CONTENTS
Tuesday 20 October 1992
Ministry of the Environment
Hon Ruth Grier, minister
André Castel, assistant deputy minister, corporate resources
Gerry Ronan, assistant deputy minister, environmental sciences and standards
Ed Piché, director, air resources branch
Drew Blackwell, assistant deputy minister, waste reduction office
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
*Chair / Président: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
Bisson, Giles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)
*Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC)
*Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)
Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)
O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND)
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND)
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND) for Mr Ferguson
*Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Bisson
*Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND) for Mr Perruzza
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffier: Decker, Todd
The committee met at 1638 in committee room 2.
MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT
The Chair (Mr Cameron Jackson): I'd like to call to order the standing committee on estimates. We've been assigned seven and a half hours by the House and, according to our records, we have five hours and 40 minutes remaining. When the committee last met, the minister had completed her opening comments and the two critics had completed and used the time they required. According to our standing orders, the minister has six minutes remaining for her response. Madam Minister, please proceed.
Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): Thank you. In the opening session I gave a very lengthy presentation about the underpinnings and philosophical and policy approaches of our ministry. My critics in their comments were kind enough to list a long series of issues they felt they wanted to have questions answered about. Essentially what we have done today is bring ministry officials from a variety of different regions and sections of the ministry who can respond to any particular aspect, so it seems to me that perhaps instead of repeating much of what I said the first time or me being the one to answer the questions -- and I suspect that you also have a list of those topics -- it might be more useful if I merely responded to the questions as they were re-posed, or identified for members what they had posed.
I know both Mr McClelland and Mr Cousens had raised the issues of enforcement and how that was handled within the ministry, as well as of course the waste management and the whole raft of other issues, most of which I had also mentioned in my opening remarks. I'm essentially in your hands as to how you wish to proceed to provide answers to the questions they posed in their comments.
The Chair: Minister, you have four and a half minutes left to use any way you wish in the form of a response. The specifics of the questions raised can be dealt with during the course of the full time. We'll be ordering up our business after those four and a half minutes, so you can --
Hon Mrs Grier: I don't think in four and a half minutes I can respond to all of the questions, so why don't we take it that I've had my four and a half minutes and get on with responding to the members.
The Chair: Very good. At this point then I'll call upon the committee to make some decisions -- well, two announcements and a decision.
The first announcement is, if there are any written questions you wish to submit through the Chair to the minister and her staff, we'd be pleased to receive those. They are always helpful to the process and are helpful to the staff in their efforts at getting answers, since this committee will be called upon to meet next week as well. So that is helpful. To any of the critics or any of the members who wish questions to be submitted in writing, please direct them through the Chair as quickly as possible.
The second is any requests for attendees. I understand from Hansard that Mr Cousens mentioned several, and certainly the committee wishes to hear from Jon Grant of the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy, Dr Chant at the Ontario Waste Management Corp, the OWMC, and Terk Bayly of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. These three clearly fall within the estimates that are currently before us. Mr Cousens's request is to have Erv McIntyre from the Interim Waste Authority, but I am advised that is from the Office for the Greater Toronto Area, which, although it is this minister's responsibility, is not in her capacity in these estimates of Environment.
I need further clarification for the record with respect to James MacLaren, the Ontario water services secretariat. I understand that is funded by several ministries. Could someone clarify for the record whether or not Ministry of the Environment funding does flow to this secretariat?
Hon Mrs Grier: Perhaps I could ask André Castel, the deputy minister, to respond to that.
Mr André Castel: Mr MacLaren is funded by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and we do not fund him under the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I therefore have only three individuals in the form of requests, and I would certainly ask that the appropriate contacts be made to determine if they can attend on either Wednesday, October 21, or Tuesday, October 27.
The final matter is ordering up how members wish to proceed with these estimates, whether you wish to go by vote, by rotation. I am in your hands. I'll entertain a very brief discussion on that.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): I'm suggesting that we go by time, not by votes, and that we begin the questioning today with the official opposition and then move to the New Democrats, so we divide the time remaining in half. I don't think Mr Carr has any objection to beginning the Progressive Conservative caucus questioning tomorrow.
The Chair: That would be helpful. Any other comment? If not, I'll be guided by that suggestion. Mr McClelland?
Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Just a point of clarification in terms of cutting remaining time in half. Are we going to seek to balance this --
The Chair: We're required to -- thank you, Mr McClelland. I'm sorry for interrupting you. We must adjourn at 6 o'clock. We therefore have an hour and 15 minutes. We will divide that time, it's been suggested, if that's agreeable. Would you like a 40-minute period now?
Mr McClelland: We'll have it however it unfolds, whether it be 40 minutes in one shot --
The Chair: I'm in your hands as to when I take the floor away from you. Would you like half an hour, 40 minutes, 20 minutes? Just give me a figure and we'll work with that.
Mr McClelland: We'll start with the --
The Chair: Twenty minutes?
Mr McClelland: That seems reasonable. I was going to say half an hour and just save 10 minutes for wrapup. Why don't we do that? Half an hour and then we'll start the wrapup. Is that okay?
The Chair: That's fine. Are there any other matters for the committee? Then we'll proceed. Mr McClelland, please begin. Thirty minutes.
Mr McClelland: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'm sure you'll advise me as we approach that 30-minute time period.
Minister, I wanted to begin by asking a couple of questions with respect to the clean air program. I looked back with some interest to 8 November 1989 Hansard and some questions you put to the then minister. You asked some very specific, hard-hitting questions, if you don't mind me saying so, with respect to the development of the clean air program, specifically regulation 308.
The questions you put to the then minister were basically these: "You've spent a lot of time studying, you've talked about this. Where's the program? Where's the regulation, and when are we going to see it?"
I'd like to put those questions to you at this time as well. Specifically, what is the status of development of regulation 308, pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act? Do you have a revised timetable? Where are we at in that matter?
Hon Mrs Grier: Let me start by reminding the member that the clean air program had, as he indicated, been prepared by Mr Bradley and was ready for consultation when I became the minister. One of the early things I did was to put that whole clean air program, as devised by my predecessor, out for public consultation. That was quite extensive. I'm not sure I can remember for how long it went on, but we had a lengthy period of public consultation.
Essentially what we heard was a great deal of criticism of the program. We heard from environmental groups that it wasn't going to be effective enough. We heard from industry that it was very technically directed and wasn't really going to address the major problem, that it was going to be somewhat of the same construction as MISA, where you did a lot of data gathering and then had to develop regulations to take advantage of that.
As I'm sure we will also discuss before this committee session is over, that whole approach has proven to be slow, labour-intensive and resource-intensive, and has perhaps not been most strategically directed to where the major problems are. So after getting back the comments on the clean air program, I directed the ministry to see if we could take another approach and develop an air management strategy that would provide a more integrated approach to addressing the major environmental issues affecting air -- the whole question of ozone depletion, global warming, ground-level ozone, acid rain, air toxics, visibility and odour -- and begin to see what and where the major problems were and what we could do about them; also taking into account my desire to move to a pollution prevention approach and, instead of just controlling emissions as the clean air program had been, look at how we could get to preventing those emissions in the first place by the kind of partnership agreements and approaches of bans and phase-outs and all the other aspects of pollution prevention that I know the member is aware of.
