Hon Dan Newman, Minister of
the Environment
Ms Eileen Smith, manager, waste management policy branch
Mr Jim MacLean, assistant deputy minister, environmental sciences
and standards division
Mr Stien Lal, deputy minister
Mr Edward Piché, director, environmental monitoring and
reporting branch
Mr Carl Griffith, assistant deputy minister, corporate management
division
Mr Dave Crump, director, Drive Clean office
Mr Doug Barnes, assistant deputy minister, integrated
environmental planning division
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
ESTIMATES
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 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 Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant PC)
Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River ND)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton L)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes
Staff / Personnel
Ms Anne Marzalik, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at 1603 in room 228.
MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT
The Chair (Mr Gerard
Kennedy): I call the meeting to order. I invite everyone
to take their seats. It is, of course, in everybody's interest
that we are able to address as much of the allotted time as
possible, because we do have to return to make up the time we're
not addressing today.
Before we resume the hearings
on the Minister of the Environment, I'd like to turn to some
committee business. Mr Mazzilli, I believe you have a motion.
Mr Frank Mazzilli
(London-Fanshawe): I do, Mr Chair. I move that Mr Peters
replace Mr Conway as a member of the subcommittee on committee
business for the standing committee on estimates.
The Chair:
Is there any discussion on the motion? All those in favour? Any
opposed? I declare the motion carried.
We will now resume, with the
official opposition. You have 20 minutes, Mr Bradley.
Mr James J. Bradley
(St Catharines): Thank you very much. My first question
to the minister is the question I asked him in the House, which
somebody will have given him the answer to by now, and that is
the question of sewage sludge. You're supposed to go to page 64
now, and I think you'll find the answer to it.
Sewage sludge is a problem. I
understand that at the present time the city of Toronto is not
properly dealing with sewage sludge. They're not keeping it in
the digester long enough, and that provides a major problem. I'd
like to know why you're allowing Toronto and any other
municipality an exemption from the normal requirement of
retaining sewage sludge from sewage treatment plants in the
digester for at least 15 days.
Hon Dan Newman
(Minister of the Environment): I'm going to call up
Eileen Smith, the manager of the waste management branch,
biosolids, to give more in-depth-
Mr Bradley:
You don't know the answer right off the top of your head?
Hon Mr
Newman: I do know the answer. I gave that answer to you
in the House today, but I was limited to one minute to answer
that question.
Mr Bradley:
That was a non-answer in the House, so-
Hon Mr
Newman: I wish to call up Eileen Smith to respond.
Mr Bradley:
Does this mean you personally are not going to answer any more
questions; it's just going to be staff?
Hon Mr
Newman: No, I'm answering questions, but I want to give
you the best technical answer possible.
The Chair:
Mr Bradley, it's your time. If you want to indicate whether
you're satisfied with the minister's response to questioning,
that is your prerogative. That is how we treat each of these.
Hon Mr
Newman: Chair, with all due respect, I tell you this,
and I raised this point at the last meeting: It is fine for staff
to answer questions-
The Chair:
Mr Minister, I'm sorry, but I can't let you challenge the Chair.
We're going to have a consistent handling here, which means each
of the caucuses will determine, in their responses-and I will be
even-handed in the time I permit you, Mr Minister, and the time
that each of the-
Hon Mr
Newman: With all due respect, Chair, I don't ask people
how to ask questions. They shouldn't ask me how to answer
them.
The Chair:
Mr Minister, we will see this time used, and the time we're
spending now is not going to be allocated to the party. There is
nothing to be gained from challenging the Chair. We will be
even-handed in permitting you to answer as fully as possible.
Hon Mr
Newman: Point of order, Chair: With all due respect, I
can show other precedents in the past where-
The Chair:
Minister, you're being argumentative. I do not recognize the
point of order-
Hon Mr
Newman: And Chair, you're not being fair. You're not
being the impartial Chair you should be.
The Chair:
Minister, I'm sorry, but I can't recognize your point of order
unless you're going to state something to do with the rules of
order and how this meeting is being conducted.
Hon Mr
Newman: Well, you clearly have two sets of rules,
Chair.
The Chair:
Minister, I will ask you, as I'll ask all members of the
committee, to abide by the purpose of this committee, which is to
look into the estimates of your ministry and to do that in a fair
and expeditious manner, and that is how I will rule.
Mr Bradley, you've asked a
question. Minister, please proceed with your response.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Chair, I
have a point of order. If you would allow me to execute my point
of order with reasonable politeness, I find your tone is
questionable. That's the first order. You as Chair-and I'm not
questioning the Chair, but I want to raise a point. On the very
subject you're now lecturing us on, I will raise my point and you
can have your vindictive little response later. July 13-
The Chair:
Mr O'Toole, you're out of order.
Mr O'Toole:
On what grounds am I out of order?
The Chair:
Mr O'Toole, you're out of order. You may not characterize that
language to the Chair or any other member of this committee. If
you have-
Mr O'Toole:
I have a point of order. Your tone, Mr Chair-
The Chair:
That is not a point of order. Mr O'Toole, my tone or your tone is
not a point or order. I will address each of the members of this
committee courteously, but there will be firm rules for the fair
and equitable use of the time we have. Mr O'Toole, we're now
using time that has not been allocated to the official
opposition.
Mr O'Toole:
Point of order, if I may. On June 13, when Mr Hampton was
questioning, you made a ruling that I am going to bring to your
attention, which I do not believe was appropriate. For instance,
on November 24, 1999, the Deputy Minister of Education was
allowed to respond to a question that had been raised during the
NDP's portion of time. On November 16, Deputy Minister Fenn of
the Ministry of Municipal Affairs was allowed to respond to a
question during estimates. That was a question that was put by
the Liberals. In both instances, the deputies were allowed to
respond.
My point of order to you is:
In your decision last week, you did not allow the assistant
deputy minister the opportunity to respond when the minister
asked for assistance. I do not think that ruling was appropriate.
I am asking for you to reflect on the two-
The Chair:
Mr O'Toole, I have your point of order.
Mr O'Toole:
-submissions I have made, and the documents, and I want you to
reconsider that decision.
The Chair:
Mr O'Toole, I will elaborate on the decision, because I can see
the confusion. In essence, the minister will certainly be
permitted to respond as he, in this case, sees fit. The party
questioning will be able to determine if they're satisfied with
an answer. So if, for example, the minister says, "That's what I
can answer," within reasonable time we won't have the minister
bring forward people to use a long length of time. But of course
the deputy and in fact any-
Interjection.
The Chair:
Mr Minister, this is the ruling, and I want to make sure it's
clear. It will apply equally to all parties.
Of course, any ministry
employee who is here who can elucidate the inquiry being made is
permitted to speak, but we won't get into long answers in order
to take away from the time. Similarly, in terms of the questions,
we ask those to be to the point. Each caucus will use its time as
it sees fit. If you, Mr O'Toole, wish to permit the minister and
the deputy and other members of the government to provide
answers, you will have that full opportunity.
I will now proceed with the
business.
Mr O'Toole:
Mr Chair-
The Chair:
I've heard your point of order-
Mr O'Toole:
Respectfully to the Chair, at this point I believe I'm changing
to a tone of procedure. My question to you is this-
The Chair:
Mr O'Toole, if I could just interrupt, I need you to cite a point
of order. I'm allowing you some latitude, because I do want to
make sure there is going to be a fair and equitable ruling.
You're taking up time, which will then cause the Ministry of the
Environment to have to come back to be heard again.
Mr O'Toole:
I agree, and I am questioning the decision of June 13, and in the
questioning-
The Chair:
No, I'm sorry. It's a point of order that you cannot challenge
the Chair.
Mr O'Toole:
I am referring your decision to the Speaker of the House. I am
not satisfied that that decision was impartial, and I want-I have
the decisions here, and I want a decision referred to the Speaker
of this Legislature to ensure that there is objective
chairmanship of this very important committee.
The Chair:
That's fine. You've made your point, Mr O'Toole-
Mr O'Toole:
I take it very seriously.
The Chair:
-and we will resume with the hearings of the Ministry of the
Environment. Excuse me one moment.
We have a question that's
been put, and I'll put it to the committee: Shall the Chair's
ruling be appealed to the Speaker? All those in favour? All those
opposed? So the ruling will be put to the Speaker and a report
will be prepared by the clerk of the committee, and it will be
considered during reports to committee.
We will now continue with our
hearing. Mr Bradley has posed a question. Minister, I invite you
to respond.
Hon Mr
Newman: I'm going to now call on Eileen Smith, manager
of waste management branch, biosolids, to answer.
1610
Ms Eileen
Smith: The ministry has for many years had a standard of
retention time for the treatment of biosolids to ensure that
pathogens have been appropriately reduced before the materials
are land-applied. However, during the last number of years, it
has become apparent that there are other standards that are
appropriate. The US EPA has adopted a number of other standards,
and those standards have been investigated by our ministry,
contemplated and talked about with stakeholders. Indeed we put
out a draft policy paper two years ago which contemplated the use
of one of those standards: as opposed to 15 days of retention
time in a digester, looking at the number of fecal coliform
units. Two million fecal coliform units per gram of digested
biosolids dried was the standard that was put out for discussion, and that indeed is a
standard which is used in many jurisdictions beyond the US.
So when we talk about the
fact that Toronto's biosolids aren't being retained for 15 days,
there are other standards that are accepted by the ministry,
although they haven't yet been endorsed in a policy document-that
is, the guidelines-but which have been looked at and indeed have
been used in the case of the Toronto Ashbridges Bay-
Mr Bradley:
To the minister, my concern would be that in fact you have
standards and it sounds-
Hon Mr
Newman: She hasn't finished her answer.
Mr Bradley:
No, no, I'm not going to allow you to drag that out.
Interjections.
Mr Bradley:
I've got as much of the answer as I want to hear.
Hon Mr
Newman: Well, you don't want to have the answer, then. I
don't understand, Chair.
The Chair:
Thank you for your answer, and I'll ask the member to now address
his question.
Mr Bradley:
The question I would have of the minister is, having heard that
"If you don't like one standard, we have another standard to
apply," if that standard is not an official policy, Minister, how
is it that you can allow the city of Toronto to violate what in
fact is an official policy and simply apply another standard that
you think is more convenient because it allows the city of
Toronto to do what it's doing at the present time? I could
understand it if you said, "We have now a new official standard
as policy at the ministry, and so Toronto or any other
municipality is not in violation." I'm wondering how it is that
you can simply switch to another standard because it makes it
more convenient for the ministry to deal with the issue.
Hon Mr
Newman: I guess I'd say first off that I'm disappointed
that Eileen Smith isn't able to complete her answer. I guess the
rules-
The Chair:
I'd like the ministry to provide any further elaboration in
writing to the committee.
Hon Mr
Newman: Chair, I think we have an opportunity to answer
questions, and-
The Chair:
Mr Newman, I appreciate that you have an opinion. I think it's
been well expressed. The general conduct of the committee is that
we will roughly match the length of the questions that are put.
It is the official opposition's time and it is being used, in my
mind, in a manner that does not provide this committee with the
information it requires.
Hon Mr
Newman: Chair, can you indicate the standing order to me
that indicates the-
Mr Bradley:
Perhaps you could just answer my question, Mr Minister. It's that
simple.
