1996 ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY
CONTENTS
Thursday 12 December 1996
1996 annual report, Provincial Auditor
Ministry of Environment and Energy
Ms Linda Stevens, deputy minister
Ms Sheila Willis, assistant deputy minister, operations division
Mr André Castel, assistant deputy minister, corporate management division
Ms Ivy Wile, acting assistant deputy minister, environmental sciences and standards division
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Chair / Président: (vacant)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood L)
*Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)
*Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)
*Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South / -Sud PC)
*Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood L)
*Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
*Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph PC)
*Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings / Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)
*Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
*Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)
Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South / -Sud L)
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East / -Est ND)
*Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon / Lac-Nipigon ND)
Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North / -Nord PC)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC) for Mr Skarica
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mr Erik Peters, Provincial Auditor
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel: Mr Steve Poelking, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1033 in room 228, following a closed session.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Vice-Chair (Mr Mike Colle): I call to order the meeting of the standing committee on public accounts. Welcome.
The first item of business is that the subcommittee met on Tuesday. As a result of the change in the legislative calendar, we had to make some changes in our schedule for the upcoming months. It was agreed that we would proceed with the following areas from the auditor's report, starting in January and going right through till March. As you can see, the majority of the new areas are in the health area. That was considered the most serious area of concern, considering that we're talking about $1.4 billion. So that is the schedule.
Just to pre-warn members of the committee, the questions and discussions will be based on these areas in the months to come, and the background information is to be found in the Provincial Auditor's report, so you're well warned that those are the areas we'll be going into.
Would anybody like to move a motion to accept the subcommittee's report? Moved by Mr Pouliot. All in favour?
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Just a point, Mr Chair. It's a small point, but since the government has chosen to change the seasonal standards and spring is coming on January 13, down under March where the question mark is, it says "Date to be set once spring break week is determined." That probably is the summer break, even though it's in March.
The Vice-Chair: All in favour of the motion to accept the subcommittee report? Opposed? That's carried.
1996 ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY
The Vice-Chair: We welcome to the committee witnesses from the Ministry of Environment and Energy. Please identify yourselves to the committee.
Ms Sheila Willis: Sheila Willis, assistant deputy minister, operations division.
Ms Linda Stevens: Linda Stevens, Deputy Minister, Environment and Energy.
Mr André Castel: André Castel, assistant deputy minister, corporate management division.
Ms Ivy Wile: Ivy Wile, acting assistant deputy minister, environmental sciences and standards division.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for coming. Would one of you like to begin with a presentation to the committee?
Ms Stevens: I will, Mr Chair. First of all, thanks for the opportunity to give an opening statement. We appreciate it. I think you now have copies of it, but I would like to take you through it.
First of all, we are pleased to try to assist the committee here today to review the two pertinent chapters of the auditor's 1996 report. The two chapters that focus on our ministry were a chapter concerning the environmental sciences and standards division -- Ivy is the acting ADM of that division -- and also a followup to a 1994 auditor's report on sewage and water treatment plant facilities.
First of all, a little bit about the environmental sciences and standards division. It's the division in our ministry that provides the real scientific and technical expertise of the ministry. It also has responsibility for the development of standards, for monitoring and for the development of priority programs and analytical support.
The ministry's operations division, of which Sheila Willis is the assistant deputy minister, is the division probably most of you are most familiar with because you would see its presence out in your ridings. This is where our various offices are located, this division. Its responsibility that is the pertinent one today is that of ensuring that sewage and water treatment plant facilities all across the province meet the health and environmental requirements which the province sets. These are obviously crucial to the protection of public health and the safeguarding of our environment.
I want to quickly turn to address specific issues raised in the auditor's 1996 report.
The auditor recommends in the report that to safeguard the environment and human health, the ministry should develop and update its air quality standards on a timely basis.
Ontario has about 1,000 standards for substances emitted into the environment. That is more, I point out, than any other province in Canada. It's also important to note that we are very up to date, and the auditor cited this, on water and soil standards. That is largely because in recent years the ministry was given direction by governments of the day to focus its efforts on updating water and soil standards, and that's what it did.
The latter was a major undertaking which involved the development of new standards for soil and groundwater for 117 chemicals as part of the new decommissioning guidelines. As I said a minute ago, the auditor acknowledged that our standards for drinking water, soil and sediments are up to date. By the way, it took the ministry a good two years to develop those 117 chemicals.
Those guidelines have been very well received out in various communities and are being used. People were a little taken aback at first that there were 117. We keep pointing out that it's not that you have to look for the 117 contaminants; it's just that it's a lot more helpful, when people find a contaminant, if we've already developed the standard. Those 117 have gone a long way to do that.
The auditor's review of our standards was based on a very preliminary internal ministry review, although having said that, I do acknowledge that a significant number of air standards require review. To address this need, the ministry has developed an aggressive three-year plan for developing 282 standards by 1999. I would point out that the ministry's never done this before; this is the first time we have proceeded with a long-term plan. We posted that plan on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry and on the ministry's Internet site for public comment. It's also the first time we've ever done that. I believe that comment period ended earlier this month, and we're reviewing the 30-odd comments we received. This is really asking people's input, saying: "We've said we're going to work on these standards. Do you think they're the right ones?"
The three-year plan places emphasis on air standards. Specifically, 73 new or revised standards will be developed by 1999. This three-year plan includes those substances which have been identified in the national pollutant release inventory as being released in large volumes to the atmosphere, as well as those that may have significant health or environmental effects. Fourteen air standards have recently been completed and we're posting them on the EBR registry shortly.
1040
We are committed, as I hope you can see, to developing and improving our standards. The ministry is tackling the need to deliver an increased number of scientifically sound environmental standards, particularly for air, in a cost-effective manner on a number of fronts. We realize we can't do this all ourselves. All jurisdictions, I guess, realize that.
We are working in partnership with federal, provincial and territorial governments to develop standards for substances of national importance. These standards would be developed under the recent Canada-wide accord on environmental harmonization and associated subagreements. The first subagreement that ministers are dealing with is the subagreement on standards, and we welcome this as a first one.
The environmental accord on harmonization that we and other provinces, the territories and the federal government recently negotiated is designed to lead to improved and more consistent environmental protection in Canada. The initial candidate list for the development of Canada-wide air standards includes ground-level ozone, inhalable particulates, dioxins and furans, and mercury and benzene. Developing standards for these substances is very resource-intensive, given the complex environmental issues that need to be addressed. By sharing the development costs with our partners in Canada, we can allocate a greater percentage of our own internal resources to developing additional standards that are Ontario priorities. Bottom line: more standards at a reduced cost.
Also, we recognize that some jurisdictions, particularly in the United States, have recently developed scientifically defensible standards that may be suitable for use in Ontario. So rather than extensively researching and assessing the science ourselves, we can build upon the work of others and adopt these standards for our use. We do this, again, after a very rigorous review process. We believe a significant number of standards can be delivered through this process.
The other way we develop standards besides looking at adopting from other jurisdictions and working with the federal government and the other provinces is we actively encourage the joint development of standards through partnership with other regulatory agencies, the regulatory community and other stakeholders. This is again to avoid duplication of effort and to make the best use of available resources and information.