Our approach has been to look at where we can get the most effective reductions for whatever resources we're putting into clean air. That has been the basis of the program. I don't know who you would like me to ask to expand on the technology. Is it Mr Ronan, who is the ADM of that section?
Mr McClelland: May I ask a question while Mr Ronan is coming? I just want to put this in context. My understanding is -- and correct me if I'm wrong; I'm sure Mr Ronan will be able to help us -- that the clean air program was funded or estimated at somewhere in the order of $10 million. It was a $10-million program; correct me if I'm wrong in terms of my numbers. I'd be interesting in knowing what comparable resources have been shifted to your air management strategy, and a clarification if, in point of fact, the strategy is more or less guidelines as opposed to regulations which would have some enforceability.
I guess some people would describe it as almost a recipe book, if you will, saying to industries and the producers of air pollutants, "Here's how you can go about eliminating and reducing emissions." Rather than moving from an approach of enforceable regulations, you have effectively a recipe book of how to do this more effectively. The question that flows from that is, what resources were being devoted towards the production of regulation 308? What comparable resources are now being invested in terms of the development of the air management strategy?
Hon Mrs Grier: Before Mr Ronan begins, can I correct the impression left by that question? In fact, the strategy is an overall and very broad approach to air management within which there are a number, or will be a number, of specific programs, some of which may in fact involve regulations. The clean air program is simply looking at a revision of 308. What we're looking at are bans and phase-outs, emission reduction, localized -- I'm sure Mr Ronan's going to talk about the Windsor corridor and the health effect studies we're doing there. So there are a number of components of the strategy. To say that it is not a regulatory approach is, I think, an inappropriate description of it. I'm sure Mr Ronan can be more specific.
1650
Mr Gerry Ronan: Yes. I just want to reinforce the earlier statement of the minister that when we put the CAP, the clean air program, out for public consultation for a six-month period, we did get back lots of submissions from industry, environmentalists etc, and there were concerns from both groups.
Industry was quite concerned that it was extremely complex in design, that some of the elements of the program in terms of the models that were being indicated as a requirement, to understand where the chemicals were being generated and their impact on the environment, were overly complex and costly, and that to apply the program as it was put out for review would have resulted in a multiplicity of regulations, focused on a large number of chemicals. It would have been very difficult to enforce, would have required literally hundreds of new government resources in terms of this enforcement requirement, and for the sectors that would have to obey the regulation, would have been prohibitive in terms of cost.
The environmental community also was very critical of the design in that it just focused on toxics but was not really taking into consideration the emerging issues, the global issues, such as the stratospheric ozone depletion; it had no specific mention of that concern. Global warming was not included, nor the whole phenomenon of indoor air.
There's a range of key environmental issues that it did not address, so based on all this commentary and very constructive criticism, we took all that material back in. We got a direction from the minister, of course, to try -- as well as expressing the issues as part of this consultation -- to put a pollution prevention template on what we're doing, and by that is meant trying to look at the front end of all these processes, trying to consider how you might minimize the generation of these pollutants so you wouldn't have costly end-of-pipe treatment technologies.
That was the charge we were given, and also to have a kind of multimedia approach, and by that I mean to make sure that when you're trying to stop it going out the stack, you don't put it on the land or you don't put it out through the water column. So you have that as a principle on how you design the program.
We also were challenged by industry, because we are constantly consulting with it on the clean air issues. How do you integrate all these issues? What relationship? What do you want us to do first? Do you want us to act in global warming, or do you want us to act on NOx/VOCs in terms of urban smog, or do you want the air toxins, do you want benzine out of the air? What is the cost? What's the equity in terms of our investment scenario? That was the very challenging kind of serious questions we were asked to also address in terms of how this new clean air strategy would be designed.
We set up an interministerial assistant deputy minister committee with the ministries of Energy; Treasury; Industry, Trade and Technology; Natural Resources and Housing, and of course led by MOE, trying to make sure that we would get a total kind of perspective on corporate Ontario in terms of how these would impact on all the needs of these ministries in terms of also trying to make sure that the companies being affected would not have too costly and prohibitive regulatory initiatives that would, in their estimate, harm them in terms of their investment scenario.
We've been doing that, trying to use all these elements and design the programs, but we haven't been trying to develop one big bang, one massive program.
We have been moving ahead in doing things. For instance, we have been doing a study in Windsor where we have brought together Environment Canada, ourselves as a lead agency, the Ministry of Health, the local polluters, if you will, or the industry segment discharging to the environment, the labour unions, some of the NGOs and the environmentalists. So we have a kind of large composite group of the whole community looking at what exactly is happening in this major urban centre.
What we're trying to do is develop a whole prototype of how you would address major key pollution centres in the province, the major urban centres where there's a big industrial base, where there's transboundary pollution, and factor in all these concerns in terms of measurement.
In this particular study we have a number of volunteers going around trying to monitor what intake of particular chemicals they will undergo if they're driving their car in the city traffic, if they're at home etc, so we can quantify what the background level of some of these contaminants are and what, in terms of the indoor air envelope, is a contributory factor and try to factor that knowledge into the strategy we're going to develop when we go back to the major generators and ask them to remediate or to abate the particular loadings our analysis is going to provide.
We have the latest instrumentation, our TAGA units -- that's the trace atmospheric gas analysers; state-of-the-art measurement systems -- down in that particular community to make sure we have a very sound database and that it's current.
We have the support of all the industries and we're also getting information from across the border, from the American side, because many of the problems are transboundary in nature. In fact, some of the pollutants, 50% to 60%, come transboundary. We're factoring all that into this kind of Windsor study which we see as the prototype of what we're going to be doing from a grass-roots community base right throughout the whole province.
We hope by 1993, the coming year, to have tabled a very substantive report on the findings and recommendations about the remedial actions that on a community basis different companies are willing to undertake to, I guess, correct any problems the study pinpoints. That prototype is going to be used, we hope, in other centres such as Hamilton, Metro Toronto, Ottawa etc. There's a range of possibilities.
Why I mention this is that the clean air strategy hasn't stopped. We're actually moving in a very, I believe, constructive and kind of community-thrust basis. We're getting very good, useful current information. We have the industry at the table with us. We haven't got the regulatory stick over them. It's a voluntary thing and it's proving a very effective formula for trying to address very fundamental questions about air in a partnership kind of mode.
There are other things we've been doing also, such as the NOx/VOCs, this urban smog. We have been, on a voluntary basis, meeting with all the primary generators in the Windsor-Quebec corridor, trying to get their commitment to provincial and national strategy and we're having, we believe, a kind of success story. Many of the major generators have indicated a willingness to contribute and to make voluntary cutbacks.
We've had a public consultation session with them and that, to my mind, is another kind of minor triumph in terms of it's a voluntary mode. What we're trying to do, even though we have the regulatory stick behind our back, as it were -- it's kind of an incipient thing that, if necessary, the regulatory weapon may have to be shown, taken from its sheath, but not necessarily, if we can get voluntary cooperation, if we can give the companies the opportunity to say: "All right, here's the challenge, but we will look at our operation. We will do the innovative things. We don't want the kind of a hammer regulation that perhaps misses the mark because it's too generic, too broad."