The Chair:
I'm sorry, but I would ask you-
Hon Mr
Newman: Chair, I'm asking you-
The Chair:
I'm not going to assign this time to the official opposition. If
you wish to waste this time, you'll still be required to-
Hon Mr
Newman: If you call asking the rules a waste of time-I'm
simply asking, can you cite me the standing order that indicates
that an answer must be the same amount of time as the question?
I'm asking for your help here.
Mr Bradley:
Why don't you just answer the questions?
The Chair:
Mr Minister, I think you appreciate that you could use up all of
your allotted time answering a question. We will rule fairly and
reasonably to see if the answer was given. I think Ms Smith gave
the answer-
Hon Mr
Newman: Chair, which is the standing order-
The Chair:
Mr Minister, I do not intend to argue with you every time.
Hon Mr
Newman: Which is the standing order, Chair? Can I get
the standing order, please?
The Chair:
No, I can't quote you a standing order.
Hon Mr
Newman: Oh, because it doesn't exist. I see.
The Chair:
It's the discretion of the Chair of this committee and every
committee.
Minister, I invite you to
address the question. We're simply adding time to the end of when
you will have to respond to each of the caucuses.
Hon Mr
Newman: Chair, I'm not going to be intimidated by you.
I'm simply telling you that-
The Chair:
Minister, I would hope you aren't intimidated. I hope you will
participate fully in these discussions.
Hon Mr
Newman: I'm simply asking for the standing order, for
you to provide some clarification. Show me which standing
order.
The Chair:
Approximately five minutes of time for discussion of your
ministry's estimates has gone by the boards.
Hon Mr
Newman: I've asked for the standing order-
The Chair:
The question put forward about the ruling about how a Chair can
deal with these has been raised and has been referred to the
Speaker. We will have a ruling from the Speaker-
Hon Mr
Newman: Which standing order, Chair? You seem to make
the rules up as you go.
Mr
Mazzilli: A point of order, Mr Chair: can we
respectfully ask for a five-minute adjournment so perhaps we can
discuss these issues as a-
The Chair:
No, I'm not really willing to entertain a motion of adjournment.
We are in the midst of discussion of the ministry. We are delayed
for half an hour-
Hon Mr
Newman: You can't decide if there's a recess or not.
The Chair:
I would respectfully ask all members to be co-operative to the
furthest extent possible.
Hon Mr
Newman: If the members of any committee want to ask for
a recess, then they're entitled to.
Mr
Mazzilli: Give me a five-minute adjournment. I'm asking,
with the consent of the opposition, for a five-minute adjournment
of this committee.
Hon Mr
Newman: There has to be a vote.
The Chair: For the consent of the
opposition? Do other members of the committee wish an
adjournment?
Hon Mr
Newman: It's a recess he's asking for.
Interjections.
The Chair:
This committee will stay on track. A question has been posed.
We're asking the minister for the answer.
Hon Mr
Newman: Chair, with all due respect, the member has
moved a motion asking for a recess.
The Chair:
The member has asked for the agreement of the rest of the
committee. Mr Minister, please respond.
Hon Mr
Newman: We're not getting a fair ruling from the
Chair.
The Chair:
Mr Curling.
Mr Alvin Curling
(Scarborough-Rouge River): This time-wasting-are we
going to get it back as opposition time? All we're doing is
ragging the puck here, and we want to get on with the
questioning.
The Chair:
Each honourable member is entitled to have his concern about
procedure. However, the time spent on procedure will be taken off
of the time each caucus would be spending.
Mr
O'Toole: Chair-
The Chair:
Yes?
Mr
O'Toole: Respectfully, and I want to say this, first of
all you are the Chair. I respect that. There is a motion on the
floor. Those persons who are speaking should be addressing-
The Chair:
No, I'm sorry. It was a request, not a motion. If you'd like to
make a motion, Mr Mazzilli, please proceed.
Mr
Mazzilli: Mr Chair, I move that this committee adjourn
for five minutes so we can clarify in our minds some of the rules
on this committee.
The Chair:
Is there a seconder for the motion?
Mr
O'Toole: I second it.
The Chair:
Mr O'Toole. Those in favour? Those opposed? The motion carries.
We're adjourned for five minutes.
The committee recessed
from 1617 to 1624.
The Chair:
We will now resume the hearings of the estimates of the Ministry
of the Environment. Perhaps for purposes of continuity, Mr
Bradley, I could ask you to put your question again.
Mr
Bradley: Yes, I'll put my question again to the
minister, and that is, if you have established policy standards
within the ministry, how is it that you're able to vary those
standards simply because it's convenient to do so, thereby
allowing, for instance, Toronto or any other municipality to
violate the standards which you have as official policy? How is
it you can pull another policy out from somewhere else simply
because it suits the ministry's ability to accommodate Toronto or
any other municipality?
Hon Mr
Newman: That wasn't the case at all. In fact, while the
retention time may not have been in accordance with the
ministry's guidelines, the city has been sampling and analyzing
the biosolids for fecal coliform to ensure that biosolids leaving
the premises for farmland have been adequately stabilized, as
well as meet the quality criteria for the land application as
required by the certificate of approval.
Biosolids that do not meet
these criteria were sent to incineration at the plant. The
average retention time for the biosolids in the digesters for
1999 was 8.8 days because of insufficient capacity. The city has
scheduled the addition of four more digesters by the end of 2000
to provide the additional capacity necessary for the 15-day
retention time.
But as I indicated to you
in the House today, as a province, we have the strictest
standards in Canada concerning the application and treatment of
biosolids. The application of sewage biosolids is environmentally
safe and of value to agricultural production, as long as strong
environmental standards are maintained. Biosolids contain
nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, as well as a
source of organic matter which enhances soil quality and crop
production.
I can also tell you that
each application is reviewed on a case-by-case basis prior to
issuing a certificate of approval to ensure that it meets the
strict requirements for the protection of the environment and
human health. The certificates of approval contain specific
requirements controlling all aspects of the material's shipment
and application to land, including separation distances from
groundwater and surface water, quality of the biosolids and
application rates.
I can also tell you that
the Ministry of the Environment inspects sites where biosolids
are being applied to land in response to known, suspected or
reported health and/or environmental problems, non-compliance or
operational problems. In fact, the ministry's municipal water and
sewage treatment plant design guideline outlines criteria
governing the treatment process and design of sewage treatment
plants. The process of the plant is governed by the certificate
of approval which-
Mr
Bradley: Thank you. That's a very complete answer.
Hon Mr
Newman: I'm still not finished.
Mr
Bradley: I will move to the next question.
Hon Mr
Newman: I'd like to finish the question.
Mr
Bradley: I thank you for your answer and I'll go to the
next question, which is, what about the treatment-and some of the
rural members might be more concerned about this. It's the
treatment that your ministry gives to portable toilets, septic
tanks and other untreated human waste. We had Hillsburgh, for
instance, and Mount Albert, as you would know, and I think out in
Durham, John, there's a situation as well, where they're allowed
virtually to put this untreated waste on what they call farmland.
I think some of these people are buying up land simply to dump
waste on, that it's not just going on farmland, but even when
it's going on farmland, there's a concern about what kind of
quality control you have over that. I know Hillsburgh's had a
problem, I know Mount Albert's had a problem, and there have been
other problems. Could you tell me, Minister, what kinds of
controls you have on
that kind of waste? Because I understand there are not many
controls of anything.
Hon Mr
Newman: Certainly. I'll have Eileen Smith answer that
question for you.
Ms Smith:
There is indeed a wide variety of controls that are placed on
that kind of waste. They are applied through the certificate of
approval process and there has to be an application both for the
hauler to get a systems certificate and for the sites. Those are
often individually permitted with a certificate of approval, but
sometimes that is attached to the systems certificate. The
certificate of approval will contain a wide variety of criteria,
such as distances from watercourses or streams, anything leading
to a stream, distances from wells, distances from habitations or
especially from clusters of homes, distances, application rates
and criteria of the material that is being applied, how it's
applied and when it's applied.
1630
Mr
Bradley: I should say, Minister, I met with a delegation
of people today who were totally unsatisfied with what they felt
were the ways in which your certificates of approval are
enforced. It's one thing to have, as you would brag, the best
rules and regulations in the world, or Canada, I guess you said
in this case; it's another to enforce them. My problem throughout
is that with the staff they have taken away from you, with the
financial resources they have taken away from you, you can't do
that.
But I want to move to
another area. The Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors
wrote a letter both to Tony Clement on February 1, 2000, and to
you on a subsequent date, April 4, 2000. They said as
follows:
"Thank you for your
response.... You have outlined the actions an owner of a water
system is supposed to take, but who is ensuring that the owner is
actually doing this required work? Also, you mentioned that the
local medical officer of health is to be notified if the owner
becomes aware that the water is unfit for human consumption.
Again, if no one is ensuring that the required actions are, in
fact, being done, how would the MOH know that there is a problem
with a water supply system? Local health units used to get a copy
of every bacteriological water sample that did not meet the
provncial drinking water standards in their jurisdiction. This
procedure was fazed out a number of years ago, so the MOH no
longer is informed, via this route, of any water quality
problems....
"I am aware that the
ministry has many other concerns to deal with, but are your
inspectors ensuring that these small water systems are monitoring
their supplies? Do the owners have to submit a report on a yearly
basis and include copies of laboratory results of their water?
How do you even know if you have all these water supplies on a
database to begin with?
"Self-regulation may be
acceptable for some dedicated suppliers of water in Ontario, but
most suppliers, I contend, do not complete the work as outlined
in the objectives."
This is Ron Hartnett, who
is chairman, Healthy Environments, Ontario Branch, Canadian
Institute of Public Health Inspectors.
How can you possibly
provide an answer to that? He appears to be very, very concerned
on behalf of that group that in fact there are no inspections
going on to speak of. At least, they're inadequate and they're
self-inspections. How would you respond, sir?
Hon Mr
Newman: First off, there has been no change in the
reporting and notification. Those have always been in place
through the guidelines, the Ontario drinking water objectives.
They have been in place. To make it unequivocally clear to
everyone, be it a ministry employee, a medical officer of health,
a public utilities commission, a municipality, a lab doing the
testing, we're giving that the force of law via regulation, where
the reporting procedures will be very clear. But once again,
there has been no change in the actual reporting procedure.
Mr
Bradley: This particular organization, however,
expresses grave concern that there simply isn't anybody watching
what's going on. The rules and regulations may be the same, but
again, there isn't the staff and there aren't the resources. I
don't attribute that to you. It's up to the government to decide
what resources are available to a minister, but you simply don't
have the staff and resources to do that. I know you're supposed
to say, as minister, that you do have, because you can get in
trouble with the government, but I'm contending you don't have.
Do you have a further response?
The Chair:
Minister?
Hon Mr
Newman: I was just about to answer, Chair. Thank you for
that opportunity.
First off, I again tell you
there has been no change in the number of investigations within
the ministry. There is a review underway in the ministry right
now with Valerie Gibbons, who is going to review everything
within the ministry and make recommendations so that we have the
best possible Ministry of the Environment to serve the needs of
the people and the environment in Ontario. There are also the
inquiries that are underway. I can assure you that everything
within the Ministry of the Environment is on the table, all the
operations and procedures of the ministry, so that we can get to
the bottom of what's happened.
