside by
other ministries, that has pressure placed on it by people in the
private sector who don't want to comply with what they consider
to be rules and regulations and legislation that are
unreasonable. I can tell you that good corporate citizens don't
worry about that. Good corporate citizens are people who want the
Ministry of the Environment and the government to have tough
rules and regulations enforced in a thorough manner.
If you look at the number of
prosecutions that have taken place and the penalties that have
been applied by the Ministry of the Environment, they're down
considerably. That doesn't mean that everybody has suddenly
become an angel. That means this government simply is not
pursuing, as it should, the kinds of violations of provincial
laws that are obviously happening. As well, they don't have the
staff to watch out for those violations and to respond to citizen
complaints, which often tell us eventually where those violations
are.
We have regional offices that
have been significantly changed. Some of them are changed from
regional offices to area offices or district offices. One thing
is consistent, they have less money and fewer people working in
those offices to respond to problems. In every community we have
difficulty now in responding to problems. The solution was for
the ministry simply to fob some of that off on municipalities and
say, "We don't do this any more" or simply not be able to
respond. I don't blame the people who work for the Ministry of
the Environment. We have so many dedicated people, who once had a
lot of enthusiasm about dealing with environmental problems and
challenges in this province, who today are dispirited, as you see
from various quotes from people in the ministry who speak
anonymously, in fear of being somehow reprimanded.
1630
We know the new rules and
regulations you put people through now who want to answer
questions of members of the Legislature or others. They have to
go through several hoops now so that there's no embarrassment of
the minister and of the government. Those people should be able
to respond to members on the governing side or members of the
opposition side as individuals and not have to have it threaded
through the minister's office.
I'm concerned about the
investigations and enforcement branch, the number of people in it
and the independence of that branch. It should be totally
independent from the rest of the ministry. It should be in the
business of investigating and enforcing and not of cajoling and
persuading. That is its role. It is there to enforce rules and
regulations.
The minister does not want to
talk about the Walkerton situation because he says there's an
inquiry on. That will not prevent us from asking questions.
Whether the minister answers or not is another matter. But it was
a situation waiting to happen. You cannot place the province at
risk by taking away so many staff and so many resources. The
chickens will come home to roost when that happens.
I know it's a fundamental
difference in philosophy, whether you believe that public
services should be financed from the taxes. I know taxes are
never popular. I understand that. But you know you made a
significant choice as a government and this ministry felt the
consequences of that, of giving away massive tax cuts before the
budget was balanced and continuing to give away money and massive
tax cuts. I understand the philosophy and I respect people who
enunciate and defend that philosophy. I understand. That's one
side of the issue. I think a growing number of people in Ontario
recognize that you cannot place us at risk by continuing to take
away funding and resources from public services that are
provided, such as those by the Ministry of the Environment.
In the case of Walkerton,
some of the remedies the minister has mentioned are really after
the horse is out of the barn: "We're going to solve all these
problems now." One has to ask why the government abandoned those
responsibilities before. I don't hold the present minister
accountable for all of this. He's new to the office and he has to
answer for other ministers and he has to answer for the whole
government. That's why, Minister, through the Chair of the
committee, I said to you in the House today, I think it's
important that you make it clear to the Premier and the rest of
cabinet who aren't on your side in terms of expenditures that you
need the resources and the staff to do the job and, second, that
you shouldn't be bullied into having privatization of water and
sewer services across this province.
I know it's happening now.
I know there are people from municipalities who gather sometimes
in Toronto and they get that-I can't remember his name. He's the
former deputy mayor of Indianapolis. He's a guru that the Fraser
Institute brings in, the guru of privatization of municipal
services, and he tells them, "Oh, you get your people who are
public servants to bid against the private sector and you get a
better price and so on." The municipalities are already doing
that because they know the pressure is on them from the
provincial government. I hope that you will, Mr Minister, express
your strong opposition to that as I asked you in the House this
afternoon.
I look at the present
circumstances with water treatment plants. There's no way on
earth that you can properly inspect with properly qualified staff
all of those water treatment and sewage treatment plants in this
province within six months. You can't do it. We recognize that
sewage treatment plants are also very significant because they
are there to try to prevent the contamination from getting into
the waterways. The water treatment plants need a lot of work. We
would know if we had the results of the drinking water
surveillance program. We used to put that out yearly. It's a good
program that should have been expanded on a yearly basis. The
auditor suggested about 25 plants a year, I think-you'll correct
me if I'm wrong-but a number of plants a year should be added to
the drinking water surveillance program.
If you don't have the results for people, they're
going to be suspicious. Surely people have the right to those
results. As I see it, there's one of two options: Either you have
the results and you're hiding them or you couldn't possibly have
the results because you didn't have the staff to gather those
results; in other words, the work couldn't be done because you
didn't have the staff. It's one of the two. As a minister, I feel
sympathetic to you if you didn't have the staff to do that and to
be able to produce those reports. Then we can all go, each one of
us, to our local municipalities and say, "What the heck are you
doing to solve this problem?" and, "You apply resources to it,"
and they're usually happy to comply, particularly if they can get
some financial assistance from the provincial government.
I heard you talk about the
Canada-Ontario Great Lakes agreement. I should say before that
that when we get into the details of it, I'll have several
detailed questions about water treatment in this province,
because I think it's inadequate. We're in the year 2000. We have
all kinds of new equipment that's available, new processes that
are available, scientific evidence which is up to date. To think
that we have plants that don't have water filtration, for
instance, that simply take it from a pipe and chlorinate it and
put it through some kind of minimal process and have it as
drinking water, without the proper filtration systems which get
rid of such things as cryptosporidium-it's appalling that in the
year 2000 we do not have that in place as we should have. But you
can't be cutting and providing that at the same time, because
municipalities will need the support for that, not down 77% and a
big fat zero next year.
And I know what happened
with the SuperBuild program. Now they'll say we'll get
environmental projects out of it, but I think when the Ontario
water and sewer people went to that particular program they were
told to take a hike, that it wasn't going to be a priority from
that program. I wish you well, Minister, now in securing some of
the funds from that program, because you're sure as heck going to
need it, and so will the municipalities.
I look at the MISA program,
the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, which was
commenced in the late 1980s. You had to drag a lot of people over
the coals over that, I'll tell you, including some people who
should know better who had to be dragged over the coals on that
particular program. It was a good program that I'm glad continues
to be implemented. The problem, as I see it, and you can correct
me if I'm wrong, is that the municipal part of it has not been as
assiduously dealt with as the industrial part. In other words, I
don't know how many municipalities of the smaller variety are
able to actually keep track of what's dumped into that sewer
system and eventually makes its way into the waterways. We do
know as well that sewage treatment plants can't handle some of
those more exotic substances that are dumped in there.
I ask the question of what
the heck you're doing about hospital waste now, biomedical
waste-always a good question. The media forgot to ask that
question to you; I forgot to ask that question to you. Biomedical
waste is a big issue, and what are you doing with that at the
present time? We're going to be looking at some of that. Are
there new ways of treating it? Are there better ways of treating
it today? That's something that was not mentioned, and I'm sure
you will have an answer to that.
The Countdown Acid Rain
program was a very ambitious program that was used to
significantly reduce-the goal was two thirds-sulphur dioxide
emissions in Ontario. It was also great to use that as clout,
when you're going to Washington or somewhere else, to persuade
our American friends. Unfortunately, I had the embarrassment of
going to a press conference in Buffalo yesterday where there was
a sign unveiled about Ontario smog going to Buffalo. It's coming
from Nanticoke. The Nanticoke coal-fired plant is the largest
coal-fired plant in North America in megawatts. It has less than
adequate pollution abatement equipment on it. My understanding is
that it has some kind of low-NOx burners on it. I
don't know if it has any sulphur dioxide emissions on it. But the
best technology there is selective catalytic reduction. It should
be placed on that immediately and it should be converted to gas,
as should the other plants in Ontario. I know it costs money, I
know it does, but pollution also costs us a lot of money and
costs lives. The Ontario Medical Association estimates 1,800
people die prematurely each year of respiratory problems.
The privatization and
downloading: I'm very concerned about shoving some of that thing
to the municipalities. I found interesting your answer on OCWA, a
provincial agency, the Ontario Clean Water Agency. I asked you
the question; you didn't give me an answer in the House. You came
outside of the House and you said, "No, we're not doing it." They
asked the Premier when he was at his extravaganza at the SkyDome
the next day and he said, "Well, if the offer's good enough,
we're going to sell it." I suggest there's a battle going on in
government. I hope you're on the side of not selling off OCWA to
the private sector, to the people who are waiting like vultures
to move in and take over water to make a profit on it. Lots of
things should have a profit made on them. Water is not one.
I'm concerned about the
approvals and environmental assessment legislation. You know, you
brag about this to businesses in the US. You say, "We've
streamlined the approvals and assessment process." "Streamlined"
means, sir, that you've made it easier, and that has consequences
for the province.