Over the past years, Ontario has made significant progress on air quality, and as the auditor has noted, during the past 20 years the ambient levels of the six most common pollutants have declined. We have also, since 1987, reduced the use of ozone-depleting chemicals by more than 50%, and since the mid-1980s emissions of acid-rain-causing sulphur dioxide have declined by more than 50%.
In his report, the auditor also recommends that the ministry remove air monitoring instruments that are obsolete and redeploy others to improve the accuracy of the air monitoring network. It's also recommended that the ministry stop providing advance notice of quality control visits to our regional staff. These are regional staff who are responsible for the maintenance of air monitoring equipment.
On the first point, the ministry has continuous air quality monitoring instruments at 89 locations across the province. The instrumentation utilized in the ministry's air quality network is current with what is commercially available and is accurate 95% of the time. That accuracy rate is consistent with or better than most jurisdictions.
In the last 10 years, the ministry has invested approximately $50 million in support of air monitoring programs. In addition to this network, we also operate two state-of-the-art mobile trace atmospheric gas analysers, commonly known as TAGA units. They're designed to monitor air pollution problems expediently and efficiently. We bring them to certain sites around the province as issues may arise.
To make qualitative improvements to our monitoring, the ministry has recently added new instruments to measure fine particulates commonly called PM10 and PM2.5, which are of direct relevance to human health. The monitoring will be real time, meaning that we'll know immediately if there are any changes in the levels of fine particulates. To date we've installed 32 such monitors, eight of which are located in Hamilton, at a cost of $300,000. We will continue to install new monitoring equipment as the need arises.
The ministry accepts the auditor's recommendations regarding advance warning of quality control visits to our regional staff, and we will ensure that advance notification is not provided except where staff health and safety are at risk due to the remote location of some monitoring sites.
The audit report also reviews the ministry's hazardous waste information system. The ministry's computerized hazardous waste information system is used to track the generation, shipment and disposal of hazardous waste in Ontario. The system is considered to be the best in Canada and one of the best in the world. The audit notes that about half of the registered generators of hazardous waste have never reported a transaction. The auditor recommends that in order to allow for better monitoring and control of hazardous waste disposal, the ministry should investigate ways to improve the use of the hazardous waste information system. Registered generators not reporting disposals should be identified and reasons for their not reporting should be obtained.
All generators, haulers and receivers of hazardous wastes are required to register with the ministry. This hazardous waste information system tracks each individual transaction and it generates an exception report if the type or quantity of waste reported by the generator, hauler or receiver does not match up. On an annual basis the system monitors about 160,000 waste transfers. Each exception report is investigated, and charges are laid if appropriate. In 1995-96 there were 1,800 exceptions and each of them was followed up by the ministry.
Also, I would point out that our operations division, as a normal part of their doing business out in the field, inspects annually more than 1,500 hazardous waste generators, and as part of that normal inspection, they would check their manifests. We point out here that since 1993 there have been more than 100 convictions for violations.
As the auditor noted, however, there are a significant number of generators who are registered but have not reported shipments of waste. We have now looked at what that number is, and the number is in fact 11,000 such generators who have not shipped waste in the past three years. By the way, that's 11,000 of 32,000 generators who are registered. There are, however, we believe, legitimate reasons a registered generator of waste has not reported any shipment, and we have a list here for you.
The first is the possibility that the generator is out of business. There are no requirements for generators to notify us when they go out of business and therefore we are rarely notified of that.
A generator number was issued for a single shipment following an emergency. This results in a generator being registered for a waste they may never ship again.
Concerning PCB storage sites: The PCB storage site owners require generator registration but they don't ship waste until the PCBs are sent for destruction.
Concerning onsite disposal: Waste that's generated and managed onsite, for example, a waste-derived fuel site, requires registration but will not report shipment because they're dealing with it there and then.
Small quantity exemption: Some registered waste generators generate waste in quantities so small that they are exempt from reporting. They have essentially registered as a contingency measure in the event that their waste production increases.
Other possible suggestions I would offer are that some generators have moved out of Ontario to other provinces; also some have been purchased by other operators.
Having said that, again, we are mindful of the auditor's concerns that have been raised, and by the end of January 1997, we will have sent letters to those generators who have not shipped waste within the past three years. So we're sending letters to those 11,000, and their registration will be inactivated unless they respond with reasons for not shipping. If inactive generators ship waste, they will be detected through exception reporting. That will continue.
1050
I'll turn now to groundwater. Groundwater is another area addressed by the 1996 audit report. It recommends that the ministry should develop a more proactive and systematic approach in order to better manage groundwater quantity. Such an approach should include the updating of the water-well information system and the aquifer maps to allow for better assessment of current groundwater use in the province and for timely remedial action. Further, the ministry should monitor groundwater quality on a systematic basis to provide assurance of its safety for the environment and human health, as well as to enable the ministry to take prompt remedial action when necessary.
The responsibility for the protection of groundwater resources crosses municipal-provincial boundaries and involves a number of ministries and agencies. The ministry is currently heading a review of provincial groundwater management and protection in conjunction with other ministries and agencies. This initiative will result in the development of a cost-effective groundwater protection program. I believe we will be advising the minister on this initiative by March 1997.
The ministry carries out a number of activities, though, to protect the groundwater quality and quantity. For example, since poor construction of wells can be one of the major reasons for the contamination of groundwater, the ministry licenses all well contractors and their employees. We are planning to implement an enhanced training program to improve the skills of well drillers. Well owners are responsible for the maintenance of their own wells, however. They're encouraged to have their water tested by the local public health authorities or private laboratories. The ministry does, though, investigate complaints. Those responsible for contamination are required to take remedial action, and charges under provincial legislation are laid where warranted.
Also, to control, conserve and to determine the status of the usage of groundwater, the ministry requires all persons drawing more than 50,000 litres of water a day to obtain a permit.
Currently the ministry is improving its management of water-well records to deal with the backlog and is taking steps to accelerate the rate of processing records. We will be pleased to report back to the auditor on our efforts on that.
The topic of research data: The ministry has an extensive amount of research data related to various environmental issues covering many years. The auditor recommends that to facilitate access to data for ministry staff, the ministry should develop an integrated approach to consolidate data and to provide better access.
To improve our overall efficiency and effectiveness, we have begun to integrate and to standardize our computerized databases so that the vast amount of information collected over a period of time on many environmental issues may be readily accessible to our staff and others. The auditor has recognized the problem, and we are pleased to be responding in a positive way.
The auditor's report also notes that the ministry maintains a marine unit with six large boats, a staff of two captains and additional support staff. He notes that these resources are significantly underutilized. We acknowledge the auditor's concerns.
The six vessels in question were acquired in the past when the federal government provided some $1.5 million a year for Great Lakes surveillance activities. In recent years the federal government has discontinued this funding.
The ministry has completed a comprehensive review of its monitoring needs, including utilization of our marine services. As a result of this review, four boats have been made surplus and will be disposed of through government surplus asset disposal, and the staff resources have already been reduced.