Mr
Bradley: I don't want to put words in your mouth,
obviously, but it's my observation that you're as much as
conceding that you have some real problems with staffing in that
regard. I'm sympathetic and will try to help out in terms of
persuading the government to provide more help.
As for your contention
about Ms Gibbons, she's a very nice person-I have met her, I know
her-but I think you have competent staff in the Ministry of the
Environment. I think it's a slap in the face to the Ministry of
the Environment staff to bring somebody else in when in fact all
the Ministry of the Environment needs is more money and more
staff to be able to do its job.
Hon Mr Newman: I think there's
always room for improvement. You seem to think it's more money
and more staff-
Mr
Bradley: It is.
Hon Mr
Newman: -but I think we ought to sit back and have this
review underway, the inquiries. Everything within the ministry is
on the table. There is always room for improvement in any
ministry, no matter which stripe of government it is. I think
that the Ministry of the Environment is no exception. We want to
have the best ministry that we can possibly have to protect the
people and the environment of our province.
Mr
Bradley: There's another letter I'm going to refer to of
August 8, 1996, and it was Brenda Elliott who was the minister
then. Mrs McLeod, the member for Fort William, wrote about the
cost of lab tests. I should say to my other friends on the
committee that I've got tables here that show the cost is
tremendously higher for private labs than it was for the Ministry
of the Environment labs, and there are many small operators who
are saying, "Look, we're either going to go out of business or
something's going to give."
Here's what she answered,
and I'm interested to see whether this ever happened or you
intend to do this:
"I am aware of the
financial impact this closure may have for some analytical lab
users," referring to the MOE lab, "such as small trailer parks.
To help reduce the cost of analytical testing, my ministry is
reviewing sampling and testing requirements for these types of
operations with the intention of reducing the level of sampling
that is required. This will keep costs down while still providing
an adequate level of safety for consumers."
Did that happen, first of
all, or, if it didn't happen, is that on the table to happen?
Hon Mr
Newman: First off, there's been no reduction in the
standards, there's been no reduction in the sampling
requirements, no reduction in the frequency of testing. With
respect to the comments in the letter that you indicate, I can
assure you that it's not something I believe in.
Mr
Bradley: So you're telling me that none of that ever
happened?
Hon Mr
Newman: That's what I'm telling you.
Mr
Bradley: Never happened. I'd have to have a fine-toothed
comb to go through the ministry to see precisely what happened in
that regard, but certainly that minister gave an indication she
was prepared to do that.
Hon Mr
Newman: This minister has given his indication that he's
not.
Mr
Bradley: What is your comment then about many of the
folks out there who are in private business and smaller
operators, and in fact smaller municipalities, and the costs they
have to pay now for testing compared to what they had to pay in
the MOE labs? I have the differences here. I think members of the
committee would be quite shocked to know what the difference is
in terms of the cost of sampling. Why is it that you're forcing
these people to pay so much more, when in fact the Ministry of
the Environment used to provide it at a better price and, I would
contend, just a little proudly for our Ontario, in a better way,
a more competent way?
Hon Mr
Newman: Private wells are the responsibility of the
owner or operator of the well system. The owner-operator is
responsible for the testing of water quality and for ensuring the
safety for the consumers of that well system. For water systems
that feed five or more hookups or have a 50,000-litre-per-day
capacity, testing procedures fall under the Ontario drinking
water objectives. Many facilities have further testing and
maintenance requirements as a result of their certificate of
approval that's been issued. The testing requirements for these
systems remain the same as it always has. For those systems that
have under five hookups, these wells are considered private wells
and are subject to regulation 903 of the Ontario Water Resources
Act for the purpose of construction, maintenance and closure.
Mr
Bradley: Is there any consideration being given-only
because you said everything is on the table-to something I think
should happen personally, and that is the re-establishment of
Ministry of the Environment regional labs so that municipalities,
particularly smaller municipalities-the large ones don't have as
big a problem; they have their own labs-and all those folks out
there who used to rely on them before-and they had a competitive
price and they had top-notch scientists working in them. Is there
any consideration that you are going to re-establish those labs
in the province for those purposes they used to serve in the
past?
Hon Mr
Newman: There are no plans for the regional labs, but I
can tell you that we have plans to ensure that every lab in the
province is fully accredited. I can give you that assurance.
1640
Mr
Bradley: They're not accredited, then, at this
moment-
Hon Mr
Newman: What happened is, we as a ministry strongly
encouraged those municipalities, public utilities commissions and
owner-operators of those facilities to have in their contract the
use of an accredited lab. I would think most people would want to
have an accredited lab. Some municipalities, for whatever reason,
chose not to have accredited labs, but I can tell you that in
this province every lab that's performing tests on drinking water
and water is going to be an accredited lab.
Mr
Bradley: But they're not today, so-
Hon Mr
Newman: There are some.
Mr
Bradley: Today, we cannot say that they're all
accredited. One of the things the Canadian Institute of Public
Health Inspectors said in this letter-and I don't want to go
through the long detail of reading it-in essence, they expressed
a lot of faith in the Ministry of the Environment labs and their
ability to communicate immediately. I know you're going to set up
some regime to do so. Do you not think the Ministry of the
Environment labs are the best way of ensuring that there is that
kind of direct communication with municipalities or other people
who are seeking to have their water analyzed? I have a lot of
faith in those people. I know they did an excellent job, and I'm just
wondering whether we wouldn't be better to go back to that.
They'd be much better to report directly to the medical officer
of health, for instance, than the rigmarole you have to go
through with the private labs.
Hon Mr
Newman: Again, I want to bring to your attention that in
1996 half of the municipalities operating water facilities in
Ontario were not using Ministry of the Environment labs. That's
clearly what happened. Half of them weren't using them. But I can
tell you, for the very sophisticated tests, the ministry still
has laboratory facilities that would be able to conduct those
tests.
Mr
Bradley: OK.
The Chair:
One more minute.
Mr
Bradley: The draft memo that was leaked, dated January
2000, talked about some of the many warnings that were coming
out. Have you now had a chance to think about this, ask others
and determine whether you or anybody in your political staff or
your office saw the draft or the final memo and what opinion you
expressed when you found out that your own officials were very
worried that the kind of thing that actually happened in
Walkerton was going to happen?
Hon Mr
Newman: Let me tell you, that working document and any
other relevant documents to what happened in Walkerton are under
investigation.
Mr
Bradley: You're not prepared to say when you saw it.
When you say "investigation" I understand with others. I really
do. I'm trying to be fair to you in that regard. I'm just
wondering whether you ever saw it, or your staff, not whether
other ministry officials saw it.
Hon Mr
Newman: I've answered that question.
Mr
Bradley: You don't want to answer it. OK.
The Chair:
Mr Hampton for the third party, you have 20 minutes.
Mr Howard Hampton
(Kenora-Rainy River): I have a few questions I'd like to
ask you. Minister, last week you said you had not asked your
deputy to provide you with options as to the possible reopening
of the Ministry of the Environment testing labs and return of
your ministry into direct testing of municipal drinking water.
Now that the Premier has said your ministry can staff up if you
recommend it, have you asked your deputy to brief you on the
options and impact of reopening the labs and re-involving the
ministry in the direct testing of municipal drinking water?
Hon Mr
Newman: Just with respect to what you quote me as
saying, I don't recall saying that, but I can tell you that
Valerie Gibbons has been brought into the ministry. She's going
to look at everything within the ministry operations and
procedures to provide a review so that we can ensure that the
Ministry of the Environment is well positioned to be the best
Ministry of the Environment that it can possibly be in this
province, to ensure that the environment is protected for the
people of Ontario.
Mr
Hampton: The specific question again: Have you asked
your deputy to brief you on the options and impact of reopening
the labs and re-involving the ministry in the direct testing of
municipal drinking water?
Hon Mr
Newman: As you can appreciate, the announcement of
Valerie Gibbons was on Friday. She will begin her work in July.
She will be reviewing everything within the ministry, and I
suspect she'd be looking at that as well.
Mr
Hampton: Your answer is that at this time you haven't
asked the deputy minister on the options and impact of reopening
the labs?
Hon Mr
Newman: My answer is the answer I just gave you.
Mr
Hampton: Minister, with regard to the testing that your
ministry does under the drinking water surveillance program, we
understand that in 1996 you stopped testing for microbiological
parameters. As you know, this would include tests for E coli.
Have you asked your deputy on the advisability of resuming tests
for microbiological parameters, including E coli?
Hon Mr
Newman: I'm going to call Jim MacLean up.
Mr
Hampton: Minister, yes or no? Have you asked the deputy
or haven't you?
Hon Mr
Newman: I'm just about to get follow-up here for
you.
Mr
Hampton: My question is to you. Did you ask the deputy
or didn't you ask the deputy?
Mr
Mazzilli: On a point of order, Mr Chair-
The Chair:
I'm sorry, a point of order can only be a point order, so if you
raise precedent or a point of order from the standing orders, I
will hear it. I will not have obstreperous interruptions. There
will be an answer provided-this is the third party's time. If the
third party asks a short question and is satisfied with the
answer, even if it's a non-answer, it is in the discretion of the
third party to continue. I will make sure that there's a fair
balance.
Hon Mr
Newman: Chair, again-
The Chair:
Mr Hampton, at least let there be a response, and if you're not
satisfied, you can move on.
Mr
Hampton: I simply want to place the question again. Did
you speak to your deputy minister about this issue or not?
Hon Mr
Newman: The assistant deputy minister will answer.
Mr Jim
MacLean: My name is Jim MacLean. I am the assistant
deputy minister for environmental sciences and standards in the
Ministry of the Environment.
Mr
Hampton: Assistant Deputy Minister, can you tell me, did
the minister speak to the deputy minister about this or not?
Mr
MacLean: I can tell you about the decision to cancel the
sampling of E coli in 1996.
Mr
Hampton: I didn't ask that question. With due respect to
you, sir, that's not the question I asked. Can you tell me, did
the minister talk to the deputy minister about this issue?
The Chair:
Mr Lal.
Mr Stien
Lal: The minister and I have talked about several issues
relating to all aspects of the ministry's business, including the particular area that
Mr Hampton is talking about.
Mr
Hampton: As a supplementary to the deputy minister: Has
the minister asked you on the advisability of resuming testing
for microbiological parameters, including E coli?
Mr Lal:
The minister has asked me to examine all aspects relating to
testing to be done by the labs and to review what we are able or
not able to do within the ministry labs. That process is ongoing.
In the meantime, the minister has made a standing offer to any
municipality or any water treatment plant that, should they
require that kind of microbiological testing and if that testing
isn't available to the municipality, the ministry labs would be
more than prepared to do so.
Mr
Hampton: Thank you.
Minister, the most recent
data on your ministry Web site from the drinking water
surveillance program are for 1996-97. Is the reason that the most
recent data are for 1996-97 because of your limited staff
resources? Is that why you're unable to publish more recent data
from the program?
Hon Mr
Newman: Sorry, the 1997 report on the drinking water
surveillance program?
Mr
Hampton: The most recent data on the Web site are from
1996-97. Is the reason that you can't provide more recent data
because you don't have the staff resources to do it?