1700
The Chair: Mr Ronan, perhaps you could come up for some fresh air and just give us a second here. I think Mr McClelland has a few questions.
Mr Ronan: So far, half our time is gone.
The Chair: Yes. I don't wish to be rude, but it's helpful if Mr McClelland can have an opportunity to get some questions in.
Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Chair, just before you move, though, I'm apt to think that when Gerry, Mr Ronan, was outlining the ministries involved in the interministerial committee, he left out the Ministry of Transportation. If you didn't, forgive me, but if you did, I want to make sure that it's on the record, because that's important.
I also wanted to add, because I know how attached Mr McClelland is to regulation 308, that a workshop with respect to consultations around and changes to 308 is part of the strategy and is going to be held early in 1993.
Mr McClelland: I won't comment on your allusion to that, Minister. The fact of the matter is that it's a point of departure for a question, and I won't read anything into your comment on my attachment to 308.
I think it's very instructive and useful, and I appreciate your comment, sir.
One of the things that I'd like -- perhaps the minister could answer -- is a relative measure of the resources, both in terms of personnel and financial resources of the ministry, that are now being committed to the air management strategy. If you could, is that less, is it more, is it the same, are we holding our own in terms of the personnel and financial resources allocated that were being allocated to the clean air program, which is now being incorporated as part and parcel of your overall strategy?
By the way, I might add parenthetically that the undertaking of your leadership is significant and we wish you well on that. It's a major undertaking and I'd like to get a handle, if we could, on a relative comparison of resources available to you to take on the task that you've taken on.
Mr Ronan: If you have it within your power to send more resources, I would be delighted, but the reality is that there have been some across-the-board cuts within government in terms of programs, and everybody has kind of their fair share. We've given at home and at the bank, so we have some little diminution of our resources, but that's the whole ministry.
Mr McClelland: I see. But my question, sir, is this, if you will -- and I'm sorry, but we have very little time here. I want to get to this point fairly succinctly if we can. In terms of the comparable amounts that were devoted to the clean air program relative to the funding and staff resources that are now devoted to the air management strategy, are we in harmony, is that diminished in its overall -- I see that Andre is coming forward to help us out with that.
Hon Ms Grier: Mr Castel can answer that.
Mr Castel: The resources allocated to regulation 308 specifically have not changed; they're exactly $1,051,000, and they've always been $1,051,000. There was a staff of 11 allocated to this activity. So in terms of regulation 308, it's the same resources and they have not changed.
Mr McClelland: That's part and parcel now of the overall budget?
Mr Castel: That's part of the overall budget of the air resources activity.
Mr McClelland: Relative to air resources -- and I know these things sometimes have a pretty thin thread to try and tie them in -- we're talking in the general area of air resources and we have a number to get through. There are a couple of questions I'd like to ask.
You brought up, sort of by implication if not specifically, and I wonder if the minister or one of the ministry personnel could comment on our timetable and where we are in terms of the ban on flexible foam and rigid foam insulation with respect to CFCs. You mentioned that as part of the comprehensive program, and I'd like a quick comment on that if we could, and I try to emphasize relatively quickly. In terms of monitoring the results of the 1990 regulations on CFC reduction, I'd like to know what that is telling us and where we are in terms of advancing CFC recycling. I'm sure the minister may want to address those things.
Again, I'll get these on the table, because we are very limited in terms of time. One of the things that impacts air quality, of course, is emission of gases from landfill sites. Minister, you may want to respond to this. I'd like to know what studies the ministry is relying on to verify air quality in the presence of acid gases and unburned organic vapours being emitted from landfill sites in Ontario, and what studies or analyses are we doing in that area with respect to the quality of our air in the province of Ontario.
Hon Mrs Grier: On the CFCs, let me respond that I think we are certainly on target, if not having advanced the target. Perhaps Mr Ronan can add to that, but we moved forward. A lot of these are the targets that are set by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment; the target for phasing out of at least one aspect of this was advanced by all the ministers.
Mr Ronan: With respect to the flexible foam, to phase that out is by the end of 1993, so that's the schedule. We've had it all sequential, phased out by the users, and by the end of 1993 CFC usage in flexible foam will have been discontinued.
With respect to refrigerants, we have met with all the stakeholders of that sector. We've just had a whole consultation session with them in September, and right now we're exploring with them to try to put together a program for the capture of these refrigerants that are in stationary segments in terms of homes and large complexes.
With respect to mobile refrigerants in automobiles etc, we have set up a whole regulatory requirement for the collection and capture, and that is in place.
We are being proactive in trying to now address the stationary sources in the refrigeration segment. We estimate that since we have started in 1988, in terms of trying to reduce the amount of CFCs generated in Ontario, by the end of 1993 we will have about 50% to 55% reduction in the uses.
We have focused on the flexible foam area as being one of the major use segments, and that's where the thrust of our problem has been. Now we're going to go after this stationary source as the second phase of our strategy in terms of reducing the escape of the CFCs to the environment.
We're working with the federal government in terms of the Montreal protocol. We are on their committees. Right this week in fact there is another round of looking at the contents of the Montreal protocol and considering the strategies of the major countries in the world, where they've gone to accelerate the phase-out even further. That is, as I said, the federal government leading that particular negotiation right now.
I think we've been very proactive and one of the first provinces to move in this area. We've had good success to date and we intend now to just keep on moving forward so that we have as many feasible controls in place as possible.
Mr McClelland: Thank you. We could possibly spend all our time in this process in talking about air programs. It's one of the restrictions we all operate on. I thank you for giving us a bit of insight, sir, into what you are doing with your work in the ministry.
Perhaps before we move on to another broad area --
Hon Mrs Grier: Can I just end that by saying that after all that, there is in fact a trend showing a slight decline over 10 years in what is the situation with respect to air pollution in the province. I think we have some distance to go, but there are some results beginning to be shown. That's just an important note to conclude the discussion on.
Mr McClelland: Maybe we concluded a bit prematurely. I was just going to say before we move on to another broad area of discussion, if you will, I wonder if my colleague had an answer to any questions. Thank you, sir.
Minister, I want to kind of move around, I guess, through this smorgasbord, the buffet of items we could talk about.
Hon Mrs Grier: There are always more items on my agenda than there is ever time to talk about, so I can sympathize.
Mr McClelland: Yes, touch briefly on some of the water resources issues, and we may have time to come back to some of the other areas.
Actually, I want to ask you one very specific question. It relates to the environmental assessment process. Then we can perhaps get into some more generic ones. There might be somebody on ministry staff who could advise us later, if not today, because of the specific nature of the question. I want to deal with that up front so that your staff can appropriately have time to respond tomorrow or at some other time they're able to have the information available.
York region, Musselman's Lake: There's an environmental assessment with respect to the community sewage handling system. It's been ongoing for some time. There are concerns about people in that area with respect to the status and what is taking place. Can you give us an indication of where we are in terms of the EA process, your timetable with respect to potential approval and where we actually are now? We may not have that information available at the present time. If not, I'll just leave it as a question for the record in the future.