Turning to the other significant area in the auditor's report, that is, the follow-up to the 1994 auditor's report on water and sewage treatment facilities, we have taken action on all the recommendations from the 1994 report. Among other things, the auditor's report recommends implementation of a strategy to ensure a minimum standard for records documenting the occurrence and the quality of sewage treatment plan bypasses. In September of this year, we communicated -- and that was as a reminder, by the way -- the requirements for minimum recordkeeping standards for bypasses to all owners of sewage treatment plants in the province so that they will be available for our review.
The steps taken to address the concerns raised by the auditor are:
First of all, in 1990 the ministry introduced the sewage and water inspection program. Since then the ministry has established priority-setting procedures for scheduling plant inspections based upon health and environment criteria.
The ministry has communicated the minimum acceptable sampling requirements for waterworks to the owners of these facilities, most recently in 1995.
The ministry established a database that is reviewed annually to update the status of the most significant deficiency associated with each sewage and waterworks.
The ministry standardized sample collections during our sewage and water inspections. The analytical data from these inspections will be entered into a database which allows different parts of the ministry to use the data collected in the field.
The ministry has taken steps to ensure that all sewage plants are operated by qualified personnel. A regulation to that effect was passed into law.
Also, we empowered our environmental officers to issue field orders to enforce compliance.
The 1994 Provincial Auditor's report recommended that water treatment plants with significant compliance problems be brought into the drinking water surveillance program as quickly as possible.
It is important to note that the principal responsibility for meeting the Ontario drinking water quality objective rests with the municipalities. This means they must meet the ministry's requirements as outlined in the plant certificate of approval and carry out regular monitoring. It is also important to understand that the Ontario drinking water surveillance program is a special program for enhanced monitoring of water treatment plants that serve a large population. This program is not used for monitoring compliance. By going beyond what would normally be expected of a water authority in a regular monitoring program, the drinking water surveillance program helps the ministry to identify emerging water quality problems and update drinking water standards when applicable.
The drinking water surveillance program currently covers water plants that serve 83% of the population relying on municipal water supplies. This is equivalent to approximately 73% of the population in Ontario. The plants that are included in this surveillance program, and the need to add new ones, are reviewed on an ongoing basis. Plants that have performed well over an extended period of time are eventually taken off the drinking water surveillance program and, when necessary, replaced by plants that may have some problems.
Overall, we would say the auditor's report has provided an excellent review of how the ministry needs to improve the work it's doing. I am, however, pleased to see the auditor has noted: "With certain exceptions, services provided by the division" -- that's the environmental sciences and standards division he's talking about -- "were generally being delivered with due regard for economy and efficiency." I've tried to outline here today the action we have taken on all of the recommendations made by the auditor.
Thank you. We would of course be happy to answer questions.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for that very comprehensive overview, Ms Stevens. We'll start with the third party with questions, 10 minutes each.
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Good morning. Monsieur Castel, bonjour. I too echo the sentiment of the Chair that it's nothing short of an excellent report. I understand the dilemma you're in only too well, that you're doing the best you can. One could say in fact, during these times, at your ministry your courage is indeed great. How would you describe the morale at your ministry right now?
Ms Stevens: The morale in my ministry I think is similar to a lot of ministries: There's obviously concern. There's been downsizing; there will be further downsizing.
However, having said that -- and we've done this a lot lately -- we reflect back on the last year plus, and the ministry's accomplishments have been probably the most successful of any year in its history. By that I mean everything from the three pieces of legislation we presently have in the House to the enormous number of policies we've dealt with and also to accomplishing our cost-saving targets. There are items that have been accomplished in the ministry that people in the ministry had wanted to move on for years and they've been done in the last year. So on the other side, there's the feeling we've been very successful in the past year.
1100
Mr Pouliot: I'm candid: I rely on and need your help because I know so little. I live in a small place, Manitouwadge. But sometimes I come here during the summer and I see it says, "Welcome to Toronto but don't use the beaches." I see that the program to clean up the beaches went from $12 million in 1995-96 to $2.7 million in 1996-97. I understand there was a 10-year cleanup program. Does that mean that it's cleaned up or that they've just slashed the budget?
Ms Stevens: I think it's next summer you'll be able to swim in the western beaches in Toronto with a decision the government made in the last year. There's certainly good news in the Toronto area, and I think that was the most critical area in the province for beaches. So, yes, I think a lot has been accomplished.
Mr Pouliot: Do you know what the bacterial count will be and the temperature?
Ms Stevens: I certainly wouldn't want to predict the temperature.
Mr Pouliot: In other words, I have just as much chance of walking on water as swimming at the beach.
Your budget has been slashed by an astounding, shocking 46%. Everybody knows that you have been the focus of a savage attack. You cannot say this; I understand your mandate. Over the years, I've given myself a bit of that latitude. It is shocking. You have to do more. You have 11 million people in the province of Ontario. How many employees at your ministry right now?
Ms Stevens: André, do you have the exact number of employees right now?
Mr Castel: I believe it's approximately 1,750.
Mr Pouliot: How many did you have last year at this time, sir?
Mr Castel: We've reduced a total of 400 people.
Mr Pouliot: You have reduced 400 people. They were always very busy. With the pressures on environment, people were working very hard, otherwise there would have been a recommendation from the deputy minister to reduce the number of people. Am I right as a citizen to assume that everybody has always worked very hard at environment; it was high profile, it was focused?
Ms Stevens: Certainly from what I've seen in the last year and a half, in the time I've been there, and then when I was there in the early 1980s, yes, I think people do work very hard. But, as you well know, what's happened in the last year is that we, like all ministries, have done business planning, we have focused on core programs, we have eliminated areas we felt we had been successful in and no longer needed to focus on. We got out of some businesses. An example is the area of high-volume, routine testing. That's been handed over to private labs to do. That's an area private labs are quite capable of handling. We didn't require the ministry to do that.
Mr Pouliot: Science and technology keep you abreast, keeps you au courant of development, gives you a chance to go beyond defending the mandate of the ministry, but you can be proactive, right? Like everywhere else, it's a quick-moving world. Do you feel that you have sufficient resources under research and development?
Ms Stevens: Yes, I think we do. We have several hundred people in that area. We could give you the exact number, but we're talking hundreds of people in that area.
Mr Pouliot: The fact that your budget in science and technology was decreased by two thirds is not a concern, you'll be able to do just as well?
Ms Stevens: Again, we will focus on priorities. The other good news most recently is the harmonization effort with the federal government and other jurisdictions. Again, one of the subagreements there will be research and development. So, across Canada we will more effectively, more efficiently work on what the priorities are in research and development for Canada.
Mr Pouliot: So, when your budget is slashed by almost 50% overall in the very short period of one year, you feel very comfortable that you can make all the transitions possible and put a positive spin on this? I work with professionals. I know that you are under a great deal of stress. I occupied four ministries when we were there.
Ms Stevens: Yes, I'm aware of that.
Mr Pouliot: When the government, regardless of stripe, cuts a budget in this magnitude, the deputy ministers, the assistant deputy ministers, the managers and the directors are under a great deal of stress, especially when it's done in-year, where your year is condensed. I too used to go out and say, "The sky is not going to fall." I even said, "When everything is dark out there, you can see the stars." I used to read a lot because I needed to come up with some of those quotes, but you're better than I am.