1640
Let's see what else we
have: air pollution warnings. Well, I think we know we have air
pollution out there. What we need is more action to actually
reduce, not just have the companies monitor, because I have to
ask, who's monitoring the monitors? That's another significant
problem. You have to have the people who go in, on an unannounced
basis, fairly frequently, to monitor the monitors so they're not
just giving you some story about what they're producing when in
fact what they're producing is something more dangerous for the
environment. Unless you have a crack team to go in and do that,
you open the chance for companies to do that, for polluters to do
that.
In terms of sulphur and
gas, you have jurisdiction. In British Columbia, they deal with
sulphur and gas. They require certain rules on sulphur and gas.
Just as you control volatile organic compounds in gas, you can
also control sulphur. So if you don't like what the feds are
doing, you don't have to call a press conference to point fingers
the day your budget is in trouble, when you get bad news about
your budget. The best thing to do, then, is to implement it
yourself, and I'll be there to support you when you do it. I'll
stand and applaud in the Legislature, I promise you. That I
will.
So coal-fired plants
provide a problem. What else can I say about what you've said? I
take a good look at what's happening at Inco right now. I'm not
convinced that Inco is as we would like it to be at the present
time, and I hope you will take a careful look at the opacity
problems at Inco, in particular if they're still meeting-because
they were a good-news story-their requirements.
You cannot go into the US
courts unless you have clean hands. They just laugh at you if you
do. You have to have a strong case. You have to show sweeping
changes being made. In New York state now, the Governor, a good
Republican, as you people would know, Governor Pataki, is
requiring of coal-fired plants much more stringent rules than
you're applying in Ontario, and so is Mr Spitzer, who is a person
in charge of that.
What else can I say? I
think you've abandoned municipalities in terms of waste
diversion. I don't think there's much in the way of money, if
any, going to municipalities to assist them in that regard.
You've lost responsibility
for the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I wish it would go back to
your ministry, because that is an environmental gem. If you turn
that over to the Ministry of Natural Resources, you're not going
to have the same control. I can see by the appointments to the
commission that there's a different attitude at the Niagara
Escarpment Commission now that it's been shunted over to the
Ministry of Natural Resources.
I look at the water
treatment problems. As I say, I want to get into the details on
that, because I think the people of this province will be very
surprised at what's going on. The other day you were asked for a
list of municipalities that had trouble with their water
treatment system. You refused to give that list. I don't know why
you refused to give it. You talked about it being history. Well,
if it's history, tell us what the history was and tell us how
they corrected it. If they didn't correct it, then that in itself
is valuable information for the public to know. I am, on behalf
of the people of Ontario, demanding that you provide that
information. People shouldn't have to go to freedom of
information, such as the Sierra Legal Defence Fund had to do to
come out with the report called Who's Protecting Our Water?, the
so-called annual discharge report, where we find out what's being
discharged in our waterways. We should not have to have people
pay and be delayed to get information which should be readily
available to the public.
I would like to know what's
happening with well water in this province. I suspect there's
very little happening. For instance, when you go along the 401,
in one of those stations that we stop at to get gasoline and
perhaps food, where do they get their water from? Who tests that
water? How safe is that water? It doesn't always come from
municipal water supplies. It often comes from their own systems.
We have to know where that water is coming from.
We would like to know what
happens with those sewage treatment plants. How many of those are
in and out of compliance? Are municipalities investing the money
they should in there, and are you assisting them to do so in a
generous manner? I think you should be, because that's extremely
important.
What about the
certification and training of the operators? Do they all have a
card of certification, everybody who's operating a water
treatment and sewage treatment plant? I'll go back to a question:
When you're going to do this crash across Ontario, I'd like to
know where you're going to get the people, because you broke up
those teams in the ministry that used to have specific
responsibility for assessing water treatment plants. They don't
go in for 15 minutes and whip through it. Your ministry officials
will tell me how long it takes. It probably takes four or five
days to do a very strong assessment of it, to do a report on each
one of these. You've got to have qualified people to do it. You
can't just haul people out of an office who don't have the
specific qualifications to do it. You have to have people who are
specialists in the field, who know how to examine those plants.
I'm convinced you don't have those.
I'm convinced there's a
reason you're not producing the drinking water surveillance
program reports for us. I gave you your options before: either
you're hiding it or you didn't have the staff to produce it and
you don't have it. But there is no excuse for not producing that
list of municipalities and drinking water systems now out of
compliance. I think the people of this province are entitled to
know. I think then remedial action will be taken by those
municipalities, by private sector people who are operating it, by
OCWA or by whomever if the public happens to know that. And here
you are: You were asked in the House by the Leader of the
Opposition yesterday and you were asked in the media scrum after,
and you refuse to give that particular information.
I'm interested in why you
ended up dumping the Ministry of the Environment labs. I thought
they were very good. Specifically to the Walkerton case, if
there's a direct link-I personally believe that had a Ministry of
the Environment lab got that information, they would have told
the medical officer of health so fast it would make your head
spin, because they would have seen the kind of E coli that was
infecting that particular system. So I'm wondering why you decided to get out of
the business of Ministry of the Environment laboratories and I
think maybe Ministry of Health laboratories-but I can't hold you
accountable for those or ask you about those, but you might offer
some information on that as well, because they were very, very
helpful.
I look at, overall within
the water treatment department, the people you cut, the specific
people you cut-there were figures provided, and we'll talk about
those figures in detail later-and how you can do the job if you
cut those people. One area where I think you have increased
staff, because I've been reading, I don't know whether in Topical
or the Globe and Mail or what-but I've been seeing all the people
you're hiring in the communications business. There's lots of
communications advertising out there, either spin doctors or
whatever they are. I don't know what they are; maybe they're
speech writers or something. But you seem to be-maybe I'm wrong,
and you'll tell me I'm wrong-hiring a lot of those folks while
you're turfing other people out the door.
I'll be interested as well
in how you respond to what orders you've given to Ministry of the
Environment officials now when an MPP or a member of the news
media calls the office, how those orders might have differed from
what they might have been before Walkerton, because it's much
more difficult to ferret out information about specific problems
from Ministry of the Environment officials today than it was
before Walkerton. That's most unfortunate, because I think it's
important that any one of us, whether it's a government member or
an opposition member or a member of the news media, has an
opportunity to get that information, bring the issue forward and
have you address it. You may have an excellent answer for it or
you may say, "I don't have an answer, but here's how I'm going to
respond to something that's brought to my attention." That's fine
if you do it that way, but I don't think you can muzzle or at
least hold back Ministry of the Environment officials until the
news is stale or until you've fixed the problem and found a spin
for the answer to that particular problem.
I would like to know when
you would anticipate that the drinking water surveillance program
would be extended to every plant in Ontario. I understand that's
an ongoing program that's spun out over a number a years. I
didn't expect when you got in that you were going to announce
they were all there the next day. That would be unfair and
unrealistic, and I don't want to be unfair and unrealistic with
you. I would like to have a list of those municipalities, not
just the ones that you've identified have had problems, but the
ones that do not meet the Ontario Drinking Water Objectives. I'd
like to have that list presented to us. Those are the ones I
talked about that have, in my view and in the view of many
people, inadequate water processing systems that may have been OK
50 years ago, but we've got a lot of population out there now and
a lot of industry and so on, and that's important.
The issue of land use is an
extremely important one. I think of the Oak Ridges moraine. I
would hope that as minister you would be advocating a freeze on
development on the Oak Ridges moraine. It's a gem, a real gem. It
has the headwaters of so many rivers and streams coming into so
many municipalities represented by people on this committee and
others, and to see that placed in jeopardy by development which
is unwise I think would be something we should not allow. I'm
concerned about the disappearance of farmland, and as Minister of
the Environment you have a certain responsibility there. I know
the Minister of Agriculture probably has the lead, but as I see
this urban sprawl taking place outside of major metropolitan
centres, I'm extremely concerned as we gobble up all the good
farmland. I see it certainly in the Niagara Peninsula, as there
are some people who will not be satisfied until they've paved
every last square centimetre from Toronto to Fort Erie. Then
they'll be happy. That will be the ultimate; that will be
paradise.
1650
To me that's not paradise,
and I would hope that you, as Minister of the Environment, would
advocate in favour of strong planning rules. In fact, I wish you
would revert to the planning rules that the previous government
brought in. I'm one who gives credit to people. Some of the
things the Conservatives did years ago were good as well, and I
think some of the things you're going to do are going to be
positive.
The NDP changed the rules
of this province. I know the developers hated it, but I'm going
to tell you that I thought a lot of those rules that came out of
a committee-and there was a heck of a lot of consultation-were
very good, because they made us pause and look at the
consequences of unfettered development before allowing it to take
place. Upon reflection, I hope the government would look
carefully at that.
I hope when you look at the
Ministry of Natural Resources that you would advocate on behalf
of your fellow minister as well. Some people here who have been
in municipal politics I suspect have served on conservation
authorities. I understand it's not within the purview of your
ministry, but as an advocate for the environment, I believe that
the Minister of the Environment should be advocating on behalf of
the Ministry of Natural Resources to get its funding and staff
restored for those programs which are there to protect water, and
conservation authorities as well, which have been virtually
annihilated by cuts from this government. I'd like to see that
funding restored to those particular bodies, which I think did a
good job of trying to protect us from problems such as the waste
that comes off farmland, comes off industrial land, comes off
residential land. They're very good as a commenting authority
when a subdivision proposal has been brought forward. I think
that would be extremely important in that regard.