1710
Hon Mrs Grier: I'm not sure that we can answer that specifically. I'm certainly aware of difficulties in Musselman's Lake and the need for treatment. I was not, I confess, aware that an EA was part of the issue, but I suspect we can certainly find out information about that and come back with the answer tomorrow.
Mr McClelland: Anything that could update us on that, I think, would be useful, and there will be some questions that will flow specifically from that with respect to the EA process and so on.
Minister, I'm wondering about the water resources question generally and your topic of many questions, as I review Hansard of years past, our favourite topic of MISA. I'm wondering where we're at with respect to your schedule and the time lines to move towards achieving your government's promise and commitment of zero discharge of all toxic chemicals into the air and water by the year 2000.
That was the position of your government and you as opposition critic; it was certainly part of the 1990 campaign. I think I'm correct when I say you have reaffirmed that commitment since being sworn in as minister a couple of years ago. Can you provide us with any dates or targets that you intend to adhere to and give some assurance to the public in terms of moving towards this zero discharge in the year 2000?
Hon Mrs Grier: Let me make the distinction between MISA, which is an element in our pollution prevention water approach, and the zero discharge. Of course in some of the sectors, specific regulations that are MISA -- because MISA is essentially regulations dealing with nine sectors. Our pollution prevention approach, in zero discharge, we see as applying across the board.
When I talk about the bans and phase-outs of persistent bio-accumulative toxics, that's part of our air management strategy too, and how can we integrate and how can we make sure that by saying you can't discharge it into water, they don't just find a way, because it's still in use, of it being discharged into air or into waste.
The first component of that was to do the scientific work and to identify those most toxic contaminants that we thought were candidates for bans or phase-outs. While that work was ongoing, the committee that I think I referred to in my opening remarks, New Directions, had come together, environmentalists and industry looking at persistent toxic contaminants.
They came to the conclusion that in fact bans and phase-outs were the way to go and made a presentation to myself and to the federal minister. Environment Canada agreed to set up a committee that had representation from our ministry, from the New Directions group and Environment Canada to look at how we can ban and phase out some of these chemicals. So we have shared our scientific information with them.
The consultation and the development of the socioeconomic assessment of the effect, the economic dislocation, and whether or not there are substitutes for these, we think is better done on a national basis. That's why we are anxious that that happen nationally. We have made it very clear to Environment Canada that if that moves too slowly -- we have a target of 2000, a target that certainly the New Directions and I think other groups have agreed to, and we can't wait for ever. But at this point, our scientific work has been shared with them, and that ARETS committee is meeting.
As part of MISA of course, there are some of those chemicals that showed up in the monitoring. Looking at ways to get zero discharge of them has been part of the challenge of trying to put a pollution prevention face on MISA, which originally was an end-of-the-pipe control program. Of course, the one on which there is a great deal of public attention is in the pulp and paper sector and the whole question of AOX, absorbable organic halides. That is one that we have not yet resolved, and we are consulting with the industry.
You asked for the timetable for the MISA regulations. As I'm sure you know, the petroleum reg was released for public review earlier this fall. Pulp and paper is the next one, and my target would be that we would have that out early in the new year, if not before. After that, I think, is likely to come metal casting and then metal mining.
The monitoring was all phased in at different times and ended at different times. I think the monitoring report for electric power, for example, isn't in yet, and I think we've just got the organic or inorganic. That monitoring was just ending this month. It took a much longer time to do the monitoring and to report on the monitoring than I think anybody had envisaged in 1986.
Mr McClelland: You mentioned that you expect pulp and paper regs to be forthcoming in the early new year. Do you anticipate that those regs will be consistent with your personal commitment to the zero discharge of organochlorines? That was your position. I wonder if it is and if you see any way of being able to achieve that in the early new year.
Hon Mrs Grier: That is certainly my objective. How that occurs, over what time frame and what form the mechanisms take are all consultations that we're having with the industry. I've certainly heard from Mrs McLeod expressing her concern that we not impose too onerous obligations on the industry. That's certainly the industry's position. We're struggling to fulfil our objective of seeking the bans and phase-outs of those specific chemicals.
Mr McClelland: So it is still your personal commitment to have zero discharge?
Hon Mrs Grier: I'm saying that is my goal and objective as it has been, and in what form we can translate that into action is part of the consultation we are undergoing.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr McClelland.
Mr McClelland: Mr Chairman, just so I know where we're going from here, we'll have 10 minutes at the end of today? Is that correct?
The Chair: About seven minutes, yes.
Mr McClelland: And then?
The Chair: Do you wish to take your additional seven minutes now?
Mr McClelland: No, we'll wait. I just wanted to have a sense of what we had left.
Mr Lessard: Madam Minister, I want to welcome you to the estimates hearing process for the Ministry of the Environment once again and welcome members of your staff as well. I want to thank you for your opening remarks.
I have a number of questions with respect to your opening remarks. However, there's one that is of a local concern to myself and that I asked the last time you were here. That was about the case involving the Detroit incinerator. That's one that was probably raised in the estimates procedure even before we got here.
I know that you've attended in court in Detroit to give evidence with respect to that case and I know as well that recent reports in the Windsor Star indicate that the work is taking place with respect to the installation of scrubbers on the incinerator in Detroit. One of the fears I, and I think other people in the Windsor community, have is that by the time this lawsuit finally is resolved the pollution control devices might already be installed on the incinerator. I wonder whether you can give us some idea as to when and if or how that case may be resolved.
Hon Mrs Grier: Certainly we have somebody here who's taken it blow by blow. I'm sure Mr Piché from my resources branch can talk about the timing. Let me begin, though, by reminding members of the committee that this was a lawsuit initiated by my predecessor, Jim Bradley, and one in which I as his opposition critic heartily concurred at the time. The objective was to make sure that this incinerator, which was even then under construction, was equipped with state-of-the-art equipment.
What has happened is that as a result of our intervention I think we've played a very significant role in ensuring that the incinerator is in fact retrofitted to what we had defined after years of discussion as being state of the art. It has taken so long that I suspect your conclusion is correct and the retrofitting will have been completed before the lawsuit has, but perhaps Mr Piché can respond to the timing at this stage.
Mr Ed Piché: Committee members, the court is scheduled to resume hearing of the case in December of this year. I think the minister's statement was a very modest one. We have in writing from appropriate authorities in the state of Michigan that there is no question that Ontario's intervention has essentially changed the law in the state of Michigan, much to the chagrin of many of the state legislators therein.
1720
I think it's a reasonable assumption, but it is an assumption, that the installation will be operating with state-of-the-art technology before the court case is completed. Nevertheless, I think that is in fact a reasonable assumption.
It's scheduled to begin in December. I believe there are two witnesses remaining to be heard and then the judge can take whatever amount of time she so wishes to decide on the case, and then of course there can be appeals. It could go on for some considerable period of time. So yes, I think the technology will be functional before --
Hon Mrs Grier: And what's the timetable for the retrofit?
Mr Piché: I believe the first unit will be operational some time in 1993, Minister, and the subsequent one about a year to 18 months after that.
Mr Lessard: So in the event that the retrofit takes place and we're satisfied that it's up and running and it's appropriate equipment, do we have a way we can --
Hon Mrs Grier: Exit?
