MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

CONTENTS

Tuesday 20 June 2000

Ministry of the Environment

Hon Dan Newman, Minister of the Environment
Ms Eileen Smith, manager, waste management policy branch
Mr Jim MacLean, assistant deputy minister, environmental sciences and standards division
Mr Stien Lal, deputy minister
Mr Edward Piché, director, environmental monitoring and reporting branch
Mr Carl Griffith, assistant deputy minister, corporate management division
Mr Dave Crump, director, Drive Clean office
Mr Doug Barnes, assistant deputy minister, integrated environmental planning division

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair / Président
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River L)

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay / Timmins-Baie James ND)
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River L)
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park L)
Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe PC)
Mr John O'Toole (Durham PC)
Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant PC)
Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River ND)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton L)

Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes

Staff / Personnel
Ms Anne Marzalik, research officer, Research and Information Services

The committee met at 1603 in room 228.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

The Chair (Mr Gerard Kennedy): I call the meeting to order. I invite everyone to take their seats. It is, of course, in everybody's interest that we are able to address as much of the allotted time as possible, because we do have to return to make up the time we're not addressing today.

Before we resume the hearings on the Minister of the Environment, I'd like to turn to some committee business. Mr Mazzilli, I believe you have a motion.

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): I do, Mr Chair. I move that Mr Peters replace Mr Conway as a member of the subcommittee on committee business for the standing committee on estimates.

The Chair: Is there any discussion on the motion? All those in favour? Any opposed? I declare the motion carried.

We will now resume, with the official opposition. You have 20 minutes, Mr Bradley.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you very much. My first question to the minister is the question I asked him in the House, which somebody will have given him the answer to by now, and that is the question of sewage sludge. You're supposed to go to page 64 now, and I think you'll find the answer to it.

Sewage sludge is a problem. I understand that at the present time the city of Toronto is not properly dealing with sewage sludge. They're not keeping it in the digester long enough, and that provides a major problem. I'd like to know why you're allowing Toronto and any other municipality an exemption from the normal requirement of retaining sewage sludge from sewage treatment plants in the digester for at least 15 days.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I'm going to call up Eileen Smith, the manager of the waste management branch, biosolids, to give more in-depth-

Mr Bradley: You don't know the answer right off the top of your head?

Hon Mr Newman: I do know the answer. I gave that answer to you in the House today, but I was limited to one minute to answer that question.

Mr Bradley: That was a non-answer in the House, so-

Hon Mr Newman: I wish to call up Eileen Smith to respond.

Mr Bradley: Does this mean you personally are not going to answer any more questions; it's just going to be staff?

Hon Mr Newman: No, I'm answering questions, but I want to give you the best technical answer possible.

The Chair: Mr Bradley, it's your time. If you want to indicate whether you're satisfied with the minister's response to questioning, that is your prerogative. That is how we treat each of these.

Hon Mr Newman: Chair, with all due respect, I tell you this, and I raised this point at the last meeting: It is fine for staff to answer questions-

The Chair: Mr Minister, I'm sorry, but I can't let you challenge the Chair. We're going to have a consistent handling here, which means each of the caucuses will determine, in their responses-and I will be even-handed in the time I permit you, Mr Minister, and the time that each of the-

Hon Mr Newman: With all due respect, Chair, I don't ask people how to ask questions. They shouldn't ask me how to answer them.

The Chair: Mr Minister, we will see this time used, and the time we're spending now is not going to be allocated to the party. There is nothing to be gained from challenging the Chair. We will be even-handed in permitting you to answer as fully as possible.

Hon Mr Newman: Point of order, Chair: With all due respect, I can show other precedents in the past where-

The Chair: Minister, you're being argumentative. I do not recognize the point of order-

Hon Mr Newman: And Chair, you're not being fair. You're not being the impartial Chair you should be.

The Chair: Minister, I'm sorry, but I can't recognize your point of order unless you're going to state something to do with the rules of order and how this meeting is being conducted.

Hon Mr Newman: Well, you clearly have two sets of rules, Chair.

The Chair: Minister, I will ask you, as I'll ask all members of the committee, to abide by the purpose of this committee, which is to look into the estimates of your ministry and to do that in a fair and expeditious manner, and that is how I will rule.

Mr Bradley, you've asked a question. Minister, please proceed with your response.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Chair, I have a point of order. If you would allow me to execute my point of order with reasonable politeness, I find your tone is questionable. That's the first order. You as Chair-and I'm not questioning the Chair, but I want to raise a point. On the very subject you're now lecturing us on, I will raise my point and you can have your vindictive little response later. July 13-

The Chair: Mr O'Toole, you're out of order.

Mr O'Toole: On what grounds am I out of order?