Hon Mr
Newman: No. I know you've asked me this on several
occasions and my answer remains the same: It takes time to
analyze the raw data that come forward from all the facilities
involved in the drinking water surveillance program. As I
mentioned before, the CEC, for example, has come out with its
1997 report, which you seem to think is fine, yet when the
ministry issues its report for 1997, you seem to have a problem
with it. I can tell you that it does take time to get all that
information together and to analyze it and to put it in the form
of a report.
Also, in answer to your
question, yes, people do use Web sites to get the
information.
Mr
Hampton: Then I have another question. Will you make the
raw data available? We're not asking you to analyze it. Will you
simply make the raw data available?
Hon Mr
Newman: I think that raw data should be in the form of a
report so it's put in some sort of context and people can
understand the information that's there.
1650
Mr
Hampton: So at a time when 18 deaths are now under
investigation with respect to Walkerton's quality of water, you
refuse to release the raw data that are available for other
communities.
Hon Mr
Newman: You're talking about, as I've mentioned,
historical information. That's why today we're ensuring that each
and every one of the 630 water facilities in our province is
inspected. They will be done by the end of this year. We're going
to see that every certificate of approval is reviewed for those
facilities to ensure that each and every facility will now have
one single certificate of approval. We're also going to ensure
that we go beyond that so that every three years certificates of
approval for each and every one of the 630 facilities in the
province are reviewed.
Mr
Hampton: If you have the raw data for other water
treatment plants, why wouldn't you release the data?
Hon Mr
Newman: Because you simply are asking for a report, a
report would involve some analysis and that's traditionally the
way the report's been done.
Mr
Hampton: So you don't think it's in the public interest
that those raw data on the testing of water in other
municipalities be released to those communities.
Hon Mr
Newman: I didn't say that. Simply, that's why we have
the inspections taking place today, to ensure that all the
facilities are in compliance. Any facility that's not in
compliance will be brought into compliance by a field order.
Mr
Hampton: Minister, you said in the Legislature that your
drinking water surveillance program adds 10 new facilities every
year to the list that you survey. Is that correct?
Hon Mr
Newman: That's what I said, yes.
Mr
Hampton: As I understand it, right now you are surveying
175.
Hon Mr
Newman: It is 174 or 175, in that range.
Mr
Hampton: If you add 10 a year, it will take 45 years
before your surveillance program is surveying all the water
treatment facilities in the province. Do you think that's
adequate, to wait 45 years?
Hon Mr
Newman: What I think is adequate, and we're growing upon
this, is the fact that 83% of Ontario's population that's served
by municipal water is included within the drinking water
surveillance program.
Mr
Hampton: In December 1999, a study was completed called
the Extent and Magnitude of Agricultural Sources of
Cryptosporidium in Surface Water. It was funded in part by the
Ministry of Agriculture. As you are aware, there are currently
hundreds of boil-water orders in effect with regard to
cryptosporidium from surface water. Minister, have you been
briefed on this report, and what recommendations, if any, did you
make on the basis of that report?
Hon Mr
Newman: No, I haven't. That report, as you know, is from
the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
Mr
Hampton: Have you asked to be briefed on that
report?
Hon Mr
Newman: No, I haven't.
Mr
Hampton: Did you know that 100 people died in Milwaukee
in 1993 because of cryptosporidium in the drinking water?
Hon Mr
Newman: Yes.
Mr
Hampton: And you haven't asked to be briefed on that
report?
Hon Mr
Newman: As you can imagine, we are going through many
documents and there is a review underway. There are the
investigations and the public inquiry.
Mr Hampton: Minister, many
communities are facing boil-water orders because of
cryptosporidium. There are five in my constituency alone. As you
know, chlorination is not an effective tool to deal with this
parasite in drinking water. What is required is a filtration
system. Some communities like Bruce Mines, Balmertown, Cochenour,
Hudson and Vermilion Bay may have to boil their water for many,
many months. Can you tell us what your ministry is doing to
assist these communities in getting filtration systems installed,
to keep cryptosporidium out of the drinking water? Have you
issued any instructions? Have you asked for any briefings?
Let me make the question
simple: Have you asked for any briefings on this issue,
Minister?
Hon Mr
Newman: We'll get the answer to your question when we
get Edward Piché up here.
Mr
Hampton: First question: Have you asked for any
briefings on this issue?
Hon Mr
Newman: I'm going to answer your question here.
Mr Edward
Piché: My name is Edward Piché. I am director
of the environmental monitoring and reporting branch.
Mr
Hampton: Mr Piché, has the minister asked you for
any briefings on this issue?
Mr
Piché: There have been numerous briefings of senior
officials in the ministry in the past two years.
Mr
Hampton: Has the minister asked you for any briefings on
this?
Mr
Piché: Has the Minister of the Environment
specifically addressed that question to me?
Mr
Hampton: Yes.
Mr
Piché: At the moment, he has not.
Mr
Hampton: Pardon me?
Mr
Piché: He has not at this moment, no.
Mr
Hampton: Your ministry hasn't briefed the minister on
the Extent and Magnitude of Agricultural Sources of
Cryptosporidium in Surface Water?
Mr
Piché: Excuse me?
Mr
Hampton: You haven't briefed the minister on the report
called the Extent and Magnitude of Agricultural Sources of
Cryptosporidium in Surface Water?
Mr
Piché: I'm sorry?
Mr
Hampton: There was a report done in December 1999. It
was a study paid for in part by the Ministry of Agriculture. It's
entitled the Extent and Magnitude of Agricultural Sources of
Cryptosporidium in Surface Water. Have you briefed the minister
on this report?
Mr
Piché: Have I personally briefed the minister on
the report? I have not.
Mr
Hampton: Have you been asked to brief the minister on
this report?
Mr
Piché: There have been requests. What period are we
talking about? The last day, the last week, the last month?
Mr
Hampton: The minister was sworn in, I guess, in
March.
Mr
Piché: There were comprehensive briefing materials
prepared which also covered this issue, perhaps not that specific
report, but certainly the issue of cryptosporidium.
Mr
Hampton: Thanks. We're making some headway.
Minister, have you read the
Galt report on the impact of intensive farming? The Ministry of
Agriculture tells me this report has been available since April
17.
Hon Mr
Newman: That's the report out of OMAFRA.
Mr
Hampton: Yes?
Hon Mr
Newman: I said that is a report out of OMAFRA.
Mr
Hampton: Have you read the report?
Hon Mr
Newman: That is a report out of OMAFRA.
Mr
Hampton: Have you asked for a copy of the report?
Hon Mr
Newman: It's OMAFRA's report.
Mr
Hampton: Have you asked to be briefed on the report?
Hon Mr
Newman: The report has not been released.
Mr
Hampton: Do you plan to ask for a copy of that
report?
Mr
Mazzilli: On a point of order, Mr Chair: This is clear
cross-examination. At no time have I seen a committee function in
this way.
The Chair:
Mr Mazzilli, that's not a point of order. The purpose of
estimates is to ask questions and to receive answers.
Mr
Mazzilli: What we're seeing here is cross-examination of
the minister, without an opportunity-
The Chair:
Mr Mazzilli, that is not a point of order. Mr Hampton?
Mr
Hampton: Do you plan to ask for a copy of that report?
I'm asking you. I can't read your mind.
Hon Mr
Newman: You seem to put words in people's mouths.
Mr
Hampton: I'm asking you, do you plan to ask for a copy
of that report?
Hon Mr
Newman: What do you think?
Mr
Hampton: Well, let me try another way: When do you plan
to ask for a copy of that report, which would seem to me to be
germane in terms of the contamination of drinking water?
Hon Mr
Newman: The report out of OMAFRA, which is not the
ministry that is here before estimates today-that report will be
released, obviously. It's up to the minister to release that. I
will get my copy and I'll read it, just like everybody-
Mr
Hampton: And you haven't asked for a copy of that thus
far.
Hon Mr
Newman: The report has not been released.
Mr
Hampton: The Minister of Agriculture has had it since
April 17. He admitted that in the Legislature. And so you're
telling me that, despite the fact that this report has been
available since April 17, you haven't asked for a copy of it and
you haven't asked to be briefed about it.
Hon Mr
Newman: I would encourage you to ask the minister from
OMAFRA.
Mr Hampton: Was the Premier right
when he told the Legislature on May 30 that intensive farming
played no role in the contamination of water in Walkerton?
Hon Mr
Newman: That's for the inquiry and the three other
investigations to determine.
Mr
Hampton: You have no opinion on that? You have no
view?
Hon Mr
Newman: Investigations are underway.
Mr
Hampton: And you're not interested in that question,
about whether or not there is some connection between intensive
farm runoff and contamination of the surface water?
Hon Mr
Newman: I didn't say I wasn't interested. I simply
indicated to you, had you been listening, that there are the
investigations underway. They are still determining the causes of
things, and I would encourage you to have an open mind.
Mr
Hampton: As I understand it, one of the investigations
is to be conducted by the Ministry of the Environment and you are
the Minister of the Environment. So have you asked any questions
about the connection between the runoff from intensive
agricultural operations and the contamination of surface
water?
Hon Mr
Newman: You know that's an independent investigation
through the investigations and enforcement branch. You would know
that, or if you don't, you ought to know it.
Mr
Hampton: Have you asked the deputy minister for a
briefing on the possible contamination of surface water as a
result of intensive industrial farm operations?
Hon Mr
Newman: These are issues for the inquiry, and there is
the review of the ministry underway.
Mr
Hampton: So you're not interested in that question.
Hon Mr
Newman: I didn't say that. Again, you're putting words
in my mouth.
Mr
Hampton: Have you asked for a briefing from your deputy
minister on that issue?
Hon Mr
Newman: I've answered your question.
Mr
Hampton: Can you tell me, Minister, did the MOE have any
staff working on the Galt report?
1700
Hon Mr
Newman: Yes.
Mr
Hampton: Have you asked the deputy minister for a
briefing on the Galt report from those staff members?
Hon Mr
Newman: The report has not been released.
Mr
Hampton: So despite the fact that your ministry had
staff working on the Galt report on intensive farm issues and the
runoff from intensive farm operations, you haven't asked for a
briefing on that.
Mr Lal: Mr
Chair, if I could, perhaps this is the committee to get to the
root of this. As the minister indicated, the lead for this
particular activity is with the Ministry of Agriculture. We have
been working in an interministerial committee with the Ministry
of Agriculture, but it is for them to determine when the report
will be ready to be released or to be shared with other
ministries. To the best of my knowledge, we haven't quite got to
that stage as yet.
Mr
Hampton: If I may ask the deputy, have you asked them to
share any of the information or has the minister asked them to
share any of the information?
Mr Lal: I
have not personally asked them to share that information with me
or with the minister. As I indicated, we have a secondary role in
that process.
Mr
Hampton: I appreciate that.
Mr Lal:
Whenever we get to that-
Mr
Hampton: Minister, have you asked the Minister of
Agriculture to share any of that information with you?
Hon Mr
Newman: It's up to him to release that report.
The Chair:
One more minute.
Mr
Hampton: Minister, this is a report called Delivery
Strategies by the operations division of the Ministry of the
Environment. It was released internally April 9, 1998. It was
revealed to the public in February 1999 that this report existed.
Have you ever seen this?
Hon Mr
Newman: Yes.
Mr
Hampton: Do you approve of this document?
Hon Mr
Newman: What that document does is look at delivery
strategies and how to prioritize those strategies.