Mr Lessard: Yes, sort of stop our continued legal involvement?
Hon Mrs Grier: I asked that when I saw the first lawyers' bill, and it's never that easy.
The Chair: One at a time. It's helpful for Hansard. I can hear you, but Hansard has trouble recording it that way.
Mr Piché: I'm sorry, I don't understand. Is that directed to the minister or to myself?
Hon Mrs Grier: I think the question is, do we end the legal process because we've achieved the objectives, and my understanding is that most of our expenditure with respect to this case has already been made. For the final argument, one of the elements is going to be, I think still, enforcement of whatever decisions in certificates of approval so they're there for all time and can't be changed. Our assessment is that there is still value in continuing with the action and there may not even be a legal way of withdrawing at this point.
Mr Piché: I guess I would defer the legalities to our legal counsel. In terms of the rationale of the case, I think we had indicated at the beginning that we wanted to stay the course on the case. There was the mention of the case that there was a requirement on mercury, and even to date they have not been able to be in compliance with that, so one of the contentions of the case was that they would stop operating the facility until such time as the control technology was in place.
Again, while I deem that we have been successful in cajoling them, if you will -- that's a kind way to say it -- into putting in the state-of-the-art technology, nevertheless the facility is operating out of compliance at this time.
Mr Lessard: It's good to hear at least that we're having some influence on the standards for municipal waste incinerators in the state of Michigan. I think that's been a worthwhile result of the lawsuit in any event.
The other question I have arises from your initial remarks. You were mentioning about looking into lakefill guidelines and the types of materials that can be placed into waterways in Ontario. The reason I ask that question is because in my riding, along the Detroit River, the city is going to be acquiring ownership of a large piece of property. Part of the work that needs to be done with respect to that property is to install breakwalls and probably will involve putting into the Detroit River some sort of fill as part of that process as well. So I wonder, first of all, what possible implications the lakefill guidelines might have on the work we might need to do in the city of Windsor.
Hon Mrs Grier: I'm not familiar with that specific project, and I'm sure Mr Ronan will want to talk about the lakefill guidelines, but let me just begin by saying that, as members may know, that is very much an interest of mine, as a representative of a waterfront community where extensive lakefilling has occurred, my concerns with lakefilling being not just the quality of the material that was dumped but the changes in currents and water patterns that occurred as a result of lakefilling.
In the greater Toronto area, the work of the royal commission headed by David Crombie has been very helpful in identifying the need and obtaining agreement about the need to be much more careful in the future before we do lakefilling that is significantly a protrusion or a changing of the shoreline. We had a moratorium for quite some time on lakefill projects.
We have also looked at the quality of the fill, and that's where the guidelines which are currently out for public consultation and comment, I think, come in. I'll ask Mr Ronan to comment specifically.
Mr Ronan: Just to amplify a little bit the minister's statement, over the last year we've done intensive scientific work trying to look at background levels of chemicals in soil throughout the whole province so that we could get a profile for all kinds of soils and use as a backdrop, as a context, so when we come to look at any lakefill soils that any group may wish to put into a water environment, this enables us to develop kind of a scientific rationale based on what's a background rural, a background urban, a background industrial. We have a whole data bank now that cost us in excess of $500,000 to acquire and really gives us a very strong scientific basis for any of the decisions.
Also, we have been looking at the sediment because they are kind of in tandem, as the minister mentioned. So we have developed a whole review of the sediment guidelines, and the goal is to make them stringent and state of the art in terms of protecting the biota and the water quality. With these revised sediment guidelines and the guidelines we've developed for lakefill, the ministry has an advisory committee on standards, kind of a third-party-expert group made up of academics and experts in this field.
The minister has sent on to this group, to hold public consultation on, what we have come up with as a kind of offer which would in our opinion represent the best environmental kind of matrix. Now that's going for consultation with all the affected groups, with the people who work in this field, people who have to look at the cost of testing that's part of the whole kind of administrative cost of this major revision in this protective thrust. That's out for public comment, and based on that, they will either revise, modify etc the package that we have and return it to the ministry and then they will come forward as I guess the new regulatory regime in terms of protecting the aquatic environment.
So, in summary, we're going to have a very strong scientific basis for good water protection achieved.
Mr Lessard: And that is separate from what the minister was talking about, changing the configurations of the waterfront and what impact that might have on the environment?
Mr Ronan: They will be all the factors when anybody wishes to put any of this material in any water body. There will be an elaborate series of questions that they must address in terms of their studies and the information that they have to table that impacts on currents and sedimentation and contours. That will be a part of the approval process.
I talked about the actual specific numbers and the quality of the material that's going to be used as the fill, but on top of that there's a whole other series of engineering requirements to make sure there's no detrimental impact on the receiving body of water or the adjacent land.
Hon Mrs Grier: Can I just add one other component of that which is very important to me. We've made the distinction between disposal within a contained area and open-water filling, because in many of the lakefills that have occurred there weren't very many restrictions. There was no distinction made about what you can put in within somewhere where it was not going to be immediately into the water. So I think what you'll find is that those who wish to dispose of materials through lakefill are going to be subject to very more stringent guidelines, and the need for that project and the design of it is also going to be subject to more stringent review than it has been in the past.
Mr Lessard: So if you were putting this fill in behind a breakwall, there might be different requirements?
Hon Mrs Grier: That's part of the discussion that's ongoing by the Advisory Committee on Environmental Standards and is also part of the whole -- it's not just looking at material that's to be disposed of through lakefill but materials disposal, so that we can have a clearer classification of earth and dry fill for disposal on land as well as in water.
1730
Mr Lessard: I'm sure the city of Windsor is one of the interested parties in that process.
Hon Mrs Grier: Perhaps I may just say for your benefit that the public consultation began on September 10 and continues until January 8, 1993. I'm sure Windsor's aware of that, but you might want to just check whether it has made a submission.
The Chair: Speaking of Windsor, I have a request from Mr Dadamo as well in this cycle. I don't mean to interrupt you; I just wanted to let you know that I have a speakers list from your caucus.
Mr Lessard: Okay, that's fine.
Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I wanted to go back to the Detroit incinerator and ask a question. The dividing line between Mr Lessard's riding and mine is Ouellette Avenue, which takes us down to Dieppe Park and the river, and when the smell would come over from the incinerator we'd share that. This incinerator problem has been floating around for probably about five, six or seven years now in Windsor, and it's become very contentious at times. It sort of slows down some years and then it resurfaces, and now I understand it's going back to the court in December of this year.
I remember some mentioning of some words that had come out of newspaper articles about three or four years ago. There was a word called "scrubbers." I remember that being bandied around was the cost of some $50 million, something like that or even less, to put the scrubbers in. The scrubbers were going to filter a lot of the dirty air, so that instead of its making it out to the environment, it would be contained, I guess.
Maybe I missed the answer that you gave, but I'd like to ask you again, are the scrubbers going to be part of any of this retrofitting that will take place and will the province of Ontario, through the Ministry of the Environment, monitor on a regular basis what will come out of this incinerator? Because ultimately some southeasterly winds will come into the city of Windsor and I suspect we'll have a lot of our constituents complaining.