The Chair: Mr O'Toole, you're out of order. You may not characterize that language to the Chair or any other member of this committee. If you have-

Mr O'Toole: I have a point of order. Your tone, Mr Chair-

The Chair: That is not a point of order. Mr O'Toole, my tone or your tone is not a point or order. I will address each of the members of this committee courteously, but there will be firm rules for the fair and equitable use of the time we have. Mr O'Toole, we're now using time that has not been allocated to the official opposition.

Mr O'Toole: Point of order, if I may. On June 13, when Mr Hampton was questioning, you made a ruling that I am going to bring to your attention, which I do not believe was appropriate. For instance, on November 24, 1999, the Deputy Minister of Education was allowed to respond to a question that had been raised during the NDP's portion of time. On November 16, Deputy Minister Fenn of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs was allowed to respond to a question during estimates. That was a question that was put by the Liberals. In both instances, the deputies were allowed to respond.

My point of order to you is: In your decision last week, you did not allow the assistant deputy minister the opportunity to respond when the minister asked for assistance. I do not think that ruling was appropriate. I am asking for you to reflect on the two-

The Chair: Mr O'Toole, I have your point of order.

Mr O'Toole: -submissions I have made, and the documents, and I want you to reconsider that decision.

The Chair: Mr O'Toole, I will elaborate on the decision, because I can see the confusion. In essence, the minister will certainly be permitted to respond as he, in this case, sees fit. The party questioning will be able to determine if they're satisfied with an answer. So if, for example, the minister says, "That's what I can answer," within reasonable time we won't have the minister bring forward people to use a long length of time. But of course the deputy and in fact any-

Interjection.

The Chair: Mr Minister, this is the ruling, and I want to make sure it's clear. It will apply equally to all parties.

Of course, any ministry employee who is here who can elucidate the inquiry being made is permitted to speak, but we won't get into long answers in order to take away from the time. Similarly, in terms of the questions, we ask those to be to the point. Each caucus will use its time as it sees fit. If you, Mr O'Toole, wish to permit the minister and the deputy and other members of the government to provide answers, you will have that full opportunity.

I will now proceed with the business.

Mr O'Toole: Mr Chair-

The Chair: I've heard your point of order-

Mr O'Toole: Respectfully to the Chair, at this point I believe I'm changing to a tone of procedure. My question to you is this-

The Chair: Mr O'Toole, if I could just interrupt, I need you to cite a point of order. I'm allowing you some latitude, because I do want to make sure there is going to be a fair and equitable ruling. You're taking up time, which will then cause the Ministry of the Environment to have to come back to be heard again.

Mr O'Toole: I agree, and I am questioning the decision of June 13, and in the questioning-

The Chair: No, I'm sorry. It's a point of order that you cannot challenge the Chair.

Mr O'Toole: I am referring your decision to the Speaker of the House. I am not satisfied that that decision was impartial, and I want-I have the decisions here, and I want a decision referred to the Speaker of this Legislature to ensure that there is objective chairmanship of this very important committee.

The Chair: That's fine. You've made your point, Mr O'Toole-

Mr O'Toole: I take it very seriously.

The Chair: -and we will resume with the hearings of the Ministry of the Environment. Excuse me one moment.

We have a question that's been put, and I'll put it to the committee: Shall the Chair's ruling be appealed to the Speaker? All those in favour? All those opposed? So the ruling will be put to the Speaker and a report will be prepared by the clerk of the committee, and it will be considered during reports to committee.

We will now continue with our hearing. Mr Bradley has posed a question. Minister, I invite you to respond.

Hon Mr Newman: I'm going to now call on Eileen Smith, manager of waste management branch, biosolids, to answer.

1610

Ms Eileen Smith: The ministry has for many years had a standard of retention time for the treatment of biosolids to ensure that pathogens have been appropriately reduced before the materials are land-applied. However, during the last number of years, it has become apparent that there are other standards that are appropriate. The US EPA has adopted a number of other standards, and those standards have been investigated by our ministry, contemplated and talked about with stakeholders. Indeed we put out a draft policy paper two years ago which contemplated the use of one of those standards: as opposed to 15 days of retention time in a digester, looking at the number of fecal coliform units. Two million fecal coliform units per gram of digested biosolids dried was the standard that was put out for discussion, and that indeed is a standard which is used in many jurisdictions beyond the US.

So when we talk about the fact that Toronto's biosolids aren't being retained for 15 days, there are other standards that are accepted by the ministry, although they haven't yet been endorsed in a policy document-that is, the guidelines-but which have been looked at and indeed have been used in the case of the Toronto Ashbridges Bay-

Mr Bradley: To the minister, my concern would be that in fact you have standards and it sounds-

Hon Mr Newman: She hasn't finished her answer.

Mr Bradley: No, no, I'm not going to allow you to drag that out.

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: I've got as much of the answer as I want to hear.

Hon Mr Newman: Well, you don't want to have the answer, then. I don't understand, Chair.

The Chair: Thank you for your answer, and I'll ask the member to now address his question.