I look at the Great Lakes.
You mentioned, for instance, that you're pleased that they seem
to be cleaned up. I suggest that there's just not as much water
testing going on at this
time to determine what is going on. I remember hearing I think a
reliable source saying that there had been a lot of that removed,
a lot of water testing that had been removed that was there
before. I hope some of the measures that have been taking place
will indeed help clean up the Great Lakes.
In some of our
municipalities which are more urban, when we have what is called
a 30-year or 50-year storm and the sewage treatment plant gets
bypassed, I hope the government would help to finance retention
tanks that would take that water which would normally be flowing
to the sewage treatment plant and which bypasses it in the big
storm-you just let her rip into the lake or into the stream-that
you would fund retention tanks which would allow that rainwater
to be retained as long as possible before it is put through a
sewage treatment plant.
The
Vice-Chair: You have less than a minute.
Mr
Bradley: So, Mr Minister, I put many challenges before
you. I wish you well. I'm not a person who is malicious in
dealing with other ministers; I have a sympathy for ministers. I
simply wish you well, and you can be assured of my support and
that of the official opposition if you are campaigning to get the
necessary funds and resources and staff to accomplish what we
have suggested you might want to accomplish.
The
Vice-Chair: The third party has 30 minutes.
Mr Howard Hampton
(Kenora-Rainy River): Chair, I'm going to launch right
into questions of the minister, because I have a number of
questions. In fact, there won't be enough time for me to have all
of my questions answered.
The first question I want
to ask the minister is, were you aware that your staff, your
assistant deputy minister for operations, wrote memos as early as
1996 advising that staff cuts would necessitate-
Hon Mr
Newman: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Is it not the
procedure that if the NDP is choosing not to go with opening
comments, we would then go to my rebuttal to the two opposition
parties?
The
Vice-Chair: I think it's appropriate, as I was checking
with the clerk, that they can ask questions within that time.
Mr
Hampton: This is our time, and we'd like to ask some
questions.
Hon Mr
Newman: OK. I just wanted to clarify things.
Mr
Hampton: I'll start again. Were you aware that your
staff, your assistant deputy minister for operations, wrote memos
as early as 1996 advising that staff cuts would necessitate a
reduction in service by the Ministry of the Environment,
specifically the operations branch, which is charged with
enforcement and inspection? Were you aware of that?
Hon Mr
Newman: Yes.
Mr
Hampton: Were you aware that in January of this year
Ministry of the Environment staff wrote a memo advising that the
protocol for reporting serious contamination problems with
drinking water was obsolete?
Hon Mr
Newman: Can you just repeat the question one more time,
please?
Mr
Hampton: Were you aware that in January of this year
your own staff wrote a memo advising that the protocol for
reporting serious contamination problems with drinking water was
obsolete?
Hon Mr
Newman: I was not aware of that working document.
Mr
Hampton: When you were sworn in as Minister of the
Environment, were you briefed by senior officials in the ministry
about problems with the protocol for reporting serious
contamination problems with drinking water?
Hon Mr
Newman: No.
Mr
Hampton: You're telling us that the ministry officials
didn't tell you, when you were sworn in as minister, about their
concerns, issues they had raised internally in January of this
year, concerning the protocol for serious contamination problems
with drinking water?
Hon Mr
Newman: I can again tell you that was a working document
that was not brought to senior management.
Mr
Hampton: I want to ask the question specifically again:
When you were sworn in as Minister of the Environment and you
were given briefings as Minister of the Environment, you're
saying that you were not told about serious problems with the
protocol for reporting contamination problems with drinking
water?
Hon Mr
Newman: I think I have answered that question.
Mr
Hampton: Were you aware prior to yesterday afternoon's
question period that Ministry of the Environment officials knew
about E coli in the Rocklyn drinking water in February and were
telling citizens in Rocklyn that the Ministry of the Environment
could not go to investigate until later on this spring, because
they didn't have time?
Hon Mr
Newman: I knew yesterday.
Mr
Hampton: Yesterday was the first you heard of it?
Hon Mr
Newman: I answered your question. Yes.
Mr
Hampton: Despite the fact this was raised in February,
the ministry knew of it in February?
Hon Mr
Newman: I've answered your question.
Mr
Hampton: Have you asked your deputy minister to
determine if there are other situations like Rocklyn where your
staff in the ministry are telling people they cannot investigate
contaminated drinking water because they don't have time? Have
you asked your deputy minister about that?
Hon Mr
Newman: We're investigating anywhere that there is-
Mr
Hampton: Have you asked your deputy minister?
Hon Mr
Newman: I've answered the question.
Mr John O'Toole
(Durham): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I am very
interested in the line of questioning; I think it's more
appropriate for the inquiry that's going on. In the estimates
process, it's my view, we're at a policy level, and he is
actually doing an inquisition, a media inquisition, in my view, and I would ask
you to rule if it's inappropriate to have him specifically asking
questions on Walkerton. His questions are specific to a public
inquiry, and I wonder if that's appropriate for this particular
committee.
The
Vice-Chair: The third party has 30 minutes in which to
put their case, and they may choose to do that. The minister may
choose not to-
Ms Marilyn Churley
(Broadview-Greenwood): The cover-up continues.
The
Vice-Chair: Order. He may choose not to answer.
Mr
O'Toole: Mr Chair, I take exception to the tone of the
person saying, "The cover-up continues." On what basis do you
make that assumption? Through the Chair, she has made a statement
on the public record.
Mr
Hampton: Chair, I'd like to ask my question. If Mr
Newman has something to hide-
Mr
O'Toole: You have made a public statement that it's a
cover-up, and I take exception to that tone. You know nothing of
what you speak.
Mr
Hampton: Chair, if you don't mind, I'm going to ask my
questions. If the government wants to try to shut us down, let
them try and do that.
The
Vice-Chair: Order.
Mr
O'Toole: Nobody is shutting you down, but I-
The
Vice-Chair: Mr O'Toole, you asked me a question, and I'm
trying to respond. I don't like the fact that you're having
arguments back and forth. You asked me a question as the Chair,
and I'm trying to respond. I have responded. The third party has
30 minutes in which to put their questions, and the minister may
choose to-
Hon Mr
Newman: The role of the Chair is to be impartial. You
made a comment a moment ago with reference to me not answering
questions. I have answered questions here to the best of my
ability. You made reference specifically to questions not being
answered, and I would like an apology from you for that.
1700
The
Vice-Chair: I don't see why I have to apologize. I said
you may choose to do-
Hon Mr
Newman: No, that's not what you said, Chair. You said,
"If you're not answering the questions," and you can review
Hansard.
The
Vice-Chair: I will rule on that. Minister, I said that
you may choose to answer the question the way you want to. I did
not say you did not. So may we proceed? I will roll the clock
back two minutes.
Mr
Hampton: Minister, I want to ask you a question about
your report. In your report you admit today that the compliance
part of the ministry, the operations part of the ministry-this is
on page 13 of 16-had 961 staff positions in 1995-96, and this
critical activity has 741 staff positions now. That's a reduction
of at least 220 staff positions in the operations division.
That's a reduction of 23%. So you're admitting here today that in
fact you have cut 23% of the staff from the operations division
which was responsible for enforcement and inspection. Those are
your own figures, sir. You're admitting that?
Hon Mr
Newman: I just want to find the page.
Mr
Hampton: Page 13 of 16.
Hon Mr
Newman: You'll appreciate the fact that I'm working from
a different copy than what you have.
Mr
Hampton: It's under the title "Staff and Budget
Reductions." It is the fifth paragraph.
Hon Mr
Newman: How does the paragraph start?
Mr
Hampton: "Let me say upfront that in 1995-96 the
compliance function had 961 staff positions." It now has 741.
That's a reduction of 220 and a reduction of 23%.
Hon Mr
Newman: I just want to explain that for a second. It's
not a simple yes or no. It was 961 staff positions and $71.9
million in 1995-96; today, 741 staff, $63.4 million. That's a
decrease in funding of about 10% compared with the overall
ministry reduction of 44%.
Mr
Hampton: And it's a reduction in staff for enforcement
and inspection of 220, which works out to a 23% reduction.
Hon Mr
Newman: Well, the-
Mr
Hampton: Are your figures right or wrong?
Hon Mr
Newman: If you look at that-
Mr
Hampton: We can do the math. I just want to know, are
your figures right or wrong?
Hon Mr
Newman: You're asking a question and I would like the
opportunity to at least answer it. I don't think I'm being given
the opportunity. You're asking a question and then you're
saying-
Mr
Hampton: I'm asking, do you stand behind those
figures?
Hon Mr
Newman: I can tell you, if those are the figures in my
speech, obviously I stand behind those figures.