Mr Piché: Shall I answer that question, Minister?
Hon Mrs Grier: Please do.
Mr Piché: Okay. In the original proposal for the incinerator they were looking at various control technologies. One of the proposed control technologies at the time was so-called "scrubber baghouse." A scrubber's like a shower; it washes out the material. The baghouse is like a filter bag you use in your vacuum cleaner. The expertise Detroit hired decided that this wasn't what was required, that they would use electrostatic precipitators.
I don't know if you have an air cleaner in your home, but it's parallel plates, like the capacitor plates. The air passes through it and they're charged up. All right? Now, capacitor plates, if you can imagine, are not a physical barrier. It's just an invisible field. A lot of people were very unhappy with that. They wanted a physical barrier between the combustion process -- the fire, if you will -- and the air. That's why originally a lot of people got very upset about electrostatic control. They didn't think that was good enough, because it wasn't a physical barrier. Also, from a historical perspective, the difference in cost was $17 million at that time.
Now, you can imagine the chagrin of the Detroit taxpayers because of this facility being retrofitted now with scrubber baghouse. In other words, they took the electrostatic precipitators, they're dismantling them and replacing them with scrubber baghouses at a cost in excess of $200 million. That's why there's a large number of very unhappy taxpayers in the city of Detroit. That's a direct consequence -- we have that in writing -- of our intervention.
Hon Mrs Grier: Can I just add to that? We were talking earlier in my response to Mr McClelland's question about the Windsor air shed study. That is going to provide us with extensive information and data to monitor the ongoing air quality in that area. I don't know why that area was chosen, but I suspect one of the reasons was that the air is bad and we know a lot of it is coming across the border.
I'm glad that as part of that study some of the work is going to be shared with Wayne county, I think. We're working in conjunction with them. We've also put in place an abatement strategy advisory committee, which was formed in February 1992, and which will have a role to play in looking at potential abatement. I think we have put in place the mechanisms to keep an ongoing watch and public awareness of the issue, so that the performance of the incinerator will be closely watched by the public there, which I know has been very concerned for a very long time.
Mr Dadamo: Just one really quick one: Have they ever explained to the ministry, to the government of this province, to anybody, why they would build this incinerator so close to the downtown area of Detroit and so close to another 200,000 people across the border?
Mr Piché: No, sir, they haven't, but from our history of involvement it was quite obvious to us that there was property available to the city at a very modest price, and that was probably the primary consideration.
If I might pick up on the minister's comment, I would add that the city of Windsor -- and this goes back to the Detroit incinerator and the subsequent International Joint Commission Detroit-Windsor air study that I co-chaired and, ultimately, the parent IJC report which was released in February 1992. There are 19 recommendations in here which adopted 11 conclusions and the five recommendations of our earlier study. I can say without any hesitation that Windsor is the most intensively studied and monitored city in all of Canada, and one of only about three cities in all of North America that has as comprehensive and complex an undertaking as we have right now with the so-called First of the Cities of the Nineties study. There's an awful lot of activity going on in the city of Windsor right now.
Mr Dadamo: But you will qualify that by saying that the reason for that is because we have Zug Island, which is on the other side as well; it's been polluting our air for a long time. There's also what's coming across from the other side of La Salle.
Mr Piché: There's a sewage facility over there that combusts sewage material, I think, which causes some problems also. There's a spectrum of sources, including the steel industry, and it is a reasonable conclusion, as I'm sure you have concluded, that a significant percentage of the air quality problems in the city of Windsor are transboundary. It was one of the reasons the city was looked at. Plus, as the minister alluded, there were reasons, and there had been for a considerable number of years citizens in Windsor asking for such an undertaking. So the ministry has responded with the most comprehensive undertaking of its kind in all of North America.
Mr Dadamo: Thank you for keeping a close eye, by the way.
The Chair: So you are able to tell just how much extra effluent is going across Ouellette Avenue, for Mr Lessard's concern.
Mr Piché: Do I have to answer that?
The Chair: I just wondered how intense it was.
Hon Mrs Grier: Let me close off this issue by reminding the members of the committee that in Ontario there will not be any more municipal solid waste incinerators constructed. Certainly our experience with the Windsor one, and the incredible expense of retrofitting to meet new standards, are a justification, among all the others, for that action of our government.
The Chair: Back to Mr Lessard.
Mr Lessard: I know Mr Frankford has a question, but I had one more question related to incineration.
The Chair: I didn't have Mr Frankford recognized yet, so thank you for letting me know that. You've got four minutes left to share with Mr Frankford.
Mr Lessard: Okay. In your initial remarks, you'd talked about incineration of PCBs at Smithville. I didn't know whether incineration of PCBs was really an acceptable way of disposing of them, or is that something that's unique to that one particular area?
Hon Mrs Grier: This was a decision made before I became the minister. I know it was the subject of considerable controversy, to a very stringent assessment that in fact confined that operation to merely the destruction of the PCBs that had been identified in the Smithville area. This was a situation where PCBs had been improperly stored years ago and had penetrated into the limestone and into the bedrock. It's cost us, I think, in excess of $30 million to establish a mobile incinerator there, but the approval for that incinerator was strictly to deal with the excavated material there.
Technology in all these fields is changing at just an incredible rate. I'm no expert, but we keep finding new ways of disposing of hazardous materials. Incineration is one way that is acceptable for PCBs under stringent monitoring and controls; new chemical approaches are being identified. I think you may be right that you look at each instance and decide what is the most appropriate way of disposing of the PCBs in that particular situation. In Smithville, at that point incineration was acceptable. I think it's interesting that, when I've been there and met with the people who are doing it and the community, it has worked very well. There was a lot of concern before it began, but the monitoring has shown that it has in fact been effective and hasn't caused other problems.
1740
When the contract for the firm that was doing the incineration expired and we needed to go back to treasury board to get more money in order to continue this, because they kept finding more material than they'd originally estimated was there, I considered stopping at that point. I met with the community, which was very anxious to see the incineration concluded and very supportive of both the ministry and the consultants who were doing it. In response to that, we continued it. I gather Ms Willis was there a week or so ago. We're almost at the end of the incineration?
The Chair: Hansard will show there was a confirmation from Ms Willis in the audience. Dr Frankford.
Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): To the extent there is any time, I want to get into the area of composting and ask how effective it is and where it's going.
Hon Mrs Grier: We have Drew Blackwell here who, I am sure, can answer that at great length. In my opening remarks, I gave some figures about the number of composters that were now out there and the quantities that were being composted. Of course, the other element is the expansion from home composting into centralized composting. We have approved at this point at least one major centralized composting facility; that's a facility in Guelph, where they're doing a wet-dry separation of waste and will have centralized composting. Perhaps I can ask Drew Blackwell, the ADM in charge of the waste reduction office, to add to my comments.
The Chair: Welcome, Mr Blackwell. You have about two and a half minutes.
Mr Drew Blackwell: I'll limit my comments then to the backyard composting program, if that was the major thrust of the question. To date, the ministry has put about $12 million towards subsidizing the purchase of home composters through municipalities that sponsor the program for their residents. The result of that is that we have distributed over half-a-million composters at this point, and there are commitments made for about 240,000 additional ones.