Mr Bradley: The question I would have of the minister is, having heard that "If you don't like one standard, we have another standard to apply," if that standard is not an official policy, Minister, how is it that you can allow the city of Toronto to violate what in fact is an official policy and simply apply another standard that you think is more convenient because it allows the city of Toronto to do what it's doing at the present time? I could understand it if you said, "We have now a new official standard as policy at the ministry, and so Toronto or any other municipality is not in violation." I'm wondering how it is that you can simply switch to another standard because it makes it more convenient for the ministry to deal with the issue.

Hon Mr Newman: I guess I'd say first off that I'm disappointed that Eileen Smith isn't able to complete her answer. I guess the rules-

The Chair: I'd like the ministry to provide any further elaboration in writing to the committee.

Hon Mr Newman: Chair, I think we have an opportunity to answer questions, and-

The Chair: Mr Newman, I appreciate that you have an opinion. I think it's been well expressed. The general conduct of the committee is that we will roughly match the length of the questions that are put. It is the official opposition's time and it is being used, in my mind, in a manner that does not provide this committee with the information it requires.

Hon Mr Newman: Chair, can you indicate the standing order to me that indicates the-

Mr Bradley: Perhaps you could just answer my question, Mr Minister. It's that simple.

The Chair: I'm sorry, but I would ask you-

Hon Mr Newman: Chair, I'm asking you-

The Chair: I'm not going to assign this time to the official opposition. If you wish to waste this time, you'll still be required to-

Hon Mr Newman: If you call asking the rules a waste of time-I'm simply asking, can you cite me the standing order that indicates that an answer must be the same amount of time as the question? I'm asking for your help here.

Mr Bradley: Why don't you just answer the questions?

The Chair: Mr Minister, I think you appreciate that you could use up all of your allotted time answering a question. We will rule fairly and reasonably to see if the answer was given. I think Ms Smith gave the answer-

Hon Mr Newman: Chair, which is the standing order-

The Chair: Mr Minister, I do not intend to argue with you every time.

Hon Mr Newman: Which is the standing order, Chair? Can I get the standing order, please?

The Chair: No, I can't quote you a standing order.

Hon Mr Newman: Oh, because it doesn't exist. I see.

The Chair: It's the discretion of the Chair of this committee and every committee.

Minister, I invite you to address the question. We're simply adding time to the end of when you will have to respond to each of the caucuses.

Hon Mr Newman: Chair, I'm not going to be intimidated by you. I'm simply telling you that-

The Chair: Minister, I would hope you aren't intimidated. I hope you will participate fully in these discussions.

Hon Mr Newman: I'm simply asking for the standing order, for you to provide some clarification. Show me which standing order.

The Chair: Approximately five minutes of time for discussion of your ministry's estimates has gone by the boards.

Hon Mr Newman: I've asked for the standing order-

The Chair: The question put forward about the ruling about how a Chair can deal with these has been raised and has been referred to the Speaker. We will have a ruling from the Speaker-

Hon Mr Newman: Which standing order, Chair? You seem to make the rules up as you go.

Mr Mazzilli: A point of order, Mr Chair: can we respectfully ask for a five-minute adjournment so perhaps we can discuss these issues as a-

The Chair: No, I'm not really willing to entertain a motion of adjournment. We are in the midst of discussion of the ministry. We are delayed for half an hour-

Hon Mr Newman: You can't decide if there's a recess or not.

The Chair: I would respectfully ask all members to be co-operative to the furthest extent possible.

Hon Mr Newman: If the members of any committee want to ask for a recess, then they're entitled to.

Mr Mazzilli: Give me a five-minute adjournment. I'm asking, with the consent of the opposition, for a five-minute adjournment of this committee.

Hon Mr Newman: There has to be a vote.

The Chair: For the consent of the opposition? Do other members of the committee wish an adjournment?

Hon Mr Newman: It's a recess he's asking for.

Interjections.

The Chair: This committee will stay on track. A question has been posed. We're asking the minister for the answer.

Hon Mr Newman: Chair, with all due respect, the member has moved a motion asking for a recess.

The Chair: The member has asked for the agreement of the rest of the committee. Mr Minister, please respond.

Hon Mr Newman: We're not getting a fair ruling from the Chair.

The Chair: Mr Curling.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): This time-wasting-are we going to get it back as opposition time? All we're doing is ragging the puck here, and we want to get on with the questioning.

The Chair: Each honourable member is entitled to have his concern about procedure. However, the time spent on procedure will be taken off of the time each caucus would be spending.

Mr O'Toole: Chair-

The Chair: Yes?

Mr O'Toole: Respectfully, and I want to say this, first of all you are the Chair. I respect that. There is a motion on the floor. Those persons who are speaking should be addressing-

The Chair: No, I'm sorry. It was a request, not a motion. If you'd like to make a motion, Mr Mazzilli, please proceed.

Mr Mazzilli: Mr Chair, I move that this committee adjourn for five minutes so we can clarify in our minds some of the rules on this committee.