The thing is, everyone has known that the Ontario budget has been slashed, that you've embarked on a three-year monitoring program. If I was to cost the average cost of review, you can come up with the dinero, you can come up with the money, because you don't have it but you hope that somewhere you will be able to find the money.
I can only offer my admiration and my sympathy for, obviously, your ministry and your friends at the ministry. You work in close liaison with the Ministry of Natural Resources, which has been under a deliberate and systematic attack. Everybody is pro-environment, but what is being done here -- I see that some of the free enterprises have a phobia that the environment runs contrary to promoting jobs and promoting good economic health in our community, which is quite the contrary. I've lost faith in them. But I hope that the good people we have at the ministry, with the meagre resources that they have, constantly, daily under a state of siege, will be able to survive. I can only wish you well. I can go on line by line about what has been done.
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): My primary concern relates to the smog problem that we have in Toronto, the urban areas of southern Ontario, not just Toronto proper. You have reduced resources. You're going to refocus your priorities in terms of trying to contain this problem. But I would like to know, Deputy, how, with your reduced resources, you can gather sufficient data and link the concern I have, a lot of people have, regarding the smog problem in southern Ontario and, I suppose, in southwestern Ontario to our rising health care costs in terms of the number of asthmatics we probably have going to hospital as a result of the use of certain hazardous and other chemicals.
I would like to know whether the new agreement that Ontario has signed on to does not in effect really increase and reconfirm the regulatory approach to this problem rather than looking at what the Environmental Protection Agency has attempted over the years. I understand that you have in your ministry a study of a tradable pollution credit system for certain types of chemicals, S02 for example. Why wouldn't we take a look, at least, on a pilot-project basis as to why that approach can't be incorporated into what I see as a more increased regulatory approach; that we are not looking at more flexible and innovative things in dealing with these problems?
You've combined some regulation with what the EPA has managed to monitor over the years through Congress in this whole area of tradable pollution credits. I'd like to know whether this ministry is ever going to move in that direction, given that I understand there was a study undertaken several years ago. If there is, would not such an approach answer some of the concerns the auditor has regarding the smog problem? I know it's not labelled that; it's got a more scientific characterization.
Ms Stevens: We know it as the smog problem too. I recognize the topic.
Mr Hastings: Those are my primary concerns.
Ms Stevens: I'm going to ask Ivy in a minute to talk about a pilot we have on emission trading. But this is being addressed on a number of fronts. I talked at length about one in the opening address, and that's the updating of standards to focus on air standards. We know that has to be the focus, and we are addressing that on a number of fronts: with the adoption of them from other jurisdictions; with working with the federal folks and other provincial governments and territorial governments. There's also a smog plan, an overall Ontario smog plan that we are working on with all stakeholders, and I'm going to ask Ivy to expand on where that's at at the moment.
1110
The other thing I'm sure you've heard my minister talk about is that we are looking very hard at an effective and efficient vehicle emission testing program for southern Ontario. We're doing a lot of work on that at the moment. If that comes to be, it's probably the next most important thing that can be done to improve the air quality in the province. Industry has gone a long way -- we have figures to back that up -- but the next most important area to address would be vehicle emissions, to get the biggest reduction.
Also, the minister is quite committed to dealing with the fact that 50% of Ontario's air problems come from our neighbours to the south, and he is very interested in not only pursuing that with his federal colleague but personally addressing it individually with the various states. He's already met with at least one of those states and has plans to meet with more of them in the upcoming months.
But I would like Ivy, if she would, to talk about the smog plan that we're working on as part of a national strategy and also the pilot that we have going on emission trading, which is what I think you were referring to. Ivy?
Ms Wile: We have a number of voluntary arrangements in place. First of all, on PERT, we have a pilot in place. There are a number of companies involved, including Ontario Hydro, and there actually has been a trade that has taken place with Detroit Edison. We have a number of arrangements under way on the smog plan at the present time. I should say that our smog plan really identified the concerns relating to smog and set a long-term, 20-year target for reduction, particularly in NOx and VOCs and particulate matter.
Under the plan now we have eight sectoral working groups, including industry, that are working on plans to achieve this reduction target, and of course a part of the reduction is also related to the vehicle emission testing program that the deputy referred to.
We have a whole host of other voluntary arrangements, particularly with the auto manufacturing sector and dry cleaning industries. We have individual memoranda of understandings. We have an awards program. These companies have voluntarily made fairly significant commitments. For example, in auto manufacturing alone we've had voluntary reductions in the realm of 150,000 kilograms of pollutants, VOCs, per year. We've made some very significant progress.
As the deputy mentioned, one of our largest problems continues to be transboundary, particularly the difference in the standard for ozone between us and the United States. Ours sits at 80 parts per billion, and the US allows 120 parts per billion. One of our targets has been to pressure for reduction in the standard in the US.
Mr Hastings: I appreciate all that. It answers some of my concerns. But one of the other items is, how are you going to be able to achieve and measure results if you do not have any data from our hospitals as to the number of folks who are entering hospital because of the rising smog problem?
Secondly, we are getting an increasing number, I believe -- they're not out there yet -- for tuberculosis incidence in our schools.
Thirdly, we have a problem right in southern Ontario, through this ministry I believe -- I've forgotten the number of the regulation that allows for the increasing proliferation of used oil burners. We have an industry in Ontario that will try to capture used oil, yet the ministry has a reg that is allowing the sale of used oil burners, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto. I have a map that shows the number in northwestern Metro.
You may not be able to answer those particular items today. Perhaps we could get a report back through the auditor. Thank you.
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Good morning and thank you for your presentation this morning. My theatrical abilities are certainly not to the level of my good friend from the third party. However, my main concern is with the environment this morning. It's a general question really. The mandate for the Ministry of Environment and Energy is to protect the environment and the health of Ontarians, and I must point out also that this government is concerned about the environment.
As mayor of our community, in 1985 we commissioned a study in our municipality which monitored air, water and ground quality. It was done by Canviro of Kitchener to the tune of $800,000. The Ministry of the Environment paid for it. So for anyone to allude to the fact that this government is not sensitive to the environment, I think it's incorrect and I take exception to that.
With regard to small municipalities in Ontario that cannot afford to have a sewage treatment plant, the ministry's position is that they must build a certain type of plant that treats the effluent 100%, but in some cases it is not financially feasible. There are sewage package plants that are available, that are cost-effective, that are affordable, that treat the effluent 98% to 99%. Why is it that the Ministry of Environment and Energy is so reluctant to approve some of these plants? My concern is that we continue polluting the environment by not treating effluent. Wouldn't it be better to treat the effluent 98% to 99%? I think the impact on groundwater, the environment itself, would be substantially reduced if we did something we can afford. Do you have any comments on that?
Ms Stevens: I'd like to ask Sheila Willis to address the type of plant you're describing.
Mr Beaubien: For instance, I have a community in my riding, a little hamlet of about 300 people by the name of Inwood. Some engineers there have designed a plant. I think the cost would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500,000 to $700,000. The ministry will not approve it. They want a plant that will cost probably $5 million, and there's just no way that's financially feasible for this particular hamlet. I don't have all the design but I certainly can provide that. I know the plant has been designed by MIG Consulting Engineers in Lambton county and it's 98% to 99% efficient.