Mr
Hampton: Do you approve of this document and the
strategies outlined in it? Do you approve of the strategies
outlined here? Do you understand that the strategies outlined
here specifically say that the Ministry of the Environment
operations division is to restrict its activities in terms of
investigation and enforcement?
Hon Mr
Newman: That's not what it says. What it talks about is
setting priorities, and you know that.
Mr
Hampton: Yes, it says that you'll no longer be able to
do some of the work you used to do. Do you approve of that?
Hon Mr
Newman: I'll call on Carl Griffith, the ADM for
operations. He can explain and expand upon that for you.
Mr
Hampton: Mr Griffith, maybe you can tell us. Did the
minister approve of this or not approve of it?
The Chair:
We have time for a very brief answer.
Mr
Hampton: Did the minister approve of this document or
not approve of it, or do you know?
The Chair:
I think, Mr Hampton, with respect, you've had that answered by
the minister.
Mr
Hampton: The minister's turned it over to-
The Chair:
I understand, but I did hear the minister answer that question
very directly. Perhaps we can defer this to the following
turn.
Hon Mr
Newman: With all due respect, Chair, I indicated and
called upon the assistant deputy minister to expand upon
that.
The Chair:
That specific question?
Hon Mr
Newman: Mr Hampton raised some points within that
report. I've asked the ADM for that division to answer the
question.
Mr
Hampton: If I can ask the assistant deputy minister, is
it your understanding that the minister has approved of this report-whatever it's
called-Delivery Strategies?
The Chair:
Could you introduce yourself for the purposes of Hansard, and
I'll ask for a brief reply.
Mr Carl
Griffith: I'm Carl Griffith, assistant deputy minister
for regional operations, Ministry of the Environment.
The Chair:
Thank you. A brief reply or comment, please.
Mr
Griffith: The reply to the question-I believe the
minister's already responded to that.
Mr
Hampton: To your knowledge, the minister has approved of
this report or this strategy?
The Chair:
Mr Hampton, with respect, that answer was given directly by the
minister. We are unfortunately out of time so I'll have to defer
this to the next round. We now turn to the government party.
Mr
Mazzilli: Minister, when you look at some of the
evidence in Ontario in sheer frequency and duration, there have
been fewer air quality alerts to date than in the past 13 years.
In fact, we have the lowest levels since air quality index
readings first started taking place in 1988, and 1993. But the
warmer weather is certainly coming and that causes us some
concern, with the potential for smog. I know that the Drive Clean
program is being expanded to 13 urban areas, from Peterborough to
Windsor, and test procedures have been enhanced. Minister, either
yourself or a staff member in charge of Drive Clean from your
ministry is welcome to explain the beginning of Drive Clean to
where we are today, with some detail, please.
Hon Mr
Newman: Certainly. I'm going to have to call Dave Crump
up to answer a bit, and then I'll expand upon that. Why don't I
lead off here, then Dave will follow up on what I'm saying.
I want to say to the member
for London-Fanshawe that fighting smog is a top priority for this
government and for me as minister. We are moving forward on
schedule with Drive Clean. The Drive Clean program is making a
difference to the quality of the air that we breathe.
In 1999, the Drive Clean
program tested one million vehicles, which is just less than 20%
of the Ontario fleet, and cut smog emissions by almost 7%. When
fully implemented, Drive Clean will cut emissions of smog-causing
pollutants from vehicles in the program area by 22%, particulate
emissions by 220 tonnes and greenhouse gases by 100,000 tonnes
annually. Drive Clean is identifying the dirtiest vehicles and
making sure the emissions problems are fixed before they are
licensed for the road.
I'm committed to continuous
improvement and accountability and to providing the best emission
reduction program possible. We are working to improve Drive Clean
through a review of its first year of operation. Proposed changes
will reflect my commitment to emissions reductions, consumer
satisfaction, fairness and business integrity.
Consumer protection is a
priority of the Drive Clean program. The ministry has zero
tolerance for fraud or customer abuse. The ministry conducts
frequent, overt and covert audits to monitor the performance of
Drive Clean facilities and ensure that they are meeting their
performance requirements.
Finding a Drive Clean
facility is very easy. There are over 1,000 accredited Drive
Clean facilities and over 4,850 certified inspectors and repair
technicians in the light-duty vehicle program registered in the
GTA and the Hamilton-Wentworth area. The program will be expanded
to 13 other urban areas, as well as commuting zones, by 2001, one
year ahead of the original schedule.
Since September 1999, an
additional 650 accredited Drive Clean facilities began testing
heavy-duty trucks and buses for smog-causing pollutants. The smog
patrol is also in full force. I'm sure you may see them along the
401 as you commute back and forth from your riding in London.
They're taking immediate action against polluting vehicles,
including those from out of the province and out of the country.
In 1999, the smog patrol performed close to 3,000
pre-inspections, 1,000 tests, and issued 425 tickets. We've
recently increased the on-road enforcement aspects of the Drive
Clean program with the addition of new smog patrol staff.
Drive Clean is one of the
largest and most comprehensive programs of its type in North
America. Ontario is only one of three jurisdictions-Ontario,
California and New Jersey-to have mandatory periodic inspections
of trucks and buses, as well as an on-road enforcement program.
You should know that more than 4.7 million vehicles will be
covered by the program once it is fully implemented in 2001-02.
We are committed to this program and to ensuring its effective
and timely delivery.
We believe the private
sector is best equipped and has the expertise to deliver
components of the Drive Clean program. Drive Clean is being
delivered by a number of private sector service providers under
contract to the government. The government's role is to ensure
that implementation satisfies the commitment to emissions
reductions, consumer satisfaction and fairness. Emission tests
must be done at accredited Drive Clean facilities to protect
consumers against fraud and to ensure properly trained personnel
conduct the tests. Former Minister of the Environment, Tony
Clement, committed to a Drive Clean program review in the summer
of 1999. In the September 1999 throne speech, a commitment was
made to improve that program while meeting smart reduction
goals.
Since I've been appointed
as the Minister of the Environment, I've been looking at ways to
improve the Drive Clean program. I am committed to continuous
improvement and accountability and to providing the best emission
reduction program possible. I plan to bring forward the findings
of our program review in the next few months, and any changes to
the program as a result of this review will reflect my commitment
to emission reductions, consumer satisfaction, fairness and
business integrity.
1710
Drive Clean is projected to
be revenue-neutral based on test-fee revenues over a seven-year
period. Clean vehicles which pass the test do not have to pay
PST. Vehicles which require repairs as a result of failure to
meet vehicle emission standards are required to pay provincial
sales tax on the cost of the repairs and on the tests when the
test and the repairs are invoiced together. While there is
significant PST revenue, estimated at almost $3.8 million in
1999, generated by emissions-related repairs, the average amount
paid per vehicle repaired is $24. These are repairs that
responsible car owners would make independent of Drive Clean.
Ontario's Drive Clean
program is a self-funded program. The province's portion of the
fee, $10 for light-duty vehicles and $15 for heavy-duty vehicles,
ensures that there is no direct cost to the general taxpayer. The
majority of the costs are for the Drive Clean services, quality
assurance and quality control, including over 156,000 audits and
inspections, a public call centre, public education and
awareness, training the inspectors and repair technicians, a
dispute resolution mechanism and referee process, an independent
auditor to review the entire program, and operation and
maintenance of the computer system. Other costs of the program
include the smog patrol, which apprehends dirty vehicles on the
highways, MTO costs of processing and sending out Drive Clean
notices and providing compliance-checking services for
registration renewals and ownership transfers, and the Drive
Clean office and management of the program.
Mr
Mazzilli: Minister, can either you or one of the staff
members explain the smog patrol so that my constituents have a
better understanding of what the smog patrol does and what the
intention is?
Hon Mr
Newman: Certainly. It's a great program. I'd like to
have Dave Crump tell you all about it.
Mr Dave
Crump: The smog patrol is part of our investigations and
enforcement branch. It's funded out of the Drive Clean revenue
stream. In other words, the cost of the certificates that the
province sells through Drive Clean facilities is the source of
revenue to fund all the things the minister talked about,
including the smog patrol.
The smog patrol does lots
of important things. One of the most important things is they
identify smoking vehicles on the road. They can be either cars or
trucks. With trucks, they will pull them over and test them.
They're tested by the same procedure that we use at heavy-duty
vehicle Drive Clean facilities and measured against the same
standards, and those vehicles can be ticketed. Whether they're
Ontario-plated or not, they can be ticketed for not complying
with the standards in the regulation. The smog patrols also deal
with light-duty vehicles. In addition to gross polluters on the
road that they can see, they also deal with provisions in our
legislation that make it an offence to sell a vehicle that's had
pollution-control equipment removed from it. So they do spot
checks and blitzes of used car dealers, taxi fleets and the like,
to look for tampering with the pollution control devices on
vehicles.
There are some other pieces
related to the delivery of the Drive Clean program itself that
they assist my office with, and that is, looking for and
following up on evidence of falsified tests or fraud. Those
instances are rare but they are there, and it's nice to have our
police force to follow up on them and gather the information and,
if necessary, lay charges where that type of thing happens. As
the minister said-and this goes a bit beyond smog patrol-we have
quite a strong compliance component to Drive Clean. Most of it is
through an outside contractor, a company called Protect Air. The
contract is worth about $27 million over the seven-year life of
this Drive Clean program. That contractor works very closely with
our smog patrol staff so that there's a coordinated approach to
compliance monitoring and enforcement. The enforcement that is
applied through our contractor is things like suspension of
facilities or termination and revocation of the facility's
licence, for example, if they carry out fraudulent repairs.
There are other parts of
the government-the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations,
which administers the Motor Vehicle Repair Act-that we liaise
very closely with as well, and an organization called OMVIC,
Ontario Motor Vehicles Industry Council, that regulates used car
dealers and licenses them and can revoke licences. We have built
quite a strong enforcement compliance monitoring piece in which
our smog patrol is very much linked and very much involved. So in
addition to those on-road things, they have a lot of involvement
in the day-to-day maintenance of a vehicle repair program. I want
to stress that Drive Clean isn't just testing. Drive Clean is
about repairing vehicles that don't comply with the emission
standards. There's a very strong involvement in building consumer
confidence that the repair industry isn't the bunch of slime
balls we all think it is and that this partnership between
government-which many people out there also think is a bunch of
slime balls-and the repair industry is a good partnership that
will deliver a good program. That's sort of it in a nutshell on
the smog patrol and some of the things they do.
Mr
Mazzilli: How many enforcement officers are involved in
the smog patrol?
Mr Crump:
The smog patrol currently has 10 permanent staff. They're in the
process of recruiting some additional staff. I believe the number
is something like 15 or 16 who will be directly involved in this
program.
Mr
Mazzilli: These are the people who obviously conducted
the 3,000 pre-inspections and the 1,000 tests and issued 425
tickets?
Mr Crump:
That's correct.
Mr
Mazzilli: Does it require some level of expertise to be
an inspector of the smog patrol?
Mr Crump:
Indeed it does. There are two kinds of expertise. One is, you
have to have an understanding of the law, the Provincial Offences
Act, and how you gather evidence and all those things that are
important to the courts
when you're presenting a case, should it get to court. All our
enforcement officers have that kind of training, so they know how
to go about questioning witnesses, how to go about gathering
evidence and how to write a ticket properly.