The Chair: Is there a seconder for the motion?

Mr O'Toole: I second it.

The Chair: Mr O'Toole. Those in favour? Those opposed? The motion carries. We're adjourned for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 1617 to 1624.

The Chair: We will now resume the hearings of the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment. Perhaps for purposes of continuity, Mr Bradley, I could ask you to put your question again.

Mr Bradley: Yes, I'll put my question again to the minister, and that is, if you have established policy standards within the ministry, how is it that you're able to vary those standards simply because it's convenient to do so, thereby allowing, for instance, Toronto or any other municipality to violate the standards which you have as official policy? How is it you can pull another policy out from somewhere else simply because it suits the ministry's ability to accommodate Toronto or any other municipality?

Hon Mr Newman: That wasn't the case at all. In fact, while the retention time may not have been in accordance with the ministry's guidelines, the city has been sampling and analyzing the biosolids for fecal coliform to ensure that biosolids leaving the premises for farmland have been adequately stabilized, as well as meet the quality criteria for the land application as required by the certificate of approval.

Biosolids that do not meet these criteria were sent to incineration at the plant. The average retention time for the biosolids in the digesters for 1999 was 8.8 days because of insufficient capacity. The city has scheduled the addition of four more digesters by the end of 2000 to provide the additional capacity necessary for the 15-day retention time.

But as I indicated to you in the House today, as a province, we have the strictest standards in Canada concerning the application and treatment of biosolids. The application of sewage biosolids is environmentally safe and of value to agricultural production, as long as strong environmental standards are maintained. Biosolids contain nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, as well as a source of organic matter which enhances soil quality and crop production.

I can also tell you that each application is reviewed on a case-by-case basis prior to issuing a certificate of approval to ensure that it meets the strict requirements for the protection of the environment and human health. The certificates of approval contain specific requirements controlling all aspects of the material's shipment and application to land, including separation distances from groundwater and surface water, quality of the biosolids and application rates.

I can also tell you that the Ministry of the Environment inspects sites where biosolids are being applied to land in response to known, suspected or reported health and/or environmental problems, non-compliance or operational problems. In fact, the ministry's municipal water and sewage treatment plant design guideline outlines criteria governing the treatment process and design of sewage treatment plants. The process of the plant is governed by the certificate of approval which-

Mr Bradley: Thank you. That's a very complete answer.

Hon Mr Newman: I'm still not finished.

Mr Bradley: I will move to the next question.

Hon Mr Newman: I'd like to finish the question.

Mr Bradley: I thank you for your answer and I'll go to the next question, which is, what about the treatment-and some of the rural members might be more concerned about this. It's the treatment that your ministry gives to portable toilets, septic tanks and other untreated human waste. We had Hillsburgh, for instance, and Mount Albert, as you would know, and I think out in Durham, John, there's a situation as well, where they're allowed virtually to put this untreated waste on what they call farmland. I think some of these people are buying up land simply to dump waste on, that it's not just going on farmland, but even when it's going on farmland, there's a concern about what kind of quality control you have over that. I know Hillsburgh's had a problem, I know Mount Albert's had a problem, and there have been other problems. Could you tell me, Minister, what kinds of controls you have on that kind of waste? Because I understand there are not many controls of anything.

Hon Mr Newman: Certainly. I'll have Eileen Smith answer that question for you.

Ms Smith: There is indeed a wide variety of controls that are placed on that kind of waste. They are applied through the certificate of approval process and there has to be an application both for the hauler to get a systems certificate and for the sites. Those are often individually permitted with a certificate of approval, but sometimes that is attached to the systems certificate. The certificate of approval will contain a wide variety of criteria, such as distances from watercourses or streams, anything leading to a stream, distances from wells, distances from habitations or especially from clusters of homes, distances, application rates and criteria of the material that is being applied, how it's applied and when it's applied.

1630

Mr Bradley: I should say, Minister, I met with a delegation of people today who were totally unsatisfied with what they felt were the ways in which your certificates of approval are enforced. It's one thing to have, as you would brag, the best rules and regulations in the world, or Canada, I guess you said in this case; it's another to enforce them. My problem throughout is that with the staff they have taken away from you, with the financial resources they have taken away from you, you can't do that.

But I want to move to another area. The Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors wrote a letter both to Tony Clement on February 1, 2000, and to you on a subsequent date, April 4, 2000. They said as follows:

"Thank you for your response.... You have outlined the actions an owner of a water system is supposed to take, but who is ensuring that the owner is actually doing this required work? Also, you mentioned that the local medical officer of health is to be notified if the owner becomes aware that the water is unfit for human consumption. Again, if no one is ensuring that the required actions are, in fact, being done, how would the MOH know that there is a problem with a water supply system? Local health units used to get a copy of every bacteriological water sample that did not meet the provncial drinking water standards in their jurisdiction. This procedure was fazed out a number of years ago, so the MOH no longer is informed, via this route, of any water quality problems....