Mr
Hampton: Then the Premier was obviously wrong, I take
it, when he said on May 29, "At no time was any person downsized
in a way that should have affected the delivery of any services
of the Ministry of the Environment"?
Hon Mr
Newman: You also would want to look as I continue in
that speech. I would encourage you to read through the rest of
it.
"The Ministry of the
Environment now focuses on policy, standard setting, compliance
and enforcement. In 1994-95, staff dedicated to compliance
comprised 40% of the workforce. Today, compliance staff make up
49% of the workforce.
"Enforcement staff
comprised 4% of our workforce in 1994-95. Today, they account for
6%.
"No investigators in our
field offices were reduced. There were 44 investigators in 1995,
and there are 44 today."
Mr
Hampton: But you admit that 220 people have been removed
from that area which is charged with enforcement and
inspection?
Hon Mr
Newman: You have to look at the total compliance issue.
I've gone through the figures, what percentage of the overall
ministry workforce is there with respect to enforcement. I've also indicated
there has been no change in the number of investigators; there
were 44 in 1995 and there are 44 today.
Mr
Hampton: I want to read to you from a memorandum by the
former assistant deputy minister of operations when she outlines
that the operations division, which comprises enforcement and
inspection, will be forced to lay off 279 people. She says:
"These measures will have an obvious impact on our work plan.
Over the next few months we will be working on adjusting our
priorities and compliance strategies." That seems to say to me
that you won't be able to do as much work. Would you agree with
that?
Hon Mr
Newman: The answer would be no to your question, but I
want to indicate that was the former assistant deputy minister's
personal opinion there.
Mr
Hampton: There's a question and answer part to this
memo, in other words, preparing staff for answering questions
should they come from the media or other staff. It says, "What
will happen to the work plan now?" Suggested answer: "We will be
working on adjusting our priorities and compliance strategies to
harmonize with the ministry's core business functions." That
sounds to me like she's concerned that you won't be able to do
all the work. Wouldn't you agree?
Hon Mr
Newman: I think you want to look at some of the figures
with respect to charges laid in the province and number of
convictions.
Mr
Hampton: Yes, I'd like that.
Hon Mr
Newman: I'd be pleased to tell you that in 1995 there
were 1,045 total charges laid. There were 504 convictions in that
year. In 1996 there were 758 charges laid. There was a total of
366 convictions in that year. In 1997, 951 total charges laid,
and the total number of convictions, 418. In 1998, 805 total
charges laid, and the total number of convictions in that year
was 414. In 1999, 1,216 total charges laid, and there were 611
convictions. So if you go back from 1996 on, there's a vast
increase. Even the 1999 numbers for total charges laid outweigh
the numbers from 1995.
Mr
Hampton: I'm glad you brought this up because in 1998,
according to your own statistics, there were 3,300 violations in
terms of discharge of polluted water, yet, incredibly, only one
single prosecution. Can you explain this?
Hon Mr
Newman: Sorry?
Mr
Hampton: By your own figures, in 1998 there were 3,300
violations in terms of discharge of polluted water, and yet,
incredibly, only one single prosecution. Can you explain
that?
Hon Mr
Newman: I know I've answered that question in the House
with respect to waste water discharge from municipal facilities
and also industrial facilities. Those excellencies don't take
into account whether it was a 300% exceedence or a 0.001%
exceedence. It obviously doesn't deal with the issue of whether
there were abatement programs put in place to do that. It doesn't
offer any explanation as to whether there was new equipment in
place that may not have been adjusted properly. It doesn't
account for the fact that you may have had an older piece of
equipment not functioning properly. It also doesn't account for
the fact that there could be human error involved in any of those
discharge levels.
Mr
Hampton: But you admit that there were 3,300 exceedences
and only one prosecution?
Hon Mr
Newman: We're talking about exceedences over allowable
limits that were set in the certificate of approval.
Mr
Hampton: That's right, and only one prosecution. So you
agree that that figure is accurate?
Hon Mr
Newman: In 1998, in total, there were 805 charges laid
from the ministry, 414 convictions; in 1999, 1,216 total charges
laid, 611 convictions, within the ministry.
Mr
Hampton: I want you to confirm this figure: Overall
fines and prosecutions have dropped by about 67%, from an average
of $2.6 million a year down to $863,000 for the year-
Hon Mr
Newman: You're comparing 1998 to 1999?
Mr
Hampton: That's 1998.
Hon Mr
Newman: Certainly. Again, you have the fines. Those are
the measures that would go to court, and fines are set there.
Mr
Hampton: I want to ask you another question. I believe
you stated that if the government were still doing the direct
testing of municipal drinking water, then citizens would know
sooner about the results of that testing. I believe you made that
statement. In light of that admission, what steps have you taken
to get the Ministry of Environment back into the direct testing
of municipal drinking water?
Hon Mr
Newman: Start again there for a second. You sort of
jumped. You didn't give me an opportunity to answer your
question.
Mr
Hampton: I believe you stated that if the government
were still doing the direct testing of municipal drinking water,
citizens would know sooner the results of testing regarding
drinking water.
Hon Mr
Newman: Where was that said?
Mr
Hampton: I'm going by the media reports. We have a tape
of your statement.
Hon Mr
Newman: I'd like to know where that was said, but I can
tell you that any issue like that would be dealt with in the
inquiry. That's something that would be looked at. I think you
can appreciate that the inquiry must be able to do its job.
1710
Mr
Hampton: If you made that statement-and I have it on
tape that you made it-what steps have you taken to get the
Ministry of the Environment back into the direct testing of
municipal drinking water?
Hon Mr
Newman: If you've got the tape, I'd like to hear it, so
I can listen to it in the context of the questioning.
Mr
Hampton: We'll be happy to play the tape.
Hon Mr
Newman: That's great.
Mr Hampton: But will you answer
the question? What steps have you taken to get the ministry back
into the testing of municipal drinking water?
Hon Mr
Newman: Again, I have the new regulation I'm coming
forward with. I announced that on May 29. We're moving forward
with that. That's going to be a very tough regulation that will
put in place and give the force of law to many items that will
protect the drinking water in our province.
Mr
Hampton: This question was specific: What steps have you
taken to get the Ministry of the Environment back into the
testing of municipal drinking water? The statement I have on tape
is that you said that if that were the case, people would know
the results of testing sooner.
Hon Mr
Newman: The new regulation will set out a regime of how
testing ought to be done.
Mr
Hampton: Have you asked your deputy for advice as to the
options for your ministry to re-involve itself in the testing of
drinking water?
Hon Mr
Newman: The deputy and I talk on a regular basis.
Mr
Hampton: What steps have you taken to halt any moves to
sell OCWA, the Ontario Clean Water Agency?
Hon Mr
Newman: I can tell you that there is nothing before us
at this time.
Mr
Hampton: You must have seen the proposal that has been
put forward by your colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs,
the former Minister of the Environment. It seems to me that OCWA
would easily be included in that process. Can you tell us what
steps you've taken to perhaps say that this is not a good
idea?
Hon Mr
Newman: I can tell you that every day in my
responsibilities as the Minister of the Environment my job is to
ensure that the environment is protected in our province, whether
it be the air, the water or the land. That's a responsibility I
have to uphold.
Mr
Hampton: I'm glad you mention that. Your drinking water
surveillance program only studies, at most, 175 out of 627 local
drinking water supply systems. I'm just reading your figures: 175
out of 627 municipal drinking water supply systems. Can you tell
us why the drinking water surveillance program studies so
few?
Hon Mr
Newman: We've added additional communities to the
program each and every year. In fact, we monitor 175 water supply
systems, and that represents 88% of the population served by
municipal water in our province.
Mr
Hampton: Yes, but it's only 175 out of 627. Why do you
only monitor 175 out of 627?
Hon Mr
Newman: We're adding more and more communities to the
program each year.
Mr
Hampton: I heard you say that earlier, and then you said
you're monitoring 175. Why only 175 out of 627?
Hon Mr
Newman: Maybe I'll call Jim MacLean, who is one of our
assistant deputy ministers, to answer that question.
Mr
Hampton: He can come up later. I have another question I
want to ask you.
Hon Mr
Newman: Howard, I want you to get your answer.
Mr
Hampton: You were consulted-
Hon Mr
Newman: I'd like to have the deputy-
Mr
Hampton: The deputy can answer later.
Hon Mr
Newman: No. You've asked a question.
Mr
Hampton: Chair, I'm not interested in listening-
The Chair (Mr
Gerard Kennedy): This time is the third party's time, Mr
Minister, and if they are not satisfied-
Hon Mr
Newman: Chair, they've asked a question. I'm willing to
provide them with the answer.
Mr
Hampton: I'm not interested in hearing from the
assistant deputy minister.
The Chair:
Minister, you're welcome to provide the answer yourself, but it
is up to the third party to indicate their use of their time.
Let's please use this precious time.
Hon Mr
Newman: Chair, I was asked a question; I want to provide
the answer for them. If I can call the assistant deputy
minister-
The Chair:
Minister, there's indication that you have answered the question
to the third party's satisfaction. Continue.