Ms Stevens: I don't know the reason why that plant hasn't been approved. I don't know whether it's using technology that's not known and proven. Do you know the reason?
Mr Beaubien: I don't know. If I were to bring it to your attention directly --
Ms Stevens: I'd be happy to look at it. Certainly we could provide you with answers as to why it has not to date been deemed to be acceptable, if that's the issue.
Mr Beaubien: I'm concerned about the environment also. I think if we can do something about it in a cost-effective manner, it's a heck of a lot better than not doing anything about it.
Ms Stevens: I agree.
Mr Beaubien: I'll undertake to bring it to your attention personally.
Ms Stevens: What was the name of the community again?
Mr Beaubien: Inwood.
Ms Stevens: Okay. If you'd like to provide me with further information, I'd be very happy to get back to you.
Mr Beaubien: I will. Thank you.
Mr Crozier: Good morning. A couple of very quick questions and then we'll try and get into something that's a little more substantive. You mentioned this morning about the emissions from automobiles. I have friends who have great restored antique cars. Can I assure them that you're not going to take the licence off the automobile because it's a 1929 Ford and maybe doesn't come up to the 1996 or 1997 standards?
Ms Stevens: Two answers to that: First, under most emission testing programs, the vehicle has to meet the standards for a vehicle that year. In other words, a 1985 doesn't have to meet a 1995 standard.
Second, yes, in most vehicle emission programs, antique historic vehicles are exempt. I know the minister has been considering this point, has had deputations in fact on it, and I do believe he's favourably inclined to that.
Mr Crozier: Second, in my area, in Essex county -- it may apply to other areas -- we have been in communication with the ministry for, I would say, conservatively, in excess of two years to get a septic system approved that is called, in layman's terms, a semiraised system, which is significantly less costly to install as compared to the fully raised septic system. My question applies to that specifically but may apply to other things in general. Why does it take two years to get something like this approved? What happens? Where does it all go and where does it all get tied up? I'm assured that we're about a month away from a decision, which I'm very thankful for, but what happens?
1120
Ms Stevens: I think what you're referring to is the evapo beds, which we see only in southwestern Ontario, in your county and I think one other, maybe Kent county. I think the overall answer is they're not a known technology. Our people are not confident that they work. As I hope you know, for the last six months we've done a study on some of those systems and what I've seen of that study so far is not entirely convincing.
Mr Crozier: Isn't that strange. You've looked at it for six months; we've had these kinds of systems installed for several years now. Our information is that it is working. I know you can't speak candidly to some of Mr Pouliot's questions because you have the government, your boss, sitting there, but I have spoken to your officials in our area and they have confidence in these systems. So where's the breakdown?
Ms Stevens: I'm certainly not aware of any breakdown.
Mr Crozier: I'm sure you wouldn't be because they apparently can't tell you that; I don't know why. But they can tell me that.
Ms Stevens: With all respect, that doesn't make sense to me.
Mr Crozier: It doesn't make sense to me either.
Ms Stevens: There's nothing in it for the ministry that these systems would not work. We'd be happy to welcome new technology that works and is less expensive.
Mr Crozier: Well, you don't seem very happy to welcome it. I get the sense today that the answer I'm going to get, hopefully by the end of the month, may not be the answer we want.
Ms Stevens: I don't know the answer you're going to get on those systems today, as I sit here. What I'm saying is that what I have so far read of those studies -- and I haven't finished reading the material I've been given -- was not quickly encouraging to me. I have concerns. I have more questions. I've sent it back to the staff.
I too am as interested as you are in making systems work in that area of the province with the kind of clay problems you have. I recognize the problem, I recognize the added expense, but surely it's in all our interests to ensure that these do work, not just today but 10 years from now, that we're not cleaning up water problems out there.
Mr Crozier: I agree wholeheartedly. It's just that we've been at this for several years, you say you've looked at a study that covers six months, and now we want to be sure the system works over a 10-year period. To me the only way you can find out is to monitor it over a 10-year period. Anyway, I hope the answer is coming this month and I hope it's more positive than I gather today.
In your comments this morning, right at the top of page 4, the auditor has said that we should "remove air monitoring instruments that are obsolete and redeploy others," but your answer seems to indicate that our instruments are very accurate. What is it? Do we have any obsolete instruments?
Ms Stevens: We worded our response like that because we do believe the equipment we have is the best currently available commercially. We do believe that. Sure, tomorrow there might be something that's obsolete in the sense of worn out and we need new, but no, we don't believe this is a problem.
Mr Crozier: So you don't agree with the auditor on that one.
Ms Stevens: I guess I'm saying I don't agree with the way that's strongly worded.
Mr Crozier: That's certainly your prerogative. Further on you say, "We will continue to install new equipment as the need arises." How do you determine that need?
Ms Stevens: What I was talking to a minute ago, where equipment is worn out, or where we're aware that a new, improved technology has come on the market.
Mr Crozier: Or an area where there are no instruments, you get complaints or somebody decides that you need to monitor in another area? I'm just trying to further define the word "need," how you determine it. I can understand if a piece of equipment wears out, but how do you know that you don't need twice as much equipment in twice as many locations?
Ms Stevens: Sheila, go ahead.
Ms Willis: If I could just offer, the network that's being referred to of 89 is the continuous air monitoring network. We have in addition to that a number of other stations, dozens if not hundreds of them, that monitor specific points, and if a new industry moves into a location and requires specific point source monitoring, that would be installed. If the sources that are causing us to monitor in a specific area cease to exist or change their air emissions -- perhaps go into a closed loop or something like that so that the air conditions are monitored in a different way -- or if the monitoring is not required, then that would cause us to move in some cases, remove in other cases, or install new equipment as warranted.
Mr Crozier: I want to move to the area of hazardous waste and something that's at least relative to this area. We in Ontario must have thousands of locations where hazardous waste may exist. For example, gas station locations where over the years the soil has become contaminated through leaking of gas or spilling of gasoline or oil. In fact there's evidence I think mounting that gasoline producers, oil producers like Sunoco, Esso, name any of them, are cancelling their contracts with station operators, making them then responsible for the location, and turning right around and selling them gasoline again, but they're saying they're not affiliated. Is there anything the ministry's doing to determine the extent of the problem with the location of gasoline stations, for example, and the contamination there might be?
Ms Willis: First of all, I think it's important to differentiate between hazardous waste and a product. Gasoline for the most part is a product. If it spills into the environment, for instance, leaks out of the tank or is spilled around the tank, it's then contaminating the soil. That's not what we're talking about when we're talking about hazardous waste generators or the storage of hazardous waste. I'd like to just clarify that.
Mr Crozier: I realize that, but I had to get into it somehow or the Chair wouldn't let me ask the question.
Ms Willis: That's all right. I just wanted to differentiate.