"I am aware that the ministry has many other concerns to deal with, but are your inspectors ensuring that these small water systems are monitoring their supplies? Do the owners have to submit a report on a yearly basis and include copies of laboratory results of their water? How do you even know if you have all these water supplies on a database to begin with?

"Self-regulation may be acceptable for some dedicated suppliers of water in Ontario, but most suppliers, I contend, do not complete the work as outlined in the objectives."

This is Ron Hartnett, who is chairman, Healthy Environments, Ontario Branch, Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors.

How can you possibly provide an answer to that? He appears to be very, very concerned on behalf of that group that in fact there are no inspections going on to speak of. At least, they're inadequate and they're self-inspections. How would you respond, sir?

Hon Mr Newman: First off, there has been no change in the reporting and notification. Those have always been in place through the guidelines, the Ontario drinking water objectives. They have been in place. To make it unequivocally clear to everyone, be it a ministry employee, a medical officer of health, a public utilities commission, a municipality, a lab doing the testing, we're giving that the force of law via regulation, where the reporting procedures will be very clear. But once again, there has been no change in the actual reporting procedure.

Mr Bradley: This particular organization, however, expresses grave concern that there simply isn't anybody watching what's going on. The rules and regulations may be the same, but again, there isn't the staff and there aren't the resources. I don't attribute that to you. It's up to the government to decide what resources are available to a minister, but you simply don't have the staff and resources to do that. I know you're supposed to say, as minister, that you do have, because you can get in trouble with the government, but I'm contending you don't have. Do you have a further response?

The Chair: Minister?

Hon Mr Newman: I was just about to answer, Chair. Thank you for that opportunity.

First off, I again tell you there has been no change in the number of investigations within the ministry. There is a review underway in the ministry right now with Valerie Gibbons, who is going to review everything within the ministry and make recommendations so that we have the best possible Ministry of the Environment to serve the needs of the people and the environment in Ontario. There are also the inquiries that are underway. I can assure you that everything within the Ministry of the Environment is on the table, all the operations and procedures of the ministry, so that we can get to the bottom of what's happened.

Mr Bradley: I don't want to put words in your mouth, obviously, but it's my observation that you're as much as conceding that you have some real problems with staffing in that regard. I'm sympathetic and will try to help out in terms of persuading the government to provide more help.

As for your contention about Ms Gibbons, she's a very nice person-I have met her, I know her-but I think you have competent staff in the Ministry of the Environment. I think it's a slap in the face to the Ministry of the Environment staff to bring somebody else in when in fact all the Ministry of the Environment needs is more money and more staff to be able to do its job.

Hon Mr Newman: I think there's always room for improvement. You seem to think it's more money and more staff-

Mr Bradley: It is.

Hon Mr Newman: -but I think we ought to sit back and have this review underway, the inquiries. Everything within the ministry is on the table. There is always room for improvement in any ministry, no matter which stripe of government it is. I think that the Ministry of the Environment is no exception. We want to have the best ministry that we can possibly have to protect the people and the environment of our province.

Mr Bradley: There's another letter I'm going to refer to of August 8, 1996, and it was Brenda Elliott who was the minister then. Mrs McLeod, the member for Fort William, wrote about the cost of lab tests. I should say to my other friends on the committee that I've got tables here that show the cost is tremendously higher for private labs than it was for the Ministry of the Environment labs, and there are many small operators who are saying, "Look, we're either going to go out of business or something's going to give."

Here's what she answered, and I'm interested to see whether this ever happened or you intend to do this:

"I am aware of the financial impact this closure may have for some analytical lab users," referring to the MOE lab, "such as small trailer parks. To help reduce the cost of analytical testing, my ministry is reviewing sampling and testing requirements for these types of operations with the intention of reducing the level of sampling that is required. This will keep costs down while still providing an adequate level of safety for consumers."

Did that happen, first of all, or, if it didn't happen, is that on the table to happen?

Hon Mr Newman: First off, there's been no reduction in the standards, there's been no reduction in the sampling requirements, no reduction in the frequency of testing. With respect to the comments in the letter that you indicate, I can assure you that it's not something I believe in.

Mr Bradley: So you're telling me that none of that ever happened?

Hon Mr Newman: That's what I'm telling you.

Mr Bradley: Never happened. I'd have to have a fine-toothed comb to go through the ministry to see precisely what happened in that regard, but certainly that minister gave an indication she was prepared to do that.

Hon Mr Newman: This minister has given his indication that he's not.

Mr Bradley: What is your comment then about many of the folks out there who are in private business and smaller operators, and in fact smaller municipalities, and the costs they have to pay now for testing compared to what they had to pay in the MOE labs? I have the differences here. I think members of the committee would be quite shocked to know what the difference is in terms of the cost of sampling. Why is it that you're forcing these people to pay so much more, when in fact the Ministry of the Environment used to provide it at a better price and, I would contend, just a little proudly for our Ontario, in a better way, a more competent way?