It's a bit difficult to know exactly the number of households engaged in home composting. We have some surveys that indicate that about 23% of the households respond that they are in fact actively composting. If that's the case, we're quite close to a million households composting, which suggests that quite a large number of people are composting or have been composting previously -- or perhaps that some people exaggerate a bit when asked by the polls. In any case, I think it's safe to say that somewhere over 800,000 households will be composting by the end of this year.
The effect of that is at this point difficult to measure. One of the things we have found is that in the municipalities that have gone forward with the program, it's been surprisingly easy to get about a 20% to 30% participation rate from single-family households. It's far greater than most people initially expected, but the curve of participation does go up very quickly to that level and then starts to taper off.
In response to that, we now have a pilot program under way. So far there are seven communities; there are three more and we're looking for about two more to participate so that we have a good mix of urban, rural, northern and southern communities engaged in efforts to push the number of participating households from around 25% to 60% or above.
Another portion of this pilot program is to do very detailed monitoring of the collection routes in which the home composting program is put in place in this intensive way, to determine the exact effect of home composting on the waste stream. There have been studies done in Pickering and Newcastle to date which give us pretty good data to suggest that a range somewhere between 16% and 32% of the residential waste is in fact being taken care of by the composting. The variance is quite high, because it depends quite a bit on how large the yard is, how much leaf waste is there -- this is an enormous contribution to the waste stream -- and how assiduous the family is in actually using its composting techniques.
From the area in central and south Hastings, there's another study that has been undertaken independently which suggests that in that area, which is a rather more rural area -- larger homes, larger yards and things -- it might be up to 40% that could in fact be taken care of by home composting.
If we take a measure somewhere in the middle of that range, I think what we're looking at right now is that about 200,000 tonnes upwards of waste will be diverted through home composting next year. I'm trying to give the conservative end of the estimate. It could be considerably more than that if we have a large number of people participating, using the high end of the volume from their own waste.
If the pilot programs are successful and we figure out how to roll that out across the province, the potential of home composting becomes quite large indeed. We could be talking of over a million tonnes of waste a year being taken care of by people in the home composting program.
The Chair: Why not use up the approximately two and a half more minutes? That completes your rotation, then I'll allow Mr McClelland the final 10 minutes.
Mr Frankford: Is there any easy indication of how one would double the number of participating households?
Mr Blackwell: The common elements that are under way in these pilot programs included really intensive promotion and distribution; in effect going door to door, knocking on people's doors and telling them about the advantages of home composting, saying: "Here are the different models of composters this municipality is distributing. Which one would you like? It costs $15." In a couple of cases, they're talking about free distribution. That's the case in the Quinte program.
The second element is ongoing support. It's not enough just to have a blitz and distribute the composters. It's important for people to actually learn to compost and get hooked on composting. People do actually do that. They get involved in composting and start talking with each other, form clubs, get going. The major element for that is what we call the master composter program. These are intensive training programs for people to become very knowledgeable about composting. The idea is to have a group of them in the municipality and have them be sort of the resident experts in the neighbourhood on composting; then to make linkages with community organizations, be these church organizations or residents' associations; and most importantly, to get quick effectiveness, horticultural organizations, field naturalists and people who are already interested in gardening.
That combination of effects makes it possible to form what is happening right now in the city of Cornwall, for example, which is a composters' association. The composters' association then becomes a local network promotion that takes advantage of existing community networks as well as environmental groups. Then the tie-in -- and this is a critical one, and in all our pilot programs this is involved -- is municipal staff assigned to work specifically on home composting activities. With that, it's possible then to branch out, because you can't count on the volunteer work to go beyond the home.
When you start talking about moving into three-bin systems, larger expanded systems and vermi-composting in multifamily homes, apartment buildings and also in some small commercial establishments, then you need some more staff work, and you need the staff work for continuity as well.
Those are basically the elements that are involved, as well as the obvious ones of public workshops, demonstration sites, school programs and those additional things.
Mr McClelland: For purposes of a reminder, Minister, I just want to ask if you could inquire of your staff and perhaps make available to us any studies or the processes by which you verify air quality in and around waste management.
Hon Mrs Grier: Landfills, yes.
Mr McClelland: We had left that question hanging. That was largely my fault, inasmuch as I tried to move things along and we didn't get a chance to get around to that, but perhaps we could address that tomorrow.
You really can't do justice -- in fairness to you, I'll say that up front -- you can't do justice to this in the short time we have. But you were at one time a proponent and a great believer in the necessity of a safe drinking water act. In fact, at one point you said that you, upon achieving the office you now hold, wanted to see that in place immediately. My questions that flow from that are: what's happening with it? When are we going to see the legislation? Can you update us, in a sense, on what you want to do with a safe drinking water act for Ontario?
1750
Hon Mrs Grier: Let me respond by saying that yes, obviously that is something I think is important and want to do and have not yet done. That doesn't mean it won't be accomplished. In the scheme of things, it has fallen second place to the environmental bill of rights and the work of the legislation we've brought forward with respect to waste management.
However, we have been revisiting the drinking water objectives -- I never can remember what it's called -- which we review periodically and which are part of a very complicated discussion with both federal and provincial and health and everybody as to what those objectives and standards should be.
The other aspect I have done is asked the Advisory Committee on Environmental Standards to examine the drinking water guidelines objectives that have been in place within the ministry and to give me some advice with respect to their adequacy.
We have been identifying work that needs to be done in order to be able to prepare legislation, because we have to determine what the standards might be and what might want to be incorporated into the legislation. Frankly, there hadn't been as much scientific work done as I would need in order to be prepared to come forward and say, "These are the standards we want and this is how we want to legislate."
It's under active consideration. Work has been done to upgrade and improve the drinking water objectives. Certainly, through the drinking water surveillance program -- and you may have seen the release this week of some of the conclusions of that -- we are now monitoring 100 plants which cover over 80% of the population, and we're monitoring them for 180 parameters. I think it's fair to say that we have increased the number of parameters for which we are monitoring, which also gives us a much clearer picture of what in fact is happening out there and where the problems lie that need to be addressed by legislation.
Mr McClelland: Thank you. Where are we at, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: I'm told we may have a vote in the House, but Ms Mathyssen may not know that. Please proceed until 6 or until we hear bells.
Mr McClelland: A quick follow-up from that, Minister: groundwater contamination. A significant percentage of people in Ontario rely on groundwater -- my able staff briefed me on this, but I forget the percentage -- and certainly the agricultural community relies heavily on groundwater. There are some problems with groundwater contamination, as you well know.
I wonder if you could just give us an overview of what you have done at the ministry since you've been minister to deal with groundwater contamination. We're limited by the time constraints we have here, but there are a number of areas I'd like to get into in terms of storage tank removal, upgrading and those issues in the few minutes we have, if you could touch on that. I know it's a huge area and we could probably devote literally the entire estimates time allocation to this one area, but if you could give us some sense of what you're --
Hon Mrs Grier: It is a huge area and certainly the number of people and communities in Ontario dependent upon groundwater is enormous. Again, the problems and the perception of problems come from a variety of sources. As I'm sure you, with your experience in the ministry, will recognize, there's not one solution to any of these particular problems.