We do address that. We do have a memorandum of understanding with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to define our role and theirs as it relates to what happens in and around the pumps, and we act accordingly. Once there is contamination in the soil as a result of either a spill or a leak -- it could be a tank that leaks that's been there for many, many years -- then we use our decommissioning guidelines. We can order the owner to clean up the hazardous material, and we do that. The law provides for us to order and require action not only from the present owners but from previous owners. So if there's an indication that the spill occurred during the previous ownership and activity, then we have absolutely every legal right and we do go after the previous owners.
Mr Crozier: I appreciate you not ruling me out of order, Chair, for asking.
The Vice-Chair: The Provincial Auditor would just like to make a comment.
Mr Erik Peters: I'd just like to follow up on the point of obsolescence of equipment. Maybe you can help me out. At the moment it looks like you and I are at loggerheads on this particular point.
When we did our audit we found that certain types of instruments had a failure rate as high as 80%. When we discussed that with ministry staff, generally there were two areas of concern. One was that the equipment was obsolete -- that's what we were informed by the staff -- or there was insufficient training or some human failure occurred that caused these instruments not to operate at the proper rate. You indicate that there is no longer a problem with obsolete equipment, if I understand your comment correctly. Can you confirm that? Has something been done since we did our work that came to this conclusion at this particular point?
1130
Ms Stevens: I will ask Ivy to address that because I truly believe that our instrumentation is current and was current.
Ms Wile: Perhaps "obsolete" is the wrong word. We do have some aging equipment. We do need to upgrade occasionally, and we do that. It's the fact that the type of equipment we have out there is consistent with what's in other jurisdictions to measure conventional pollutants. There isn't any new, wonderful technology that we don't have.
The only area where we are upgrading our equipment is for measuring the small inhalable particulates that have been linked directly to health, the PM10 and the PM2.5, because they penetrate the lungs and bury themselves very deeply in the lungs and have potential impacts on the air sacs in the lungs. We have been gradually installing new PM10 and PM2.5 continuing monitors, at a number of stations. We've also upgraded some of the ozone measuring equipment so that we get better readings. There is ongoing maintenance required.
I think the variation that's found when we audit is that we audit against a standard and normally we allow a 10% variation in either direction, plus or minus. It's like setting your scale to zero, and it may vary a little bit to each side, as your starting point. We use a 10% variation, plus or minus, as our standard from that certified audit level or standard. Other jurisdictions actually, like the US Environmental Protection Agency and even Environment Canada, use a 15% variance, so if we applied the 15% variance, our equipment would even look a lot better. We do upgrade it, but it's not obsolete in the sense that it's out-of-date equipment. It's more a case of making sure we replace parts and keeping it operating well. Overall, 95% of the two million bits of data we collect each year is accurate. That's a reasonable level of accuracy, I think, by anybody's standards.
Mr Peters: Chair, thank you very much. I think that clarifies the situation somewhat for us.
Mr Pouliot: Before I go on, I listened intently. In any event, you have no money to buy new gizmos or gadgets, so you're doing very well with what you have.
Madam, I have two questions and I wish to turn your attention to your presentation, page 8, the second paragraph:
"The auditor's report also notes that the ministry maintains a marine unit with six large boats, a staff of two captains and additional support staff. He notes that these resources are significantly underutilized." It then goes on to say, "The six vessels in question were acquired in the past when the federal government provided some $1.5 million per year" of funding. Can you tell me a little more about that? Because I see that they've been discontinued, some of those rust buckets have gone to auction or they're going to disappear. Who's going to monitor the Great Lakes?
Ms Stevens: You're quite right, some of the boats have been declared surplus and put into the government proposal for the disposal of government surplus property. There is interest in that, including from our federal colleagues. Our federal colleagues are interested in one of the larger boats. It can be used for Great Lakes monitoring.
We, though, are keeping two boats. One will be in active service and the other will be a backup boat. We will continue in our role, which is -- what's the term?
Ms Wile: Near-shore.
Ms Stevens: Thank you. Near-shore monitoring. We had these vessels but, as you know, and the auditor's right, we were underutilizing them. I think we're really getting down to what we need now. Our federal friends have had reductions in that area and they've expressed an interest in working in a more coordinated manner than we even have in the past.
Mr Pouliot: This will leave you with how many boats?
Ms Stevens: Two boats.
Mr Pouliot: What do they do, in a broadly summarized form?
Ms Stevens: Ivy, can you talk about the sampling they do?
Ms Wile: Every year we discuss with our colleagues in the regional operations what specific needs they have along the Great Lakes. We also address sampling needs for the remedial action plan areas. We develop a series of surveys. The boats go out. They collect water samples, they test sediments if the problem is contaminated sediments, and they report back. Then we determine what action is necessary. There's always a yearly schedule of surveys that are carried out.
Mr Pouliot: You see, I must confess to you I have a bias. On the one side there is Lake Superior, the largest of the Great Lakes, and on the other there's Lake Nipigon, the largest body of water beyond the Great Lakes. If I go to the other end of the riding I get to Hudson Bay. That little tub -- I mean, that boat is going to be busy. The likelihood of seeing the same boat twice in my lifetime would be like being struck -- I have a better chance of becoming the Emperor of China than to see the same boat twice in the same area. Aren't you stretched in terms of resources? It's very little. It's impossible to answer the question, I know.
Emissions: Air quality is a concern to all of us. Approximately what percentage of pollutants, when we refer to air pollution, comes from exhaust from vehicles?
Ms Stevens: I was going to say 12%, but I think I'll defer to you. Is it 12%? Am I correct?
Ms Wile: I think it's in the realm. Roughly 12% to 15% of the smog is due to vehicles.
Mr Pouliot: You're the expert in the field, and I thank you. If I was to go to a forum, a panel, of knowledgeable people on this subject matter, I would say, "Twelve percent of air pollution comes from exhaust"?
Ms Wile: Not air pollution. We're talking smog here. There's a whole host of different types of pollution.
Mr Pouliot: I'm a taxpayer, Madam. You'll have to define. I'm not wording my question right, and I apologize for that. Exhaust fumes, trucks, vehicles. What is it, 30% of the air pollution, 40%? You said 12%, is it? Because I'm going to call the Globe and Mail right after this and they have a section -- I'm going to quote your name and I'm going to quote mine too, and I'm going to get the answer. You've said that it's 12%.
Ms Wile: I'd have to verify the accuracy, but it's in that area for smog, recognizing that 50%, roughly, is coming from transboundary. Of the remaining 50%, it's roughly in that vicinity.
Mr Pouliot: So you're going to address that. You have an emission testing program. It works in conjunction with MTO, with the Ministry of Transportation?
Ms Stevens: I'm sorry, I have to correct you. We don't have in Ontario a vehicle emission testing program.
Mr Pouliot: But you are planning?
Ms Stevens: We are actively looking at one and, yes, we are doing it with your former Ministry of Transportation. We're working with them.
Mr Pouliot: Where did you go to see if there was a similar program elsewhere? Is there?
Ms Stevens: I unfortunately have not gone to any other jurisdiction to see their programs. We have, though, I can assure you, looked at just about every vehicle emission testing program that we are aware of, whether it's the one in Canada, which is in BC, or quite a number of the states have them. We've looked at them all, at least on paper.