Hon Mr Newman: Private wells are the responsibility of the owner or operator of the well system. The owner-operator is responsible for the testing of water quality and for ensuring the safety for the consumers of that well system. For water systems that feed five or more hookups or have a 50,000-litre-per-day capacity, testing procedures fall under the Ontario drinking water objectives. Many facilities have further testing and maintenance requirements as a result of their certificate of approval that's been issued. The testing requirements for these systems remain the same as it always has. For those systems that have under five hookups, these wells are considered private wells and are subject to regulation 903 of the Ontario Water Resources Act for the purpose of construction, maintenance and closure.

Mr Bradley: Is there any consideration being given-only because you said everything is on the table-to something I think should happen personally, and that is the re-establishment of Ministry of the Environment regional labs so that municipalities, particularly smaller municipalities-the large ones don't have as big a problem; they have their own labs-and all those folks out there who used to rely on them before-and they had a competitive price and they had top-notch scientists working in them. Is there any consideration that you are going to re-establish those labs in the province for those purposes they used to serve in the past?

Hon Mr Newman: There are no plans for the regional labs, but I can tell you that we have plans to ensure that every lab in the province is fully accredited. I can give you that assurance.

1640

Mr Bradley: They're not accredited, then, at this moment-

Hon Mr Newman: What happened is, we as a ministry strongly encouraged those municipalities, public utilities commissions and owner-operators of those facilities to have in their contract the use of an accredited lab. I would think most people would want to have an accredited lab. Some municipalities, for whatever reason, chose not to have accredited labs, but I can tell you that in this province every lab that's performing tests on drinking water and water is going to be an accredited lab.

Mr Bradley: But they're not today, so-

Hon Mr Newman: There are some.

Mr Bradley: Today, we cannot say that they're all accredited. One of the things the Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors said in this letter-and I don't want to go through the long detail of reading it-in essence, they expressed a lot of faith in the Ministry of the Environment labs and their ability to communicate immediately. I know you're going to set up some regime to do so. Do you not think the Ministry of the Environment labs are the best way of ensuring that there is that kind of direct communication with municipalities or other people who are seeking to have their water analyzed? I have a lot of faith in those people. I know they did an excellent job, and I'm just wondering whether we wouldn't be better to go back to that. They'd be much better to report directly to the medical officer of health, for instance, than the rigmarole you have to go through with the private labs.

Hon Mr Newman: Again, I want to bring to your attention that in 1996 half of the municipalities operating water facilities in Ontario were not using Ministry of the Environment labs. That's clearly what happened. Half of them weren't using them. But I can tell you, for the very sophisticated tests, the ministry still has laboratory facilities that would be able to conduct those tests.

Mr Bradley: OK.

The Chair: One more minute.

Mr Bradley: The draft memo that was leaked, dated January 2000, talked about some of the many warnings that were coming out. Have you now had a chance to think about this, ask others and determine whether you or anybody in your political staff or your office saw the draft or the final memo and what opinion you expressed when you found out that your own officials were very worried that the kind of thing that actually happened in Walkerton was going to happen?

Hon Mr Newman: Let me tell you, that working document and any other relevant documents to what happened in Walkerton are under investigation.

Mr Bradley: You're not prepared to say when you saw it. When you say "investigation" I understand with others. I really do. I'm trying to be fair to you in that regard. I'm just wondering whether you ever saw it, or your staff, not whether other ministry officials saw it.

Hon Mr Newman: I've answered that question.

Mr Bradley: You don't want to answer it. OK.

The Chair: Mr Hampton for the third party, you have 20 minutes.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a few questions I'd like to ask you. Minister, last week you said you had not asked your deputy to provide you with options as to the possible reopening of the Ministry of the Environment testing labs and return of your ministry into direct testing of municipal drinking water. Now that the Premier has said your ministry can staff up if you recommend it, have you asked your deputy to brief you on the options and impact of reopening the labs and re-involving the ministry in the direct testing of municipal drinking water?

Hon Mr Newman: Just with respect to what you quote me as saying, I don't recall saying that, but I can tell you that Valerie Gibbons has been brought into the ministry. She's going to look at everything within the ministry operations and procedures to provide a review so that we can ensure that the Ministry of the Environment is well positioned to be the best Ministry of the Environment that it can possibly be in this province, to ensure that the environment is protected for the people of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: The specific question again: Have you asked your deputy to brief you on the options and impact of reopening the labs and re-involving the ministry in the direct testing of municipal drinking water?

Hon Mr Newman: As you can appreciate, the announcement of Valerie Gibbons was on Friday. She will begin her work in July. She will be reviewing everything within the ministry, and I suspect she'd be looking at that as well.

Mr Hampton: Your answer is that at this time you haven't asked the deputy minister on the options and impact of reopening the labs?

Hon Mr Newman: My answer is the answer I just gave you.