The other side of it is
technical training. I talked about testing the vehicles on-road.
The devices to test cars and trucks are not simple devices;
they're quite complex. They're very delicate instruments that can
deliver up astoundingly accurate results and very repeatable
results, but they have to be operated properly, they have to be
calibrated properly, very much like a radar device on the road.
The police who use radar have to be trained in its use and
trained to maintain the instrument properly and use it properly.
It's very much the same with the smog patrol people and the
instruments they use on the road for testing. So there's a lot of
training involved. I couldn't do it, quite frankly.
Mr
O'Toole: Just following up on the Drive Clean, I find it
interesting. I am in a personal sense looking into this with two
vehicles-
Mr Crump:
Did your vehicle fail?
Mr
O'Toole: No.
On a more serious note, how
do you tie the actual test, that is, the vehicle identification
number, to the event, date and time? Are there some data on
record there? Is there any chance of any fraud? For instance, I
have a standard vehicle on the dynamometer, or whatever it is,
and I just put in new VINs and use the same car.
Mr Crump:
Yes. It's a fairly complex issue for me to explain, but let me
start by saying firstly that every single make and model of
vehicle has specific standards that depend on the vehicle weight,
the engine size, the engine horsepower. Every vehicle is measured
against those particular standards. The dynamometer, the
treadmill device that the vehicles are tested on, adjusts the
load on the vehicle in accordance with those parameters: how
heavy is it, what is the engine horsepower, what is the engine
displacement. Every make and model of vehicle delivers up
different results depending on a couple of things: what it is and
how it's been maintained. It also delivers up a piece of
information that's quite unique to each particular vehicle and
that's the engine RPM during the test. We gather a lot of
information about the vehicle during the test. The VIN is input,
and as you've correctly said, someone could input the wrong VIN
and test a different vehicle. The data profile will tell us that
wasn't a 1993 Nissan Maxima, it was a 1992 Chevy Cavalier,
because the picture is quite different for those two vehicles.
Even though the emission standards might be quite similar, the
picture that we see from those two vehicles is quite different,
the relationship between carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,
hydrocarbons and NOx for the contaminants that are
measured.
1720
Mr
O'Toole: At the risk of the Chair accusing me of
interrupting, which maybe should have happened earlier today-
The Vice-Chair (Mr
Alvin Curling): I wouldn't do a thing like that.
Mr
O'Toole: Thank you, Chair.
This is what I'm trying to
establish: Is there an internal data management system? When I
key in a VIN, that VIN tells me specifically what year, engine,
cylinder-it tells me everything on that vehicle.
Mr Crump:
That's right.
Mr
O'Toole: Is there a corresponding data relationship
between the test to tell the operator, or anyone looking at the
data track, that there has been a falsification of testing
records? I have a constituent who has accused me of that
happening. This opportunity is a wonderful opportunity to save me
writing a letter, because I will send him Hansard, if you know
what I mean.
Mr Crump:
What I should have said initially is that every test that's done
at every Drive Clean facility is uploaded to a central database
instantly. We have a very large contract with an outside
contractor to run probably the most modern database management
system I've ever seen. Data are collected remotely, they're
uploaded instantly and I have access to that data. At any given
time I can tell what vehicle is being tested at what facility,
what the VIN is, what the make and model is, who is testing it,
at what time and what the results are for that vehicle.
That ability allows us,
through our contractor, to look at any data coming in. There is a
whole series of triggers. You never know who you can trust, so
I'm not going to say too much about how we do our compliance
monitoring with the system, but we look at a whole series of
triggers. The database constantly looks at all the data that's
being collected, compares it against the norm and kicks out
anything that looks like an exception, anything that looks like
it needs to be followed up.
If the profile for a
particular vehicle looks wrong, that vehicle is kicked out. That
facility gets a call or a visit from our auditor, and that can be
a covert audit: They show up in a vehicle that's been set to pass
or set to fail; it's got a known defect. You've read about these
kinds of audits in the paper before. We have an auditor. We pay
them to do this, to show up and just pretend they're Joe Public
or Mary Public: "I've got to get my car tested." We'll see if
that facility does something, if that indication of something
wrong can be caught by the auditor. We've caught lots of them-by
"lots" I mean 15 or so.
The
Vice-Chair: You've got about a minute for question and
response.
Mr
O'Toole: What's the fine? If I may pursue this to its
conclusion, could we remove their licence? My understanding is
that it's $50,000 to $100,000 and more to get the facility and
the dynamometer, blah, blah. Can we just remove their licence or
is it that strong, that it needs punitive action?
Mr Crump:
We've terminated two facilities; we've taken away their licence
to operate. That's for doing what we call "clean piping." That's
testing a vehicle other than the one they say they're testing. We
caught them and they
admitted to it and we've taken away their licence to operate.
There are a number of others we've suspended for periods up to 60
days, and that's costly too, because there's no revenue.
Mr
O'Toole: So strong enforcement, strong inspection, a
plan that helps the environment and people's breathing problems:
I'm going to use this in the House. Next week we're not sitting,
unfortunately. Thank you very much for that response. It was very
thorough.
The
Vice-Chair: The official opposition has 20 minutes.
Ms Caroline Di
Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I would like to ask a question
that is directly in connection with protection of public safety.
Minister, my question deals with the largest toxic hazardous
waste dump in Canada that is provincially run, to my
understanding-at least, it's under your ministry. I have asked
this of you in the House concerning a full-time inspector. I
would just like to know why it is that site does not have a
full-time inspector when Taro landfill has a full-time inspector,
and I also understand Keele Valley has two full-time inspectors.
I would like to know why we cannot have a full-time inspector on
that site.
Hon Mr
Newman: There are formal inspections by ministry staff,
as I've indicated to you. We also inspect the site on a regular
basis to respond to complaints or to evaluate any changes in the
operation at the facility that you speak about.
Recent comments in regard
to the adequacy of the ministry monitoring the site overlook the
fact that the company itself already employs inspection
personnel. There are consultants and geoscience professionals who
monitor the site operations and report their findings to the
ministry.
Ms Di
Cocco: I understand it's self-monitored. I already
understand that.
Hon Mr
Newman: But the ministry itself also does formal
inspections, and you can't lose sight of that fact.
Ms Di
Cocco: Why is it that the Taro landfill can have a
full-time inspector and we can't?
Hon Mr
Newman: There is a review of the ministry underway.
We're going to look at all things within the ministry and I'm
sure this is something we can look at.
Ms Di
Cocco: I certainly wouldn't want to feel that we were
discriminated against down in the farther south of the province.
It is a toxic hazardous waste site.
The other issue I've asked
about is that we are in the process of repairs because that site
had a leak. There's an integrity problem with the site. There was
a leak in cell 3. You closed down cell 3 but there was still
dumping within 15 metres of that cell and it's still going on.
It's almost business as usual.
So they are repairing and
they were supposed to have the repairs done by about February.
This is now June. I understand that even the proposal for repairs
has been questioned by the ministry. I'll ask again, why is it
that we cannot have a geotechnical engineer from the ministry
overseeing the repairs on that site, considering the potential
impact that crack could have on that site?
Hon Mr
Newman: I can tell you that ministry staff have
completed their technical review of the report submitted by
Safety-Kleen on the proposed remedial measures and the study of
tension cracks. Ministry comments were provided to Safety-Kleen
on May 9 of this year. The ministry review identified a number of
concerns related to the proposal. Concerns focused on the effects
of the shearing stresses on the integrity of the natural barrier,
the ability of a clay liner to adequately replace 20 metres of
low permeable native clay fill, the potential movement of
landfill contaminants downward, whether or not the water and gas
venting were accurately assessed and the company's ability to
depressurize the groundwater aquifer to facilitate liner
replacement.
I can tell you that
ministry staff will be meeting with Safety-Kleen, tentatively
scheduled for the week of June 19, to discuss the company's
response to the identified concerns with the plant for
remediation.
Ms Di
Cocco: I understand there has been a review of the
reports that Safety-Kleen did. There is another problem with
trust here. Again, I'm asking why it is that the technical
expertise from the ministry cannot be on site to oversee what is
going to be repaired on that site.
Hon Mr
Newman: Again, ministry staff are going to meet with the
company in question. We want to ensure that the environment is
indeed protected.
Ms Di
Cocco: We now have just one more quick question. As you
know, there are a lot of financial problems that this company is
encountering, the same as in the United States. I believe the
state has asked for US$60 million in bonds from Safety-Kleen,
whereas here in Ontario you've got $2.25 million from them. I
would like to know what protection the citizens of that area have
when it comes to the potential for this company, because it's
having all of these financial troubles. What is your ministry
doing to give the same kind of financial security that a smaller
site has in the United States?
1730
Hon Mr
Newman: First off, in the United States Safety-Kleen is
a much larger operation. They may have many sites in a particular
state. You did mention that we have bonds with a value of $2.25
million posted as financial assurance. That was part of the 1997
approval requirements for Safety-Kleen. The current bonds are
guaranteed to November 24, 2000, and will renew automatically.
The amount of financial assurance required is based upon the
associated risk and the nature of the work required to close and
monitor the site if circumstances warrant. If there's any change
in the status of the bond, the ministry will be notified
immediately. I should also indicate to you that Safety-Kleen is
required by the Ministry of the Environment to carry $10 million
in environmental liability insurance. Safety-Kleen does carry $20
million, so that's $10 million more than the ministry
requires.
Ms Di
Cocco: So am I hearing that you are looking after the
store when it comes to the largest toxic hazardous waste dump in
Canada? When it comes to a full-time inspector, will you put one
on there?
Hon Mr Newman: I've answered your
question. You asked the question about the $2.25 million in
financial assurance. I've told you that is in place. I also told
you that Safety-Kleen has $20 million in environmental liability
insurance, which is $10 million more than they are required
to.
I can also tell you that
with respect to hazardous waste, we are tough on hazardous waste
management. We've announced and implemented a six-point plan.
It's an action plan to address hazardous waste, which means waste
at any facility in Ontario will be handled in a safe and
responsible way.
Ms Di
Cocco: The manager of that same type of facility in
Detroit said that if they were dumping hazardous waste the way we
dump it in Ontario, they would be in jail, because our standards
are not up to the landfill standards of hazardous waste in the
United States.
Minister, are you going to
actually do something and raise the standards, and legislate and
enforce it for landfill?
Hon Mr
Newman: I don't know when that person made those
comments, but we do have a six-point plan actually in place. As
I've indicated to you, it's a six-point plan that addresses the
needs of the people of Ontario. I can tell you that there are
regulations in place that were outdated, that were some 15 years
old, that didn't adequately address the needs of the people of
Ontario with respect to hazardous waste.
I can tell you that the
plan gives immediate legal force to the generator registration
manual. This is a policy manual which outlines exactly how
different types of hazardous waste are described. It also revised
a hazardous waste regulation that ensured that even if a
hazardous material is mixed with another substance, it would be
considered the same type of hazardous waste. This fixes a
regulation which has been in effect since 1985, some 15 years
ago. We've been able to change that and I think that's been
positively received and is viewed as being something very
positive for the environment here in Ontario.