Mr Pouliot: With high respect, British Columbia, with its great capital of Victoria, is not the worst place in the world to be in early or mid-December to look at how the system works in our sister province.
Walk me through the program. I know there are a lot of young people paying us the compliment of a visit. They want to see how the system works. I'm sure they've gone away very impressed. But more important in their case perhaps is the accessibility to a driver's licence in good standing. They want to be able to drive cars. Unfortunately, their future does not augur too well. It's a difficult time for generation X. It's more difficult than it's been before. They can't look to the future with the same confidence as they could some years ago. In fact, if you were to ask them -- they're between the ages of 15 and 24 -- "Are you better off now than you were two years ago?" they would have to say no, because statistics will attest to that.
1140
So they get a car. They cannot afford the same car that some of you people can, and that's okay, that's great. If they've got a 1990 -- what do they call those cars, Neon? I don't know anything about this. Chevy, Chevrolet? -- and they pay so many thousand dollars, what are you going to do with that? Walk me through the process. Harry Smith now is sitting right behind you, listening intently, just bought his first car. It's a 1987 Chev, whatever.
Ms Stevens: Typically what a jurisdiction would do that has a vehicle emission testing program would require that vehicle to be tested -- normally it's every two years. It would be brought in and there are some systems in which they do what they call a very quick test -- it takes maybe 20 minutes from the time you arrive to the time you leave -- to see whether you are a candidate for more through testing.
Let's say the car is a gross polluter; it's not meeting the standards for that 1985 vehicle. Then the person will be obligated to fix it up. Some jurisdictions ask them to do that immediately, to fix it up 100% whether it costs them $200 or $2,000. Quite a number of jurisdictions, that first year of testing, put a cap on what you or I or that young person you were just talking about would have to pay, but it would be noted that the following year they would have to spend more money to bring it completely up.
Mr Pouliot: Okay. Let's take the other extreme, if you wish. Let's say our good friends and colleagues opposite would go to a -- let's say Al Palladini, who is the Minister of Transportation, and he also runs one of the large Ford dealerships. So let's suppose --
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: The member knows full well that no cabinet ministers own anything. Perhaps you might choose to rephrase your --
Mr Pouliot: Operates?
Mr Gilchrist: No. He doesn't operate either.
Mr Pouliot: Okay. Well, he used to.
Mr Gilchrist: He has no interest in that business.
Mr Pouliot: Anyway, he is cognizant of the product.
Mr Gilchrist: He used to own a car dealership.
Mr Pouliot: Okay. He used to. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: Everything's in a blind trust.
Mr Pouliot: Let's say that one of my fortunate friends and colleagues would go and buy one of those big cars that you read about, a Lincoln, brand-new. He can afford it. When would they have to be --
Interjections.
Mr Pouliot: Monsieur, there are eight of you and one of me. Have respect for my time. I respect you.
Madam, when would they have to be tested with a new car, like a brand-new, shining Lincoln coming out of a dealership?
Ms Stevens: Some jurisdictions that have vehicle emission testing programs would require all vehicles to be tested. Other jurisdictions would say within two years.
Mr Pouliot: So you have some lapse. If it's a brand-new vehicle, the manufacturer --
Ms Stevens: Some jurisdictions have. Others have not given any kind of, as you phrase it, a lapse.
Mr Pouliot: So I could walk out of a dealership with a brand-new car with the warranty in my back pocket, half a tank of gas with my car, but if you buy a big car a full tank of gas, and I have to go across the street and get tested?
Ms Stevens: Well, perhaps within a year you would have to, because of course just because one owns a new car doesn't necessarily mean you're going to maintain it any better than somebody would with a 1985 vehicle. The issue is maintenance, whether one maintains it.
Mr Pouliot: If that were the case, Madam, I can assure you that even bashful me would come out of his shell big time. You've paid thousands of dollars to buy a car --
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Your time is up. Mr Boushy.
Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I just have one brief question. The movement of PCBs has been an issue in my riding on and off. You monitor the movement of PCBs in an area. When the PCBs go out of storage to be sent for destruction, is there a requirement for monitoring? Do you track it down when it's moved for destruction?
Ms Steven: Yes. Under our system there would be a manifest concerning the removal of that material from the generator, the carrier and the receiver of it. It would be tracked all the way, and if there was any discrepancy in that amount, one of these exception reports would be popped out of our computerized system and investigated by a ministry staff person.
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): Just a couple of questions: I noted that you've already got some proposed standards on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry. I'm curious to see what kinds of responses you're getting to those standards that have been posted.
Ms Stevens: We have posted the actual three-year standards plan. In other words, we've said: "Here's the plan we're proposing over the next three years. Here are the standards we think we should focus on. What do you out there think?"
That consultation process closed on December 9. I'm aware that we've received 30-something proposals. I personally haven't seen or read the 30 yet. Ivy, I don't know if you've had the opportunity in the last 10 days, not even 10 days, to read them. We could certainly get back to you on that.
Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Something I have a concern with is the definition of "hazardous waste"; for example, a used cement block out of a building. I've had numerous complaints about this in my riding. I have a particular example where a building was being torn down and the cement blocks were trucked to a farm because the farmer wanted them. He would allow them to dump them there and he would keep the blocks for future use in buildings on his farm. An enforcement inspector caught on to the fact that they were dumped in a pile on this farm and he was charged with having hazardous waste. That's where I have a problem with the definition.
Ms Stevens: Ms Willis will answer that question.
Ms Willis: I don't know the exact circumstances, but you cannot deposit waste just anywhere, and this would be construction and demolition waste generically, I assume. There are places to take waste, to landfill sites. Additionally, and I do not know the circumstances, it may be that the material was not inert, that it was not clean construction debris, and it may have been contaminated with some other toxic chemicals or whatever, not knowing where it came from. There could be a number of circumstances.
At a construction site there's a requirement to source-separate the demolition waste between the hierarchy of 3Rs in terms of where and how that material is handled. We like to see that material reused and recycled where possible. Depending on precisely what transpired, there may well have been grounds for an investigation and action.
Mr Fox: The blocks came out of a torn-down motel.
Ms Willis: Again, without knowing, I'd be prepared to speak to you or get more information on it.
Ms Stevens: I really think we should look at that for you. I hear what you're saying, that it doesn't seem to make any sense. What is a block from a motel unit going to be contaminated with? We'd be happy to have a look at it and give you an answer. There has to be an answer to that.
Mr Beaubien: I have a very brief question. On page 122 of the auditor's report it says that his review "of the 200,000 well records submitted to the ministry over the last 12 years, only about 30,000 have been entered." You mentioned in your presentation that you're concerned about the groundwater. In a couple of paragraphs above or in a previous speech it says that 2.8 million people in Ontario depend on groundwater as their water source. Why has the ministry been so slow in maybe having a record of those wells? Is there any particular answer?
1150
Ms Stevens: The ministry was doing a good, efficient job of that until about 1985. In fact, all the records up to 1985, and I think that's about 30 years of records, have been computerized, but a backlog arose over the last 10 years, since 1985, and that is what we are trying to address now. By the way, it's not that people haven't been able to access those records. They're accessed every week but it's very inefficient at the moment. We have people going through filing boxes.