Mr Hampton: Minister, with regard to the testing that your ministry does under the drinking water surveillance program, we understand that in 1996 you stopped testing for microbiological parameters. As you know, this would include tests for E coli. Have you asked your deputy on the advisability of resuming tests for microbiological parameters, including E coli?

Hon Mr Newman: I'm going to call Jim MacLean up.

Mr Hampton: Minister, yes or no? Have you asked the deputy or haven't you?

Hon Mr Newman: I'm just about to get follow-up here for you.

Mr Hampton: My question is to you. Did you ask the deputy or didn't you ask the deputy?

Mr Mazzilli: On a point of order, Mr Chair-

The Chair: I'm sorry, a point of order can only be a point order, so if you raise precedent or a point of order from the standing orders, I will hear it. I will not have obstreperous interruptions. There will be an answer provided-this is the third party's time. If the third party asks a short question and is satisfied with the answer, even if it's a non-answer, it is in the discretion of the third party to continue. I will make sure that there's a fair balance.

Hon Mr Newman: Chair, again-

The Chair: Mr Hampton, at least let there be a response, and if you're not satisfied, you can move on.

Mr Hampton: I simply want to place the question again. Did you speak to your deputy minister about this issue or not?

Hon Mr Newman: The assistant deputy minister will answer.

Mr Jim MacLean: My name is Jim MacLean. I am the assistant deputy minister for environmental sciences and standards in the Ministry of the Environment.

Mr Hampton: Assistant Deputy Minister, can you tell me, did the minister speak to the deputy minister about this or not?

Mr MacLean: I can tell you about the decision to cancel the sampling of E coli in 1996.

Mr Hampton: I didn't ask that question. With due respect to you, sir, that's not the question I asked. Can you tell me, did the minister talk to the deputy minister about this issue?

The Chair: Mr Lal.

Mr Stien Lal: The minister and I have talked about several issues relating to all aspects of the ministry's business, including the particular area that Mr Hampton is talking about.

Mr Hampton: As a supplementary to the deputy minister: Has the minister asked you on the advisability of resuming testing for microbiological parameters, including E coli?

Mr Lal: The minister has asked me to examine all aspects relating to testing to be done by the labs and to review what we are able or not able to do within the ministry labs. That process is ongoing. In the meantime, the minister has made a standing offer to any municipality or any water treatment plant that, should they require that kind of microbiological testing and if that testing isn't available to the municipality, the ministry labs would be more than prepared to do so.

Mr Hampton: Thank you.

Minister, the most recent data on your ministry Web site from the drinking water surveillance program are for 1996-97. Is the reason that the most recent data are for 1996-97 because of your limited staff resources? Is that why you're unable to publish more recent data from the program?

Hon Mr Newman: Sorry, the 1997 report on the drinking water surveillance program?

Mr Hampton: The most recent data on the Web site are from 1996-97. Is the reason that you can't provide more recent data because you don't have the staff resources to do it?

Hon Mr Newman: No. I know you've asked me this on several occasions and my answer remains the same: It takes time to analyze the raw data that come forward from all the facilities involved in the drinking water surveillance program. As I mentioned before, the CEC, for example, has come out with its 1997 report, which you seem to think is fine, yet when the ministry issues its report for 1997, you seem to have a problem with it. I can tell you that it does take time to get all that information together and to analyze it and to put it in the form of a report.

Also, in answer to your question, yes, people do use Web sites to get the information.

Mr Hampton: Then I have another question. Will you make the raw data available? We're not asking you to analyze it. Will you simply make the raw data available?

Hon Mr Newman: I think that raw data should be in the form of a report so it's put in some sort of context and people can understand the information that's there.

1650

Mr Hampton: So at a time when 18 deaths are now under investigation with respect to Walkerton's quality of water, you refuse to release the raw data that are available for other communities.

Hon Mr Newman: You're talking about, as I've mentioned, historical information. That's why today we're ensuring that each and every one of the 630 water facilities in our province is inspected. They will be done by the end of this year. We're going to see that every certificate of approval is reviewed for those facilities to ensure that each and every facility will now have one single certificate of approval. We're also going to ensure that we go beyond that so that every three years certificates of approval for each and every one of the 630 facilities in the province are reviewed.

Mr Hampton: If you have the raw data for other water treatment plants, why wouldn't you release the data?

Hon Mr Newman: Because you simply are asking for a report, a report would involve some analysis and that's traditionally the way the report's been done.

Mr Hampton: So you don't think it's in the public interest that those raw data on the testing of water in other municipalities be released to those communities.

Hon Mr Newman: I didn't say that. Simply, that's why we have the inspections taking place today, to ensure that all the facilities are in compliance. Any facility that's not in compliance will be brought into compliance by a field order.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you said in the Legislature that your drinking water surveillance program adds 10 new facilities every year to the list that you survey. Is that correct?

Hon Mr Newman: That's what I said, yes.