The plan also revises the
hazardous waste manifest and regulation. It is now the toughest
in history and has been revised with a view to making it
comparable and compatible with US rules and guidelines. We're
also amending the certificate of approval for the Philip
enterprises Imperial Street facility in Hamilton. This tightens
the regulations surrounding the facility and imposes more
restrictions on waste stabilization and disposal.
We have revised other
certificates of approval at similar facilities across Ontario.
With respect to Taro, we've established an independent expert
panel to examine whether or not there will be any long-term
effects from hazardous waste deposited at the Taro landfill site.
We've also consulted with the Stoney Creek community through a
community liaison committee for coming up with the composition
and terms of reference for the panel.
The Chair:
OK, are you satisfied with that answer?
Ms Di
Cocco: No, I'm not.
Mr
Bradley: She's not satisfied, but she's going to be.
I have a question, if I may
continue, and if you'll alert me to the last couple of minutes so
I can tell my friend from St Thomas when he comes in.
I asked you a question in
the House maybe once or twice-you never did give me an
answer-about the status of the Ontario Clean Water Agency: Was it
on the auction block? When I asked you, you didn't give me an
answer in the House, which may be understandable. If you didn't
know the answer you couldn't give me an answer-I understand
that-or if you weren't aware of the status at the time.
However, when you came out
into the scrum you said, "No, it's not for sale." Then, the next
day, at the extravaganza at the SkyDome they asked the Premier,
"Is it for sale?" The Premier said, "If the price is right, it's
for sale." Could you tell us whether OCWA is indeed on the
privatization block, or is it right off the privatization block?
I saw it on the Web site and it said "For sale" or words to that
effect. What is the status?
Hon Mr
Newman: Let me tell you that there's no review underway
at this time.
Mr
Bradley: So you've taken it off the auction block.
Hon Mr
Newman: What I've indicated is that there's no review
underway at this time.
Mr
Bradley: That's an evasive answer, but I'll take it for
now and see what I can make of it.
I'm concerned about the Red
Tape Commission. It got re-established the day Walkerton broke as
a story. The former-I guess he's recycled as one of the chairs
now. Frank Sheehan sent a letter to the Ministry of the
Environment urging it to drop a prosecution of a company that
violated a provincial landfill regulation. He wrote in 1998 to
then Environment Minister Norm Sterling demanding that the
government not prosecute a St Thomas waste disposal operator
charged with violating a regulation forbidding it from dumping
waste into its landfill from outside its service area. The
regulation gives the ministry control over the rate at which
landfill capacity is used up and limits the ability of some
municipalities to use others as hosts for their garbage disposal
problems. Mr Sheehan's commission recommended the requirement be
scrapped as unnecessary, but the rule was in force at the time he
wrote the letter. "The ministry is continuing to pursue
enforcement of this matter with vigour that might be better
applied elsewhere," he suggested. "We have difficulty imagining
what environmental horror is being averted by prosecuting a
company for a technical violation of an unnecessary requirement,"
Mr Sheehan wrote. The letter was dated March 2, the same day the
company, Green Lane Environmental, was in court pleading guilty
to the charge.
My question is this: Are
you not concerned with the number of times that the Red Tape
Commission-I think you need a green tape commission-is trying to
weaken regulations of the Ministry of the Environment, and was
your ministry not
offended by a member of the Legislature, the chair of the Red
Tape Commission, writing to your people telling you not to
prosecute somebody who was at the time violating the laws of the
province of Ontario?
Hon Mr
Newman: First off, I haven't seen any such letter. If
you want to share it with me I'd be prepared to give you a more
fulsome response. Again, it's a letter that you indicate was
written by a former member of the Legislative Assembly, Mr
Sheehan. If you want to provide that, I'd be prepared to give you
an expanded answer.
Mr
Bradley: I'll let you look it up in your files. It is
March 2, 1998. So you may look it up and provide an answer
perhaps at a future time.
But to go back to two
things: One, what is your opinion of members of the Legislature,
particularly members of the government, writing to the Ministry
of the Environment telling them not to prosecute? Let's say that
in a generic and general way; let's not put any names to it. What
would be your opinion of someone from the Legislature writing to
tell you not to prosecute somebody who was in violation of a law
of the province when that case was in fact before the court?
What's your opinion of that?
Hon Mr
Newman: Any time anyone writes a letter when there's an
investigation underway or a court case or something that's a
quasi-judicial body, it would be inappropriate, in my
opinion.
Mr
Bradley: That will be on record. Perhaps we can send the
Hansard to Mr Sheehan and tell him you consider it to be
inappropriate. Frankly, I'm happy with the answer.
Hon Mr
Newman: You asked in a general way.
Mr
Bradley: Frankly, I'm happy with that particular answer.
I agree with you: It's inappropriate.
Let's get back to the
government, and it's not just one individual I'm talking about.
Mr Sheehan and Mr Wood co-chair the-what would you call
it?-reincarnation of this commission. How much input do you have
into this Red Tape Commission, which seems to be intent upon
weakening environmental regulations in this province, no doubt
much to your chagrin?
Hon Mr
Newman: My job as Minister of the Environment is to
ensure that the environment is protected for the people of
Ontario. That means the air, the water, the land. That's what I
do.
Mr
Bradley: That's a very general answer. I guess I'm
asking for something more specific. If you can accommodate me by
being more specific, what input do you have into this Red Tape
Commission? Do you go before the Red Tape Commission? Do their
workings come to your attention? Do you have your ministry
officials help you to respond to what the Red Tape Commission
might be up to behind your back? This sounds like a cell working
somewhere in the government trying to undermine you, and I
certainly want to be on your side in fighting this kind of cell
in the government that's trying to undermine the Ministry of the
Environment.
1740
Hon Mr
Newman: I can tell you that the ministry has been
working closely with the Red Tape Commission in implementing the
1997 and 1999 red tape recommendations and in developing policy,
regulations and legislation that are consistent with the
principles of the Red Tape Commission, namely, that the
enforcement and compliance would be consistent with the
objectives of the policy and risks of non-compliance. The
ministry continues to review regulations to make sure they're
better, stronger and clearer.
Mr
Bradley: I worry that the Red Tape Commission is not
there to toughen anything. I'm going to recommend that you ask
the Premier to set up a green tape commission to see how you can
strengthen the regulations and retain many of the regulations
that some of the more Neanderthal-thinking say don't belong.
I'm going to allow my
colleague Mr Peters to pursue an issue.
Mr Steve Peters
(Elgin-Middlesex-London): Minister, when you look at the
environmental protection compliance operating budget and you look
at the increase in salaries and wages, and taking out negotiated
bargaining unit salary awards-
Hon Mr
Newman: Sorry, which page?
Mr Peters:
Page 55-it works out to an increase of $47,000 in salaries and
wages. Where are you going to find the money to undertake 630
audits of water plants with a $47,000 increase in salary
operating budget? Where's that money going to come from?
Hon Mr
Newman: I can assure you that each facility in the
province, each of the 630 facilities, will be inspected. They
will be inspected by the end of this year. The certificates of
approval for each of those 630 facilities will be reviewed as
well. There will be one certificate of approval per facility in
the province. Certificates of approval will be reviewed every
three years after that. But I can assure you that each and every
one of those facilities will be inspected.
Mr Peters:
I didn't really get the answer. I was wanting to know where
you're going to find the money. Dealing specifically with those
630 sites, I take it that the Elgin area water system is one of
those 630 sites. The Elgin area water system feeds into the St
Thomas Psychiatric Hospital, which right now is on a boil-water
order because of an E coli breakout. Is the St Thomas Psychiatric
Hospital system one of those 630 that will be audited?
Hon Mr
Newman: In St Thomas it would be the municipal
system.
Mr Peters:
No, the psychiatric hospital system, which is the end product of
the Elgin area water system.
Hon Mr
Newman: We will look at the distribution system within
that municipal facility. Carl Griffith can probably expand upon
that.
Mr
Griffith: If it is a separate water distribution system,
particularly because there has been a problem with it, we will be looking at
that. My understanding is that it is part of a larger water
distribution system.
Mr Peters:
It goes into two holding tanks and then is redistributed to the
psychiatric hospital. But I'll leave it at that.
I just want to make one
final comment and come back to a comment that was made earlier
regarding the intensive farming report. Minister, I really think
this is the crux of the problem in this province: There's no one
ministry responsible for water. You've got your ministry doing
something; you've got OMAFRA doing something, which you have some
representatives on but it's doing its own intensive farming
report which is related to water; you've got the Ministry of
Natural Resources doing something with water; you've got the
Ministry of Health involved through the health units in the
testing of water. In my mind what I find very frustrating is that
there's no coordinated plan.
You say you have an
inter-ministerial committee dealing with intensive farming. I'd
like to know who sits on this inter-ministerial committee and
what is the end result planned to be. Is it a solid, single
strategy for water, or are we going to continue to go around in
circles, one ministry saying, as you said earlier, "That's Ag and
Food," and Ag and Food is going to say, "That's MOE," and MOE is
going to say, "That's MNR"? When are we going to see one strategy
in this province dealing with water, whether that be groundwater
or water plants, water in general? When?
Hon Mr
Newman: There are different aspects with respect to
water. The quality issue is something that falls under the
purview of the Ministry of the Environment. The quantity issue
falls under the Ministry of Natural Resources. But there are
several ministries that look after aspects of water in the
province, and I'm sure Carl Griffith can expand upon it a little
more for you.
Mr Peters:
That's good, Mr Chairman.
Mr
Bradley: He can decide whether he wants to answer it any
further. He doesn't.
The Chair:
Your time is up. The third party has nominated three or four
minutes to be used by the official opposition until Mr Hampton
returns.
Mr
Bradley: Thank you. That's very kind of them to do that.
I'll share some with you as well.
When your government came
into power, your ministry officials at the regional offices and
perhaps other places were told to be business-friendly. What does
"business-friendly" mean?
Hon Mr
Newman: You want to have clearer, stronger regulations,
less ambiguity than there's been in the past.
Mr
Bradley: They perhaps would interpret it as being that
you shouldn't get in the face of business in this province
unnecessarily. That's certainly the way your officials, some of
whom have now left the ministry because they've been asked to
leave, because you're downsizing-others who may still be there
have characterized it as meaning, "We should go easier on the
companies and not be bothering business"; in other words, the
promise to get MOE out of your face. So how should they interpret
that imploring to be business-friendly?
Hon Mr
Newman: First off, those are your words, sir; they're
not my words. I can tell you that it's not my plan. As a
ministry, we have to set priorities and ensure that those people
who are polluting, that there are investigations underway to get
to the bottom of it and appropriate action taken.
Mr
Bradley: Sheila Willis wrote an internal memo in 1996.
It's a confidential strategy memo written in December 1996 by
Sheila Willis, an assistant deputy minister, to Jack Johnson, the
top legal official in the ministry; I don't know if that's true
or not. It was based on worries that staff layoffs have
compromised the ministry's ability to fully enforce the
regulations for which it's responsible, according to another
document. It talks about defences being cooked up for such things
as 75% of the functions, including initiatives to ensure air
quality, surface and groundwater quality, proper waste
management, quality of drinking water and safe use of pesticides.
Why would the ministry be busy developing these defences against
negligence if indeed you were satisfied that there were not going
to be any significant problems with your cutting and downsizing,
as the Premier said there was none?