Mr
Hampton: Minister, were you consulted as to the
advisability of proceeding at this time with the proposal of the
Minister of Municipal Affairs to force the privatization of all
municipal water and sewer plants? Were you consulted on that?
Hon Mr
Newman: No.
Mr
Hampton: As the minister responsible for protecting the
province's drinking water supply, you were not consulted on that
proposal?
Hon Mr
Newman: That might be a question that could be answered
by the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
Mr
Hampton: I just want to be sure. As the minister
responsible for protecting Ontario's drinking water supply, you
were not consulted on such a holus-bolus plan for the
privatization of our drinking water supplies?
Hon Mr
Newman: Again, it's a document I have not seen.
Mr
Hampton: I want to be very clear on this. We're talking
here about the whole municipal water supply. We're talking here
about the sewage and water treatment program for municipalities
across the whole province. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has
put forward a proposal for privatization, and you were not even
consulted on it?
Hon Mr
Newman: I'm not sure if he has put forward any proposal.
What you're talking about would be a document from the Ministry
of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Mr
Hampton: I asked you a question in the Legislature about
water quality test results and audits of municipal water
treatment plants to show that they were in working order, and you
referred me to the ministry Web site. But the ministry Web site
has a report from the drinking water surveillance program posted
from 1996-97. That's now
three years out of date, four years out of date at the extreme.
Why are you unable to provide more recent information?
Hon Mr
Newman: You asked that question, and with respect to
testing, yes, people today do go to Web sites to get
information.
Mr
Hampton: Yes, but why are you unable to provide more
recent information?
Hon Mr
Newman: You've asked a question, and I'd like the
opportunity to answer your question. You've come here with
questions, and I want to answer the questions, but I'm not being
given the opportunity. First off, with respect to Web sites, many
people go to Web sites to get information today. That's how
technology works. In fact, there have been 370,000 hits on our
Ontario's Air Quality Web site since May 1, so people are going
to it.
What I find interesting, as
I answered your question in the House, is that you seemed to
quote from the CEC report from 1997 and say that the results of
that are fine because it's from 1997, but somehow the results
from the ministry from 1997 don't cut it. I don't understand.
Mr
Hampton: I'm simply asking you, why isn't there more
recent information? I hear in the statement you made today that
drinking water quality and testing drinking water quality is
absolutely important. Why is the information at least three, and
possibly four, years out of date? Why isn't there more recent
information?
Hon Mr
Newman: With any report, there is time involved in
collecting the information from across the province. The
information has to be examined and put together, compiled into a
report. It's not unusual to have reports, like the CEC report
that came out last month, looking at something that happened
three years ago, because it does take time to compile those sorts
of reports.
Mr
Hampton: The door-to-door disinfection program being
carried out in Walkerton will take at least seven weeks now to
complete. That means it will be six or seven weeks until people
will be able to turn on their taps. The federal government's
Minister of the Environment offered to provide staff to assist
with the door-to-door disinfection effort in Walkerton. I
understand you refused to accept, even though that would have
shortened the time for the disinfection period. Can you tell us
why you refused the offer?
Hon Mr
Newman: First off, that's not true. There is no shortage
of staff at Walkerton. It has to be done in a very systematic
manner. The community is divided into sections. Everything is
monitored and recorded as they go through the entire system. It's
done in sections so that they're able to block off certain parts
so that they're not flushing something back into a part of the
system that hasn't been cleaned yet. There's a lot of work
involved in that.
In my visits to Walkerton
I've talked to the mayor and indicated to him that whatever
needed to be done would be done. I can tell you that ministry
staff are there, the staff from the Ontario Clean Water Agency.
They're going door to door to disinfect. We're ensuring that
there's water there available.
Mr
Hampton: My question is quite specific: Were you offered
expert staff from the federal Ministry of the Environment?
Hon Mr
Newman: No.
Mr
Hampton: Were you offered resources from the federal
Ministry of the Environment?
1720
Hon Mr
Newman: There was an offer made with respect to the
investigative area, but that's-
Mr
Hampton: And you turned that down?
Hon Mr
Newman: We indicated that if we needed help we would get
back to them.
Mr
Hampton: So, as it stands now, you've turned that down,
you've not accepted it.
Hon Mr
Newman: That's not what I said.
Mr
Hampton: At the present time, there are not resources
and expertise from the federal government working to disinfect
that water?
Hon Mr
Newman: There are epidemiologists from the federal
government who have been there from day one.
Mr
Hampton: In February 1999, the Ministry of the
Environment issued a directive telling staff not to follow up on
a wide range of environmental complaints. Have you been aware of
that directive?
Hon Mr
Newman: Can you elaborate a little further as to what
you're saying? If you can provide me with a date and who wrote
the memo and what it said specifically, then I can properly
address your question.
Mr
Hampton: Were you briefed by the deputy minister or by
any of the other officials regarding a directive issued in
February 1999 telling MOE staff not to follow up on a wide range
of environmental complaints?
Interjection.
Ms
Churley: We can get you a copy, John.
Mr
Hampton: We would be happy to produce a copy. I'll
produce four copies.
The Chair:
The clerk of the committee will produce copies for everyone.
Mr
O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I think there
are copies being referred to. I would like a copy of those
documents. We were supplied with a copy of the minister's
speech-
The Chair:
That's not a point of order.
Interjection.
Ms
Churley: We'll get the copy.
The Chair:
Mr O'Toole, this is not a point of order. I am adding a minute to
the third party's time. Minister.
Hon Mr
Newman: I guess you don't want me to answer the
question, so fire away.
The Chair:
No, Minister. I believe a question was put. Did you wish to
respond?
Hon Mr
Newman: Oh, so I'm allowed to answer the question?
Mr
Hampton: Yes, hopefully you will.
Hon Mr
Newman: OK, I didn't know. Thank you. In fact, the memo
you may be talking about may have dealt with non-priority items such as
air-conditioners, noise pollution, smells from restaurants.
Mr
Hampton: Were pesticides included?
Hon Mr
Newman: We wanted to be very strategic and to have our
priorities there.
Mr
Hampton: Were pesticides included? If you can't answer,
we'll ask the question later.
Hon Mr
Newman: Listen, if you ask a question, you've got to
give me the opportunity to answer it. So I'm trying to get you
your answer, but if again you don't want the answer, that's
fine.
Mr
Hampton: Were pesticides included, yes or no?
Hon Mr
Newman: That's the answer I was trying to get for you,
Howard. My assistant deputy minister indicates that there was no
directive in 1999 that he has seen.
Mr
Hampton: We'll deal with that tomorrow, then.
Your House leader has
indicated that the government intends to present another red tape
bill. We know that when the Red Tape Commission initially handed
down its report, 50% of the regulations that it intended to
repeal dealt with the Ministry of the Environment. Were you
consulted at all on this most recent red tape bill that your
government intends to put forward?
Hon Mr
Newman: We are in discussion with the Red Tape
Commission.
Mr
Hampton: Were you consulted on the most recent so-called
red tape bill?
Hon Mr
Newman: Are you talking about a bill that has been
through the House?
Mr
Hampton: A bill that's about to be presented.
Hon Mr
Newman: I can't comment on a bill that's not before the
House.
Mr
Hampton: The government has indicated that it intends to
introduce a red tape bill. I'm asking you if you were consulted
about the contents of that bill.
Hon Mr
Newman: You're talking about something that's
hypothetical. There's no bill before the House at this moment
dealing with red tape.
Mr
Hampton: I want to go back to the question I asked you
earlier. The directive from the Ministry of the Environment is
directing staff not to follow up on a wide range of environmental
complaints. In February 1997, were you briefed about the
existence of an internal directive for February 1997?
Hon Mr
Newman: The answer is no to that question.
Mr
Hampton: How much time do I have, Chair?
The Chair:
You have just under two minutes, Mr Hampton.
Mr
Hampton: I want to ask another question. Your provincial
water protection fund, as we understand it, is broke, it doesn't
have any more money in it, and yet we understand that you intend
to cancel it. Is that still your intention, that the provincial
water protection fund will come to an end this fiscal year?
Hon Mr
Newman: It's important that we actually look at the
facts regarding the provincial water protection fund. You're well
aware of the fact that it was a $200-million fund that was to
provide money to municipalities for water and sewage projects
over a three-year period. We treated this as a priority. That's
why we accelerated the money to municipalities over a two-year
period so that they could move forward with their water and
sewage projects that they wanted to proceed with. There are many
municipalities that have benefited from that program. It's a
$200-million program. It was to be over three years; now the
money has been flowed, and it has been over two years. Many
communities in the province have benefited from that.
There is the SuperBuild
Corp as well that provides infrastructure dollars throughout the
province.
Mr
Hampton: Yet we are told today by the president of the
Association of Municipalities of Ontario that from the municipal
perspective some $9 billion is needed right now for upgrades to
municipal water and sewer plants. So you're ending a $200-million
program that has provided money over two years, you're ending
that, when the president of AMO is telling you that from the
municipal perspective you're talking about a $9-billion problem.