Mr Beaubien: So it's a procedural problem, more or less, that you have.
Ms Stevens: Yes. We've tried the last number of months in-house to catch this up ourselves. Some progress is being made but not enough. Frankly, I think it's the kind of thing we just have to blitz, put a team on it and get the data entry done, and that's what we're going to do. We were trying to do it in-house, having negotiations with an outside organization involved in wells that is interested in taking this over. I think those discussions are taking too long and that we should continue those discussions but meanwhile blitz this updating of data.
Mrs Elliott: Along with the groundwater, I know the minister made a speech this summer about the interest in and concern for improved emphasis on groundwater protection. I'm just curious as to what strategies the ministry is moving in beyond improving the database etc. For instance, the University of Waterloo has a groundwater institute, I believe. What partnerships are being developed? This is a project that has a lot of potential partners out there.
Ms Stevens: I'll ask Ivy to expand on this, but first we're getting our act together within government. A number of ministries are involved in groundwater protection, not only our ministry but the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of Agriculture. The first thing we're doing is reviewing the policies and processes in these ministries. Also we've been working with the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition. They've been one of the partners.
As we get our act together we need to expand with organizations like you've mentioned to see how we're going to proceed from here. It's this work that we hope to be able to bring to the minister in March 1997.
Mr Crozier: Back to vehicle emissions. The Globe and Mail had an article on October 2. Part of that article was not directly quoted by the minister, but it was reported that if we get to this vehicle emissions program, the test itself would be performed at licensed garages rather than government facilities, and the charge for performing the evaluation would have to be reasonable.
My gut feeling is that if it is done at licensed garages, and if in some cases the cost for bringing the vehicle under the regulation might be excessive, there may be an occasion when the garage will give a certificate when it shouldn't be given. Is there anything, as part of the review of this program, where the government either randomly tests vehicles itself and/or somehow tests that all licensed establishments are abiding by the law?
Ms Stevens: I think a number of people have the concern you've just raised. What's going to be important is to look at options for people, where you would choose to have your vehicle tested, whether you wanted to take it to your corner garage or to an independent testing station, be that government-owned or private-sector-owned and run.
Mr Crozier: I just raised that because I'm sure in your review of it those kinds of doubts creep in. I would hope it's the case that we can be sure the standards are applied rigidly and evenly and that there's no sidestepping of them.
Ms Stevens: I appreciate the point you're making.
Mr Crozier: One last thing: the trans-border problem down my way towards the Windsor-Detroit area. I sometimes enjoy just going up alone and flying around the county, and whenever I come back into Windsor airport I see that orange haze hanging over the skyline, much of it coming from Detroit, from Zug Island. In fact, one of my colleagues, Sandra Pupatello, raised this question in her debate in the Legislature last night where Jim Bradley, when he was environment minister, met with the mayor of Detroit. I can't recount that for us today because we don't have time, but it was a very interesting and colourful meeting.
What can we do as a province, and do we have to have the feds' cooperation, to try and get some sort of response, some sort of cooperation from the United States?
Ms Stevens: I think we have to, and do, and will work with our federal colleagues, but I think we have to be more aggressive. My minister strongly thinks that. Sure, he'll work with Minister Marchi, but he's going to get on with it too in dealing directly with the governors of the various states bordering us.
Mr Crozier: What can we do? Can we take them to court? In other words, if the United States doesn't cooperate, and the southwest winds are prevailing down my way and you can see that stuff coming across, is court one way, like an international court or a US court?
The Vice-Chair: Dispatch our navy.
Mr Crozier: Dispatch our navy, that's right. Get those boats down there.
Ms Stevens: If they were violating the standards set in their country, yes. Ivy referred earlier to the different standards they have there, and that's an area we've been focusing on in various forums to try to persuade them to bring their standard in line with ours, to a more rigorous standard.
Mr Crozier: It's not an easy task ahead, in all probability.
Ms Stevens: It's definitely a challenge. No doubt about it.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. In the next meeting we will be concentrating on drinking water and sewage treatment plants, chapter 4, if I'm not mistaken. Because there has been a change in our schedule, we thought we would have you back on January 23 to deal with chapter 4 in the 1994 auditor's report, just a follow-up to that.
Ms Stevens: Mr Chair, I'm sorry, but I thought we were here to address both those chapters today. In fact, my remarks addressed both those chapters, as did a number of questions and answers today.
The Vice-Chair: Our intention was to have more of a detailed briefing and some questions relating to chapter 4.
Mr Gilchrist: The government has no further questions.
The Vice-Chair: On chapter 4? It's really the wish of the committee. If you feel that the questions answered by all members are sufficient to cover those areas, there is no compulsion to have them back if you don't wish to have them back. It's really your prerogative. The government side has basically dealt with that area, and it's really up to the majority here.
Mr Pouliot: Our party is satisfied with your answers and we thank you.
The Vice-Chair: So what we'll do is, if there's unanimous consent, as we accepted the subcommittee's report to have them back on the 23rd, we'll just waive the 23rd meeting dealing with those areas. So moved by Mr Crozier. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
The auditor just has one question he would like to get cleared up before you leave.
Mr Peters: If I may, just to help the committee write the report: On page 2 of your presentation you refer to the fact that there will be 282 new standards developed by 1999. Up above you indicate that the ministry and my office were in agreement that the standards for drinking water, soil and sediments are up to date. In the next paragraph you refer to 73 new standards, which you already referred to, I believe, in response to our recommendation.
Would it be right, or could you possibly help the committee in writing the report, to say why 209 of the 282 standards are therefore in the drinking water, soil and sediments area, if they're up to date, and what the priorities were on which this decision was based, how they were posted? It's not for an answer right now, but to help the committee correlate the two factors it would be helpful.
Ms Stevens: We can certainly share the three-year plan of the 282 standards, which of course are not only air standards; there would be water standards, soil standards, because of course there's constant revision, updating. Is that what you're asking for?
Mr Peters: Yes, the analysis might be helpful to the researcher in writing the report.
Ms Stevens: Okay. We'll provide the three-year plan.
Mr Fox: I think we should have an updated copy of those standards. We can review them and then we could decide whether we'd like to have this ministry back again.
The Vice-Chair: Are you talking specifically about the water standards, Mr Fox, or all the standards that are changing?
Mr Fox: All 282 standards.
The Vice-Chair: Okay. In your response to the auditor, you could essentially give us an overview of the changes in the 282 standards and the rationale for changing them, not something that goes into great detail but just to give us an indication of the changes and the new benchmarks. I think that's what we're looking for.
Ms Stevens: Maybe I should make it clear that the 282 standards in the plan are standards we are proposing, over the next three years, to revise or create a standard for. We haven't done it yet.
This is the plan that's been put out there. But we can give you that and an indication of why we're recommending those 282.
The Vice-Chair: Yes. I think that's what we're looking for, just so we know the direction the ministry is going in terms of the new standards.
Ms Stevens: Would you like us to provide that through the auditor or directly to you, Mr Chair?
The Vice-Chair: Through the committee secretary, so that when we write our final report we can take that into consideration and maybe ask for more information, more clarification.
Ms Stevens: We will. Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned at 1202.