Hon Mr
Newman: Again, I think it's the issue of risk
assessment. Those are comments made by a former assistant deputy
minister, but those are the sorts of things that are going to be
looked at within the inquiry.
Mr
Bradley: Well, they may be looked at within the inquiry,
and I hope they are. However, I'm interested in your opinion of a
ministry which has massive cuts coming to its budget and its
staff and then turns around and says, "We'd better scramble to
have some kind of defence because we're making ourselves very
vulnerable." Do you not think that in fact your government-not
you, your government-was making the Ministry of the Environment
very vulnerable by the massive decrease in staff and budget?
Hon Mr
Newman: Every good organization does a risk
assessment.
Mr
Bradley: And so you did a risk assessment in this
particular case and developed a defence against it. Let me go on
to another issue then.
Hon Mr
Newman: That's not what I said. I said every good
organization does a risk assessment. And then I think you had
said that's a good defence or something. That's not what I said.
What I clearly stated was that every good organization does a
risk assessment.
Mr
Bradley: That was my interpretation, which is fine. I
always accept what the minister says as his own words.
What is the administrative
monetary penalties program, which was begun in 1999? Is that not
a program which was there to weaken enforcement? My friend Frank
will be interested in this; he was a police officer. Was this not
a program intended to weaken enforcement in the province and
provide for smaller penalties?
1750
Hon Mr
Newman: I'll have Doug Barnes expand upon that for
you.
Mr Doug
Barnes: Under Bill 82, authority was given for the
ministry to develop regulations to establish administrative
monetary penalties. The penalty range has yet to be established.
It would apply to the three main pieces of ministry legislation:
the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Pesticides Act and
the water act. The number of penalties that are potentially
available is quite large. We have undertaken a preliminary
discussion with different stakeholders in terms of how it will be
applied, and our intention would be to post a draft of that
regulation on the environmental registry in the near future.
Mr
Hampton: Mr Newman, Toby Barrett is your parliamentary
assistant, is he not?
Hon Mr
Newman: Yes, he is; you're aware of that.
Mr
Hampton: And Mr Barrett and Mr Galt together held all of
the hearings which go into the Galt report? They heard from 700
farmers, or 700 people, as I understand it, during the
hearings?
Hon Mr
Newman: Toby Barrett is also a member of the Legislative
Assembly. He and Dr Galt went out and did some research on this
issue.
Mr
Hampton: So despite the fact that your own parliamentary
assistant participated in the Galt report, and that officials
from your ministry participated in the Galt report, and despite
the fact that the report deals with the issue of nutrient
management, specifically the enforcement of nutrient management
from farms, you haven't asked for a briefing on the report?
Hon Mr
Newman: Well, again, the role of the ministry was a
secondary role. The lead ministry, as I will say again for you in
case you didn't catch it the first two or three times, was the
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
Mr
Hampton: You haven't asked your parliamentary assistant
for a briefing on the report?
Hon Mr
Newman: I can tell you that the report has not been
issued. I think you are aware of that. Any role that he would
have played would have been a secondary role.
Mr
Hampton: You haven't asked your parliamentary assistant
for a briefing on the report?
Hon Mr
Newman: Again, the report has not been issued by the
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
Mr
Hampton: Are you aware of a Health Canada study that
showed that 40% of the E coli cases in Canada were recorded right
here in the province of Ontario? Did you know that the study
linked higher incidences of E coli in water resources with
intensive numbers of livestock in the area? Were you aware of
that report?
Hon Mr
Newman: I've read it in the media, but I've not read the
report itself. You should also keep in mind there are several
different causes for E coli. You would know that some if it is
through water, you may or may not know that some of it can be
through beef or hamburger that is not cooked properly, that E
coli can also be that. So I'm not sure which numbers you're
using.
Mr
Hampton: Have you asked your deputy minister for a
briefing on that report by Health Canada?
Hon Mr
Newman: We've asked for many briefings on various issues
with respect to E coli.
Mr
Hampton: Are you aware of a report called Groundwater in
Ontario? This report warns that many aquifers are poorly
protected from near-surface contamination sources. It cites that
31% of Ontario wells are contaminated with bacteria. The report
was published by a number of organizations including Environment
Canada. Have you asked for a briefing on that report?
Hon Mr
Newman: That's the type of issue the inquiry will look
at.
Mr
Hampton: But as the minister responsible for ensuring
the safeguarding of our drinking water, have you asked for a
briefing on that report?
Mr
Mazzilli: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The leader of
the third party is referring to specific reports. I think it's
only proper that those reports be given to all members of the
committee so that certainly we know, in fact-
The Chair:
Your request is noted. The clerk, Mr Hampton, would be happy to
copy any materials that you have to share.
Mr
Hampton: I can provide you those.
The Chair:
Please continue.
Mr
Hampton: Have you asked for a briefing on that
report?
Hon Mr
Newman: Which report?
Mr
Hampton: Don't worry.
Is your ministry aware of a
1997 study cited by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority
that shows that liquid manure applied in accepted quantity and
under ideal conditions is leaching through cropland into field
tile and finding its way directly into streams and rivers within
a half-hour timeframe?
Hon Mr
Newman: This would be a report that would be dealt with
through the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs,
which isn't the ministry before the estimates committee
today.
Mr
Hampton: These are all reports dealing with the
contamination of groundwater by agricultural runoff. Your
parliamentary assistant just participated in a round of hearings
where 700 people appeared and a report has been prepared on
groundwater runoff from intensive agricultural operations. That
report was prepared on April 17. You haven't asked for a copy of
that report. You haven't asked for a briefing on it from your
deputy minister; from your officials, who sat on the report; or
from your parliamentary assistant who was one of the principals
of the report. Is that right?
Hon Mr
Newman: No. What I've indicated-and I'll say it again-is
that the report has not been released. It's not a report that is
from the Ministry of the Environment. The Ministry of the
Environment is the ministry here today before the estimates
committee. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is the
ministry leading that. They would be the ones releasing that
report. I don't know how many times I've had to repeat
myself.
Mr
Hampton: In light of Safety-Kleen having filed for
bankruptcy, have you instructed your officials to deny the
company's request for MOE's permission to increase the volume of
hazardous toxic waste that they import from the United States to
Flamborough?
Hon Mr
Newman: Carl Griffith is here.
Mr
Hampton: Maybe you can tell me. Has the minister
instructed you to deny the company's request?
Mr
Griffith: We are currently looking at their service area
to make sure that the waste that is going into that site is in
compliance with the service area.
Mr
Hampton: Has the minister instructed you to deny the
company's request?
Mr Lal: Mr
Chair, if I could respond to that question, it is not in the
nature of things for the minister to instruct an official on the
merits of an application of this sort. This sort of decision
would be made by officials, such as the director of the EA
branch, who would be dealing with applications of this sort. In
the normal course of events, it would not be something which
would have a ministerial fiat on it.
Mr
Hampton: I'll ask the minister again: Have you been
briefed about this request?
Hon Mr
Newman: No.
Mr
Hampton: You haven't been briefed about this request by
Safety-Kleen to increase the volume of hazardous toxic waste that
they import from the United States to Flamborough, despite the
fact they have filed for bankruptcy.
Hon Mr
Newman: I have not been briefed on that issue. It's
obviously something that's still within the ministry, through the
application process. Many people come forward, many companies
come forward with ideas. Not all are accepted; some are accepted,
some are rejected.
Mr
Hampton: So you have been briefed.
Hon Mr
Newman: I didn't say that. Again, you're putting words
in my mouth. I did not say that.
Mr
Hampton: Have you been briefed?
Hon Mr
Newman: I've answered your question.
Mr
Hampton: I've asked you a whole bunch of questions about
your ministry. Earlier I asked you if you have made any
recommendations about increasing staff for your ministry. Let me
ask you: Have you made any recommendations or do you have any
recommendations for increasing staff related to the drinking
water surveillance program?
Hon Mr
Newman: I can again assure you, as the Premier has, that
whatever it takes, we are prepared to do. There is the review
underway of the ministry to ensure that all policies and
procedures and operations of the ministry are going to protect
the people of this province in the 21st century.
Mr
Hampton: Have you made any recommendations regarding
more staff in your ministry to do follow-up work with respect to
groundwater contamination from intensive livestock
operations?
Hon Mr
Newman: There is a review underway, as I've indicated.
We're going to look at all aspects and make recommendations from
there.
Mr
Hampton: You indicated earlier that Safety-Kleen has
their own inspector for their dump here. Is that correct?
Hon Mr
Newman: I said there is on-site inspection, yes.
Mr
Hampton: In view of the fact that they have filed for
bankruptcy, have you made any recommendations regarding
inspection staff to do that inspection work?
Hon Mr
Newman: Regional staff attend to that site on a regular
basis. With respect to bankruptcy, which you're talking about, I
understand that affects their American operations, not their
Canadian operations. I don't know if you were out of the room at
the time, but I indicated that there is the $2.25-million
financial assurance that's put in place by a bond guaranteed to
November 24, 2000. It automatically renews at that point.
Mr
Hampton: Do you consider that adequate?
Hon Mr
Newman: I'd like to finish my answer.
The Chair:
Mr Hampton, let him finish his answer, please. Go ahead, Mr
Newman.
Hon Mr
Newman: I'm allowed to finish. Thank you.
The amount of financial
assurance is based upon the associated risk and the nature of the
work required to close and monitor the site if the circumstances
warrant. If there's any change to the status of the bond, the
ministry will be notified immediately. I also indicated that
Safety-Kleen is required by the ministry to carry $10 million in
environmental liability insurance. Safety-Kleen carries $20
million, which is $10 million more than is required by the
ministry.
Mr
Hampton: You're aware that in the United States one
state alone is asking for a $70-million deposit from the
company.
Hon Mr
Newman: It depends upon the size of the operation in
that state. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Mr
Hampton: So the fact that with a state in the United
States demanding a $70-million deposit, it doesn't bother you
that you're only asking for a $2.5-million deposit.
Hon Mr
Newman: That's not what I said. Perhaps you weren't
listening to what I said, but I indicated to you that the amount
of the bond depends on the size of the operation.
Mr
Hampton: You believe the $2.5 million is adequate for
the operation here in Ontario?
Hon Mr
Newman: Actually, you didn't listen to what I said. What
I indicated was, there were bonds totalling $2.25 million as
financial assurance. That's what I indicated.
Mr
Hampton: You think that's adequate?
Hon Mr
Newman: I can tell you that there is the environmental
liability insurance that Safety-Kleen has as well. They're required by the ministry to
carry $10 million; they carry $20 million.
Mr
Hampton: You think that's adequate?
Hon Mr
Newman: If you are suggesting that it's inadequate,
please provide some information to me. That's what is in place
for that site.
Mr
Hampton: I take it from your answer you believe that's
adequate.
Hon Mr
Newman: I've indicated to you what the value of the bond
is and what the environmental liability insurance is for that
site.
Mr
Hampton: Are you aware that your government has sent a
list, established by cabinet, to the Ontario Realty-
Hon Mr
Newman: Mr Chair, does this go to-
The Chair:
It's been drawn to my attention we're now past 6 of the clock.
This committee meets for the afternoon, which roughly ends at 6
o'clock. Mr Hampton, I have to declare the meeting adjourned.
We'll consider the last three minutes of your questioning when
we're reconvened tomorrow at 3:30 or at the end of orders of the
day.