At the same time, this is a letter of May 26, 2000, from the
Ontario Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association saying to Mr
David Lindsay of the Ontario SuperBuild Corp, "We were
disappointed to hear that water and sewage infrastructure is not
a primary target area for the infrastructure programs developed
by the province."
Can you tell us, as
Minister of the Environment, if you're ending your program, and
municipalities are saying there's potentially a $9-billion
problem and Mr David Lindsay of the Ontario SuperBuild Corp is
saying, "This is not a priority," what is your plan as Minister
of the Environment to protect the quality of water?
The Chair:
The time for the third party has expired. Minister, you may wish
indeed to use some of your time-you have a time of response,
which is why it is important to stay on the subjects that the
various parties bring up. You now have half an hour for response,
and you may include your response to Mr Hampton if you so
wish.
Hon Mr
Newman: First off, with respect to what you said, we're
not ending any fund. In fact, there's money available through the
SuperBuild Corp for infrastructure in the province. If I haven't
made myself clear on that, I'll make it clear yet once again to
you that there is that money available.
There are many issues, and
I want to thank the member for St Catharines for raising the
points that he raised. I don't think I'll be able to get to all
of them in half an hour, but I'll do my best to touch on as many
of them as possible.
I know that you would want
me to touch on the issue of staffing and any budgetary reductions
within the ministry. I just want to again indicate that in 1995
the ministry had provided funding to municipalities and others
under the three Rs and blue box strategies to build the
infrastructure that today enables almost 40% of diversion of
municipal solid waste. This was funded by subsidies which
required 73 staff to administer. So there were 73 Ministry of the Environment staff
administering that program. I wanted to point that out to you
today.
1730
Today, in the year 2000,
the Waste Diversion Organization is in charge and is undertaking
its activities with $14 million from the LCBO and the private
sector. So, that function is being carried out in a different way
today, but it's still being carried out.
Subsidies for the three Rs
and other programs, such as grants for energy efficiency and
environmental groups, had climbed to $134 million, not counting
water and sewage grants, by 1995-96. When other capital funding
programs were reduced, starting in 1993-94, water and sewer
funding continued for municipalities through the ministry and
OCWA programs.
In fiscal 1986-87, the
ministry launched the MISA program, which provided for the
development of monitoring and effluent limits regulations for
eight industrial sectors discharging directly to surface waters
and for the municipal sector discharging into sewers. Resources
for the MISA program added up to about $23 million and 258 staff
for fiscal 1994-95, when the program was completed for the
industrial sectors.
During the early 1990s,
Ministry of the Environment agencies, boards and committees
totalled 13, including the Ontario Waste Management Corp and the
Interim Waste Authority. When savings targets were imposed,
subsidies, agencies and matured programs, such as MISA, that had
achieved their goals and no longer needed large administrative
staffing and funding were used to meet the majority of the
reductions without affecting core programs and, in particular,
front-line activities.
I think everyone on the
committee ought to know that between 1992 and 1995, the
government of the day, the NDP, eliminated 208 positions from the
Ministry of the Environment. In case we didn't all catch that,
I'll repeat it: Between 1992 and 1995, the NDP, which was the
government of the day, eliminated 208 positions from the Ministry
of the Environment.
Other increases and
decreases in the ministry's budget reflect ongoing changes. For
example, the Ontario Clean Water Agency was created in 1993,
resulting in a transfer out of the ministry's budget of $435
million and 980 staff. As well, in 1993 the former Ministry of
Energy was merged with the Ministry of the Environment, bringing
in $55 million and about 200 staff. Subsequently, in 1998-99, the
energy core business was transferred out to the new Ministry of
Energy, Science and Technology, along with $14.4 million and 117
staff.
During the mid-1990s,
various constraint programs netted selected funding increases.
For example, in fiscal year 1993-94 alone, $50.7 million was cut
as part of the previous government's expenditure control plan.
Just so that everyone gets those figures, I'll repeat that: For
example, in fiscal year 1993-94, some $50.7 million was cut
as part of the previous government's expenditure control plan.
That included more than $2 million in salaries.
In the late 1990s,
significant budgetary reductions took place. Between 1996-97 and
1997-98 these strategic business plan reductions included
eliminating subsidy programs and attendant administration, which
was $153.3 million and 62 staff positions. We terminated 10
agencies, boards and committees-$4.9 million and 44 staff. There
were 229 operations staff, including the closure of three
regional laboratories. That was 50 staff in total. Remember, at
this time 50% of all the water testing in our province was not
done in Ministry of the Environment labs. It was done outside at
private labs because back in 1993 the government of the day
allowed municipalities to have their water tested in private
labs. Those municipalities chose to pay private labs to do the
work instead of the Ministry of the Environment.
Thirty-seven district
environmental officers, seven investigative support staff, 32
management positions, 44 administrative positions, 59 scientific,
technical and professional staff. The operations staff reductions
focused on refocusing and restructuring compliance, enforcement
and technical activities by reorganizing and merging district
offices and focusing on land use policy as opposed to specialized
land use approvals.
There was regional
restructuring, which would have been two regions coming together
and utilizing ample private sector capacity to provide routine
lab testing. For example, OCWA negotiated a major service
contract for routine testing for about 400 plants.
Mr
Bradley: Minister, I realize this is your time, but can
I just get a clarification? If you say no, that's fine. It was on
how you changed the planning approval system. You mentioned that.
Is there any more detail on that? Just about a couple of
sentences ago you mentioned that.
Hon Mr
Newman: Yes. I can provide you with that tomorrow. I
have been given my opportunity and I want to respond.
Mr
Bradley: I just want to get a little elaboration on
that.
The Chair:
Please proceed. This is your time.
Hon Mr
Newman: I would be pleased to provide that to you. I'm
just trying to use the 30 minutes that I have to respond the best
way that I can to your many questions that you raised.
The regional district and
local offices were merged and reconfigured to achieve
efficiencies and to streamline delivery. Where reductions were
made, the focus was on technical support and administrative
functions. Seven enforcement positions were affected, although
vacancies and attrition were applied first.
The remaining reductions at
head office locations included refocusing the work of the
ministry's central laboratory in Toronto on more sophisticated
and complex tests for toxics, resulting in a reduction of 71
technicians who did routine tests. There were policy and program
development support staff, 73 staff doing that work; streamlining
the environmental assessment process, 26 staff; restructuring
monitoring and science, 96 staff; and restructuring internal
administration, which accounted for $22.9 million and
approximately 201 staff. Much of the streamlining could be achieved as the ministry
no longer required the significant number of resources that had
been dedicated to MISA policy and regulatory development.
To summarize, in 1990-91,
the ministry had 3,317 funded positions, and it now has 1,501.
Since fiscal year 1990-91, 980 positions have been transferred to
the Ontario Clean Water Agency and 117 positions have been
transferred to the newly created Ministry of Energy, Science and
Technology. There have been 56 positions transferred to the
shared services bureau. There were 21 positions at the Niagara
Escarpment Commission that were transferred to the Ministry of
Natural Resources, which as the member for St Catharines
indicated is now part of the Ministry of Natural Resources and
not the Ministry of the Environment. There were 802 positions
reduced principally in managerial, administrative and technical
areas, offset to some extent by a number of additions to priority
programs, including, for example, the Drive Clean complement of
37 positions in 1998-99.
Contrary to any allegations
of reductions in inspection and investigative functions, the
reality is that compliance funding has only been reduced by 10%
but makes up 49% of the ministry's workforce, compared to 40% in
1994-95, and no reductions were made to the investigative
staff.
Constraints have been a
constant feature of successive government policies over the
1990s. The ministry has maintained its core business and
front-line presence.
Chair, how much time do I
have remaining?
The Chair:
You have approximately 20 minutes, Minister.
Hon Mr
Newman: An additional 20 minutes? OK.
Mr
Bradley: You don't have to-
Hon Mr
Newman: No, no, I want my time, just as the others have
had their time. The member for St Catharines raised many points
here today. I know the member was talking about infrastructure. I
think I wrote down about 31 points. I may have missed a couple,
but there were many issues that you touched on.
I think it's important to
note that previous governments always allocated their
infrastructure programs on a one-year basis. SuperBuild is
actually a long-term strategy that addresses previous government
failures. That's what the SuperBuild program is there for.
Again, the provincial water
protection fund was accelerated. I think we can all agree on
that. That money was over a three-year period; it's now put over
a two-year period to accelerate it to assist municipalities with
that.
There are many issues that
the member dealt with. I know he has talked about Walkerton
specifically. We would be pleased to address any of his concerns
in a more general nature, as I outlined in my opening
comments.
He mentioned the water
treatment plants. I've indicated that by the end of the year all
of the facilities will be inspected. That's a commitment I'm
going to ensure is honoured.
1740
Mr
Bradley: Where are you going to get the staff for
that?
Hon Mr
Newman: I assure the member that they're all qualified
staff and I'm going to ensure that is done. I think it's
something he would want to see done in the province. Has it been
done? What we're doing is we have a review of the certificates of
approval, which I indicated on May 29 would be taking place.