You have to look at how you're dealing and working with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food with respect to farm water runoff and the use of pesticides, because all of that can affect groundwater. The other aspect, of course, has been remediation in those areas where we have had major problems, and that's extremely costly: what we have been doing in Elmira; I mentioned in my opening comments our expenditures in Manotick; we've also had a problem in Angus, Ontario.
We fight the fires of the major problems as well as trying to put in place preventive policies that will avoid the problem getting any worse. I am glad to tell you that a part of what we've been doing is research to try and identify clearly the extent of the problem, because you can't begin to address it until you know how bad in fact the situation is.
Mr McClelland: How are we doing with the gas tanks or fuel tanks, those that were installed --
Hon Mrs Grier: You mean gas stations?
Mr McClelland: Yes. I understand anything that was in place prior to 1974 should have been removed by law or upgraded by January 1, 1992. That's the kind of thing we're talking about in terms of preventive redressing the potential hazards. How successful have we been in obtaining or coming close to that target of the January 1992 requirement of the gasoline handling code?
Hon Mrs Grier: That's, as I'm sure you know, something that's administered by CCR, Consumer and Commercial Relations.
Mr McClelland: I know it's one of those crossover areas. You, Minister, might inquire, because notwithstanding the fact that it is the principal responsibility of CCR, I think it certainly has implications in terms of groundwater contamination, which would leave you in a position of cleanup.
Hon Mrs Grier: Gasoline tanks and removal and contamination is a real problem. I guess I don't connect that with groundwater contamination as much. It may happen in specific areas, but I think the issue of groundwater -- particularly southwestern Ontario; it is so dependent on groundwater -- is more a question of broader, more generalized quality problems. The research we've done is beginning to establish the extent of the problem and the kind of programs with respect to septic systems, which I think are much more problematical with respect to groundwater and well contamination than gasoline tanks are.
I'm pleased to be able to tell you that we're doing an Ontario farm groundwater quality survey as part of that research. We've tested 1,300 wells just in this past year and found that none of them had levels of fuel or fuel byproducts as a problem. There were problems with some nitrate and some pesticides, but fuel tanks were not a major issue in that respect. But I will certainly try to ascertain how Consumer and Commercial Relations is doing with that program and see if I can come back with that answer tomorrow.
Mr McClelland: Yes. It seems to me it's the kind of area where we can't afford to say, "Well, jurisdictionally, it's not -- " And I'm not suggesting that you're saying that.
Hon Mrs Grier: Oh, I'm not for a moment suggesting that, but you were asking about groundwater, and bacteria, pesticides and coliform count are more frequently problems with wells -- and I see our rural counterpart agreeing -- than gasoline. But that doesn't mean gasoline isn't a problem for other reasons, and more often with soils. The materials handling policy has been looking at the removal and disposal of soil with respect to gas tanks. As I say, our testing of wells didn't --
Mr McClelland: I guess my question is -- I don't know the appropriateness of it -- does the Ministry of the Environment have perhaps a role to play in the monitoring or, if you will, policing of what's happening with CCR?
Hon Mrs Grier: Very much.
Mr McClelland: I'd like to know how we're doing on that, how we're measuring up. I think Mr Eddy may have had a question.
Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): That's very important. I know that at a lot of service stations, you see there's an ongoing program of tanks being removed, and the same with on-farm, in-ground tanks. It's very important.
Hon Mrs Grier: We'll try to get some figures on that tomorrow.
Mr McClelland: Mr Chair, do we have time for one more?
The Chair: Yes, we do.
Mr McClelland: It ties in. Again, we'll come back to maybe some specifics tomorrow. The whole area of groundwater contamination with respect to buried asphalt: There are a number of specific situations across the province, individuals whose groundwater is contaminated. There is certainly some evidence; it may or may not be in dispute, but there seems to be fairly compelling evidence that the groundwater has been contaminated, in some cases severely contaminated, as a result of asphalt buried on their property.
In some of those circumstances that asphalt has been there for a long time through municipal dumping or, in some cases, I understand the Ministry of Transportation has dumped asphalt on people's farms or land. I wonder what we're doing, what your policy position is with respect to the cleanup and redress for individuals who are now quite literally suffering as a result of groundwater contamination emanating from asphalt being buried on their property or near their water sources.
Hon Mrs Grier: I'm sure we're familiar with some of the ones where extensive and exhaustive studies have occurred. Our response on an individual basis is certainly to try to ascertain the cause of the problem and in many cases supply drinking water to the individual. But again, I think our discussion about lakefill and contaminated materials is relevant, because you can deal with the individuals, but the problem, long before I became the minister, is that many of these occurred because of improper disposal of asphalt. That's why our materials handling policy is very much going to be looking at where it is appropriate to dispose of materials that run the risk of causing contamination.
As in so many other areas, we're dealing with the specifics: providing water, dealing with an evaluation and examination, all the scientific work around that and, at the same time, putting in place measures to ensure that we don't expose ourselves or individuals to those situations in the future.
Mr McClelland: Is that a policy position, then, and a commitment of the ministry to supply safe water for victims of groundwater pollution?
Hon Mrs Grier: For example, in Manotick, our immediate response was, yes, let's provide the drinking water. Then as we began to look at alternative ways of perhaps providing that water, we didn't provide it any more. With individual cases we have provided it; in some cases we're providing it for dairy cows for quite some time.
I think you will understand that we look at each particular situation, evaluate the liability and try to find who was responsible for causing the contamination in the first place. But certainly, to somebody who finds that their well is polluted, usually the local health department moves in and is the first sort of response when that occurs. The provision of drinking water is the first immediate priority, and that has to happen first.
Mr McClelland: So at the end of the day if, during the process of trying to determine who's responsible and who will redress the issue, a person's operation is put in jeopardy, that's just too bad. Or is there something we can do in terms of the Ministry of the Environment to give individuals at risk and in jeopardy some assurance and some sense of immediate redress, to at least see them over until those issues of liability and a final solution for those specific cases is arrived at?
Hon Mrs Grier: Well, I don't know whether you have a specific case in mind, but I know, certainly from a couple of cases I've dealt with, the demand from the individual affected has been for an ongoing, permanent and constant supply of drinking water provided by the ministry. In many cases it has been, I think, far more appropriate for the individual concerned to take some action around the liability and to begin to identify where in fact the liability lay.
I'm certainly not prepared to say that in all cases and without question we can provide water for ever, because I know you would be the first to ask why I am spending the taxpayers' money solving the problems individuals may have created themselves, in some cases, by improper disposal of materials; sometimes they are victims of somebody else's improper disposal --
Mr McClelland: And that's my concern, really, the victims who, through no fault of their own, find themselves at tremendous risk and jeopardy, and sometimes quite literally are on the edge of survival and are saying, "Who will help me?"
Hon Mrs Grier: That's a very real problem, and the Environmental Compensation Corp and others are there to deal with that.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr McClelland. It being 6 of the clock, I wish to advise committee we have four hours remaining. We will reconvene tomorrow at 3:30 or immediately following routine proceedings. This committee stands adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1803.