We're going to review each and every certificate of approval for
water facilities within the province of Ontario. We're going to
ensure that there is one certificate of approval for all
facilities within the province. But we're going to go beyond
that: We're going to ensure that each and every certificate of
approval is reviewed on a regular basis after that, once every
three years, so that every certificate of approval, no matter
what water facility is there in the province, will be reviewed.
So we're doing the review of the certificates of approval as well
as going to the facilities to inspect them, and that's something
we're going to have done by the end of the year. I know that the
member for St Catharines will stand up in the House and applaud
when that is done.
Interjections.
The Chair:
Order, please. Minister, please proceed.
Hon Mr
Newman: Thank you, Chair. I'm just trying to respond to
the many issues the member for St Catharines raised.
With the drinking water
surveillance program, as I mentioned, we're adding more and more
facilities each and every year to that program so that we're able
to monitor more municipalities and more plants across Ontario, so
that we have a better idea.
The member also mentioned
the Canada-Ontario agreement. We're working towards a
Canada-Ontario agreement with the federal government. I think
it's important that everyone realize that in 1994, when that
agreement expired, it sat there for 14 months-14 months and that
program wasn't done. I remember one of my first questions in the
House was from the member for Broadview-Greenwood, who asked me
that question. I think she asked me about that in the first week
of April. She was on the ministry because it had expired about
four or five days. But when she was part of the government, it
was 14 months that that agreement had sat idle for. We're working
very hard as a government to ensure that.
With respect to coal-fired
plants, there's a moratorium in place on the sale of all five of
the coal-fired plants in Ontario by Ontario Power Generation.
That would include the plants at Lakeview, Nanticoke, Lambton,
Atikokan and Thunder Bay. There is a moratorium on the sale of
those five facilities. We want to ensure that environmental
protection is in place. That's something I want to see as
minister, something I take very seriously. This will only improve
the quality of the air in our province.
I say to the member for St
Catharines, and I think he would be the first to agree, that over
50% of the smog-causing pollutants that come into Ontario
originate in the United States.
Interjection.
Hon Mr
Newman: Because there's a regional air-shed. Over 50 %
of smog-causing pollutants come from the United States. In some
parts of Ontario over 90% of the smog-causing pollutants
originate in the United States. Yes, we have a responsibility for
what happens here in Ontario. That's why we've taken strong
measures with respect to smog, actions like the anti-smog action
plan, which is going to ensure that industry and government and
other organizations work together in partnership to ensure that
smog is reduced in the province.
Another way that we're
going to reduce smog is through the Drive Clean program. I think
it's been an excellent program. Any time I mention it in the
House, the opposition members seem to scoff, but I don't know how
you can possibly scoff at an almost 7% reduction in emissions
that cause smog. Every time I mention that, I just wonder. You're
going to have a 22% reduction once the program is fully
operational across the province-five million vehicles being
tested. We also have the smog patrol out there, and I'm sure the
member opposite may have seen the smog patrol out on the highways
as he's travelled the highways and byways of Ontario.
Mr
Bradley: I've never seen the staff.
Hon Mr
Newman: There's always staff out there. I believe the
number is some 15 or 20 staff. It fluctuates from time to time.
The smog patrol is full-time, committed to protecting-
Mr
Bradley: Are they full-time employees?
Hon Mr
Newman: Full-time employees committed to protecting the
environment. What they do is stop grossly emitting vehicles on
our highways in Ontario. If you have vehicles, whether they be
from Ontario or a vehicle coming into our province, perhaps a
transport truck or another vehicle, that are gross emitters, they
are able to stop those vehicles and issue tickets with heavy
fines in place to go after those.
Mr
Bradley: You said there were how many?
Hon Mr
Newman: How many staff?
Mr
Bradley: How many vehicles or patrols?
Hon Mr
Newman: I think it would be around 15 vehicles.
Mr
Bradley: That's for the whole province?
Hon Mr
Newman: I would be able to answer that in a broader
sense for you later. I do have my 30 minutes. I listened very
attentively to what you said. I want to be able to get through
this, and if there are any interruptions, Chair, I won't be able
to get through the 31 points.
The Chair:
By all means, Minister, it is your time. If the minister is
engaging members, then I assume it's the minister's choice.
However, we won't have heckling or interruptions, and hopefully
accord the same respect on the members' part.
Hon Mr
Newman: Chair, I'm speaking directly to you. That's who
I'm speaking to, and if other members are partaking, it's not the
way I want to proceed.
The Chair:
This is your time, Minister, and you can absolutely use it as you
see fit, and please proceed.
Hon Mr
Newman: As I am. Thank you, Chair.
The smog patrol is out
there on our highways in the province going after those grossly
emitting vehicles. I think they're doing a very good job of
that.
I made an announcement on
trying to get the federal government to move a little faster on
reducing sulphur in gasoline. I know the member for St Catharines
was there at that announcement and he would have actually seen
two of the smog patrollers that we brought in off the road to
show the media and members of the public who were there that
those vehicles are out there patrolling our highways to protect
the environment on behalf of the people of Ontario. That's what
they're doing.
One of the points the
member raised dealt with air pollution. We've taken a great deal
of action on that. He asked if the ministry would be monitoring
the monitors. I think that's what the member said. I encourage
him to look at our Blueprint document, which clearly spells out
four commitments that we made with respect to the environment. I
want to assure him and all members here today and all members of
the House that my goal as environment minister is to ensure that
we live up to each and every one of those environmental
commitments in the Blueprint document.
Mr
Bradley: Have you hired the people yet?
Hon Mr
Newman: One of the proposals dealt with an environmental
SWAT team that would be able to go there and-
Mr
Bradley: Have you hired them yet?
Mr R. Gary Stewart
(Peterborough): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I would
like to hear the minister, and it's an imposition to be
interrupted constantly.
The Chair:
I've already ruled on that, Mr Stewart.
Mr
Stewart: Then please rule well.
The Chair:
You may not challenge the Chair. Minister, will you proceed. I
will ask all members not to interrupt the minister. If the
minister wishes to engage, it is exclusively his choice to do so.
We will monitor and enforce that.
Hon Mr
Newman: Is time added to my time?
The Chair:
We would be happy to give you another minute, Minister, to make
up for Mr Stewart's interruption, absolutely.
Hon Mr
Newman: Thank you, Chair.
The environmental SWAT team
is one of the commitments this government made in the Blueprint
document. As you know, with the Common Sense Revolution, the
document we put out in 1994, a year before the election, we
fulfilled all the commitments in that document and we're going to
fulfil all the commitments in the Blueprint document. One of them
is an environmental SWAT team, and I want to assure everyone that
I'll be working very hard to ensure that that environmental SWAT
team is in place.
1750
We also made commitments
with respect to legislation, to consolidate it, to make it easier
for people to find legislation without giving up any of the
environmental safeguards. There is also a proposal to have a
pollution hotline so
that people could call if they thought there was an act of
pollution taking place. They would be able to call that number.
That's clearly a campaign commitment.
One of the best and
proudest campaign commitments I'm pleased about is that we wanted
to ensure fines were doubled in this province. For first-time
polluters, the maximum fine would go from $1 million to $2
million, and for repeat offenders the maximum fine would go from
$2 million to $4 million. But we didn't stop there. We went
beyond the fines. Another of the proposals was to have the
stiffest jail term possible for polluters. The stiffest jail term
we can possibly give under provincial legislation is five years
less a day. That's a campaign commitment.
You need not look any
further than the Toronto Star of about a week ago. Right in
there-a polluter was given 90 days' jail time. I know the members
opposite shake their heads and say that somehow someone wasn't
convicted. The reality is there was a conviction registered in
the case where someone was discharging pollutants into Lake
Ontario, into the harbour in Toronto. A 90-day jail term was
given. We're starting to see jail terms given to polluters, and I
think that's proper. That's why we wanted to move forward and
have the maximum jail term possible under provincial law, which
would be five years less a day, for those polluters. That would
be the toughest in Canada. We have the highest fines in all of
Canada, as well as the toughest environmental protection in
Canada.
I know there are many other
issues, Chair.
The Chair:
You still have five minutes.
Hon Mr
Newman: I want to look at some of the issues.
With respect, the member
for St Catharines raised the issue of the communications staff in
Topical. There is a reorganization going on within the Ministry
of the Environment's communications staff. It's so that we are
able to bring in some additional senior positions to the
ministry. But the reality is that when you actually look at it, I
believe there would be a reduction of four staff positions, so
it's not an increase, as I think it was portrayed by some of the
media in the past. I want to assure the member that there would
be actually four fewer positions, in that the roles and functions
of those people would be brought together. There are competitions
underway for those positions. I wanted to address that with the
member.
I want to talk about
sulphur. Ministry staff are working on a draft regulation at this
point that will actually see the posting of the sulphur content
on pumps so that consumers will have that information. I know
there's been a lot of discussion as to which refinery has the
lowest sulphur content. What we want to do is ensure that
consumers have that information so that when they fill up they
will be able to look at the pump and know the sulphur content of
the gasoline, because I don't think we ought to wait five years
for the federal government to reduce the sulphur level in
gasoline.
Laughter.
Hon Mr
Newman: I hear the members opposite laughing, but
reducing sulphur is a very serious matter, and five years is far
too long for the people of Ontario and indeed for the people of
Canada.
Ms
Churley: You guys are desperate, aren't you? Sorry,
Chair.
Hon Mr
Newman: Chair, I'm trying my best to answer all the
questions that have been brought forward.
I should also indicate that
in June 1998 the Ministry of the Environment released landfill
standards, which included requirements for siting, design,
operation, monitoring, protecting ground and surface water,
controlling landfill gas which obviously is associated with the
issue of climate change and the benefits to the climate change
issue, contingency planning and financial assurance. These
clearly defined standards bring additional clarity to the
landfill processes in this province, which are among the toughest
in the world. There are many other issues that we've done.
I also want to say to the
member opposite, with respect to mandatory emissions monitoring
and reporting-I know this would be an issue that he would care
very much about-that as of May 1 there has been a new regulation
in effect for the province's electricity sector. It requires
power generators to monitor and report emissions of 28 priority
substances. These contaminants are linked to smog, acid rain and
other forms of air pollution.
We're also developing a
regulation for the industrial, commercial and municipal sectors.
It will require the monitoring and reporting of some 357 airborne
contaminants, and we expect the regulation to take effect January
1, 2001. What mandatory reporting will give us for the first time
is accurate information about emissions and their sources. This
information will help us in a number of ways. It will provide key
information for the ministry to use as we set future emissions
caps in our province.
The member opposite also
indicated that you can't inspect a water treatment facility in 15
minutes; I think those were his words. I absolutely agree with
him. This has to be a thorough process. That's why we're going to
ensure that each and every one of the facilities in this province
is inspected this year.
The Chair:
One minute, Minister.
Hon Mr
Newman: We will complete roughly 30 per week in order to
meet that target of the roughly 630 plants in the province by the
end of the year. I think about 30 a week will put us on target
for that. That's right across the province, each and every water
facility in the province being inspected and the certificate of
approval being looked at as well, ensuring that we have one
certificate of approval for each facility, but going beyond that
ensuring that the certificates of approval after that are
approved once every three years. I think that's something
positive for the environment. I think it's something that's
needed and I look forward to moving forward on that.
Chair, I may have about a minute left, but
there's a very serious issue that I want to deal with. It has to
do with biomedical waste. The member for St Catharines will maybe
allow me a couple of extra minutes.
The Chair:
Minister, your time is up but there will be another
opportunity.
We have business for the
committee. The minister has informed us of his lack of
availability tomorrow. The pleasure of the committee can be to
recess to another day when the minister is available or to permit
a substitute to be answerable for the estimates. What is the
pleasure of the committee?
Mr
Bradley: My pleasure would be to have the minister
before the committee. I find his answers thrilling and most
interesting and my preference would be to have the minister
before the committee to answer the questions.
The Chair:
Can the minister indicate his next available day?
Hon Mr
Newman: I'd have to get back to the Chair. There is that
motion before the House tomorrow that I have to attend to.
The Chair:
I understand from your written remarks that you're not available
tomorrow. Are you available the next sitting day, the following
Tuesday?
Hon Mr
Newman: I think I've indicated the parliamentary
assistant will be here tomorrow.
The Chair:
I understand, but the convention of estimates is for the
estimates committee to determine who it wishes to appear before
it and we understand your lack of-
Hon Mr
Newman: When I was the parliamentary assistant to the
Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, I appeared, because there
are matters that come up for ministers. I think the process does
allow the parliamentary assistant-
The Chair:
At the discretion of the committee, you're correct, Mr
Minister.
Mr Toby Barrett
(Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Mr Chair, on a point of
order.
The Chair:
For the purposes of discussion-I'll be with you in one
moment.
Mr
Barrett: I'm prepared to answer your questions and we
wish to answer your first question as well with respect to-
The Chair:
Minister, for the purposes of each caucus's quick consideration,
will you be yourself available on the Tuesday, which is the next
designated day, so that we can entertain that as an option for
discussion?
Hon Mr
Newman: I don't have my schedule in front of me.
The Chair:
You're unable to relate that today. With that in mind, can I ask
for suggestions?
Ms
Churley: I would prefer to have the minister available.
I don't understand the process. I could make a recommendation
that the parliamentary assistant represent the minister in the
House tomorrow on the vote.
The Chair:
That is not in the purview of the committee.
Ms
Churley: That's up to him, I understand. It's a
recommendation. Certainly I would prefer, as we all would, in
this very important issue-
The Chair:
To the government side, Mr Barrett.
Ms
Churley: I'm not finished yet, Mr Chair.
The Chair:
We have very limited time, Ms Churley. What did you wish to
add?
Ms
Churley: I understand that, but I would prefer and
recommend that we find the next available date the minister is
available. I just assumed, because we're scheduled for next
Tuesday anyway, that the minister would be available for that
day.
The Chair:
You've heard his response. Mr Barrett.
Mr
Barrett: Mr Chair, you asked for a preference and it was
suggested two hours ago in the minister's presentation to permit
myself, as parliamentary assistant, to stand before the estimates
committee on behalf of the minister. This follows precedent, as
you would know, as Chair of estimates. I have sat on estimates
for a year or a year and a half, and there are a number of
occasions where, when the minister is not available, either the
parliamentary assistant or, in many cases, the deputy minister is
there to answer questions.
The Chair:
I appreciate that, Mr Barrett. That is a stated opinion. It is
the discretion of the committee to either stand down or to have
the person appear. We're just ascertaining that today. Does
anyone wish to make a motion? We have basically a disagreement in
committee about how that might proceed.
Mr
Bradley: I'm prepared to make a motion that asks that
the committee accommodate the minister's schedule so he can
appear before the committee to defend his estimates. It's
exceedingly important because of what has happened in the last
while. There's a good deal of interest. I'm sure the minister
would like the opportunity himself to be able to answer as many
questions as possible.
The Chair:
I don't wish to interrupt but we have very limited time. I'm
going to put the question, if there is a seconder for the
motion.
Ms
Churley: I'll second it.
Mr
O'Toole: Discussion?
The Chair:
Brief discussion, yes.
Mr
O'Toole: I respect the request, but I also respect the
issue before the House tomorrow. I think it's extremely important
in this case. It's not a precedent here. Parliamentary assistants
have appeared after the first day of the hearings and can
accumulate the questions and certainly get clarifications. I
won't be supporting this. I think it's important these hearings
go ahead and that we get the questions on the table, and if
possible, the answers. I'm confident that the parliamentary
assistant, Mr Barrett, is exactly the person I want to hear
from.
The Chair:
Any other brief discussion from either of the other parties? I
would like to put the question because I think we are called to
the House.
Mr
Bradley: I would be extremely disappointed if indeed
that were the case. As Minister of the Environment, I can't ever
recall sending a parliamentary assistant to do the job. I think I had to
appear all the time when I was Minister of the Environment. In
the circumstances we have here, where the minister himself has
had a lot of attention in the House and so on, I would like to
accommodate his schedule. I understand what he wishes to do
tomorrow. He wishes to participate, perhaps not the whole time
tomorrow but part of the time, in the debate. I'd like to
accommodate his schedule so that he can appear before this
committee. That's what I'm trying to do, help him out so that he
can appear before the committee.
The Chair:
Ms Churley, anything further?
Ms
Churley: Yes. That was certainly just a recommendation.
I support the motion and I would be happy to accommodate the
minister's schedule.
Mr
Barrett: We feel it is beneficial for this committee to
continue its deliberations rather than to break it up, which we
feel would be unusual. In spite of what Mr Bradley has said, when
I sat on estimates there had been a number of times-I recall when
Minister Palladini was unavailable, and I think it was the deputy
minister who sat in for Mr Palladini. I recall when the Minister
of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, Mr Saunderson, was
unavailable, and in that case the parliamentary assistant stood
in, in contrast to what Mr Bradley was saying.
The Chair:
Be brief, if you would, Ms Churley, because we really need to
determine this factor so that everybody can receive proper
notification.
Ms
Churley: I'll be very brief. What we're asking here is
that considering the circumstances around this issue, we're
requesting that the government members and the minister make
every attempt to accommodate the desire, particularly from the
opposition, that the minister himself be here for estimates.
The Chair:
I think that's implicit in the motion.
Ms
Churley: I'm not sure if it came through.
The Chair:
I just want to say there are precedents for both, so the
committee is well within its means to accept either-either to
stand down for a day to accommodate the minister's schedule or to
accept the parliamentary assistant. There's ample precedent for
both.
I'll put the question. All
those in favour of the motion, please indicate. All those
opposed? I declare the motion defeated.
I want to then have a
positive motion. That was the first motion. We can indicate that
the minister-
Mr
O'Toole: A motion that we proceed tomorrow as initially
scheduled.
The Chair:
As suggested by the minister.
Mr
O'Toole: Exactly.
The Chair:
All those in favour of that motion? Those opposed? That motion is
carried.