Mr Hampton: As I understand it, right now you are surveying 175.

Hon Mr Newman: It is 174 or 175, in that range.

Mr Hampton: If you add 10 a year, it will take 45 years before your surveillance program is surveying all the water treatment facilities in the province. Do you think that's adequate, to wait 45 years?

Hon Mr Newman: What I think is adequate, and we're growing upon this, is the fact that 83% of Ontario's population that's served by municipal water is included within the drinking water surveillance program.

Mr Hampton: In December 1999, a study was completed called the Extent and Magnitude of Agricultural Sources of Cryptosporidium in Surface Water. It was funded in part by the Ministry of Agriculture. As you are aware, there are currently hundreds of boil-water orders in effect with regard to cryptosporidium from surface water. Minister, have you been briefed on this report, and what recommendations, if any, did you make on the basis of that report?

Hon Mr Newman: No, I haven't. That report, as you know, is from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Mr Hampton: Have you asked to be briefed on that report?

Hon Mr Newman: No, I haven't.

Mr Hampton: Did you know that 100 people died in Milwaukee in 1993 because of cryptosporidium in the drinking water?

Hon Mr Newman: Yes.

Mr Hampton: And you haven't asked to be briefed on that report?

Hon Mr Newman: As you can imagine, we are going through many documents and there is a review underway. There are the investigations and the public inquiry.

Mr Hampton: Minister, many communities are facing boil-water orders because of cryptosporidium. There are five in my constituency alone. As you know, chlorination is not an effective tool to deal with this parasite in drinking water. What is required is a filtration system. Some communities like Bruce Mines, Balmertown, Cochenour, Hudson and Vermilion Bay may have to boil their water for many, many months. Can you tell us what your ministry is doing to assist these communities in getting filtration systems installed, to keep cryptosporidium out of the drinking water? Have you issued any instructions? Have you asked for any briefings?

Let me make the question simple: Have you asked for any briefings on this issue, Minister?

Hon Mr Newman: We'll get the answer to your question when we get Edward Piché up here.

Mr Hampton: First question: Have you asked for any briefings on this issue?

Hon Mr Newman: I'm going to answer your question here.

Mr Edward Piché: My name is Edward Piché. I am director of the environmental monitoring and reporting branch.

Mr Hampton: Mr Piché, has the minister asked you for any briefings on this issue?

Mr Piché: There have been numerous briefings of senior officials in the ministry in the past two years.

Mr Hampton: Has the minister asked you for any briefings on this?

Mr Piché: Has the Minister of the Environment specifically addressed that question to me?

Mr Hampton: Yes.

Mr Piché: At the moment, he has not.

Mr Hampton: Pardon me?

Mr Piché: He has not at this moment, no.

Mr Hampton: Your ministry hasn't briefed the minister on the Extent and Magnitude of Agricultural Sources of Cryptosporidium in Surface Water?

Mr Piché: Excuse me?

Mr Hampton: You haven't briefed the minister on the report called the Extent and Magnitude of Agricultural Sources of Cryptosporidium in Surface Water?

Mr Piché: I'm sorry?

Mr Hampton: There was a report done in December 1999. It was a study paid for in part by the Ministry of Agriculture. It's entitled the Extent and Magnitude of Agricultural Sources of Cryptosporidium in Surface Water. Have you briefed the minister on this report?

Mr Piché: Have I personally briefed the minister on the report? I have not.

Mr Hampton: Have you been asked to brief the minister on this report?

Mr Piché: There have been requests. What period are we talking about? The last day, the last week, the last month?

Mr Hampton: The minister was sworn in, I guess, in March.

Mr Piché: There were comprehensive briefing materials prepared which also covered this issue, perhaps not that specific report, but certainly the issue of cryptosporidium.

Mr Hampton: Thanks. We're making some headway.

Minister, have you read the Galt report on the impact of intensive farming? The Ministry of Agriculture tells me this report has been available since April 17.

Hon Mr Newman: That's the report out of OMAFRA.

Mr Hampton: Yes?

Hon Mr Newman: I said that is a report out of OMAFRA.

Mr Hampton: Have you read the report?

Hon Mr Newman: That is a report out of OMAFRA.

Mr Hampton: Have you asked for a copy of the report?

Hon Mr Newman: It's OMAFRA's report.

Mr Hampton: Have you asked to be briefed on the report?

Hon Mr Newman: The report has not been released.

Mr Hampton: Do you plan to ask for a copy of that report?

Mr Mazzilli: On a point of order, Mr Chair: This is clear cross-examination. At no time have I seen a committee function in this way.

The Chair: Mr Mazzilli, that's not a point of order. The purpose of estimates is to ask questions and to receive answers.

Mr Mazzilli: What we're seeing here is cross-examination of the minister, without an opportunity-

The Chair: Mr Mazzilli, that is not a point of order. Mr Hampton?

Mr Hampton: Do you plan to ask for a copy of that report? I'm asking you. I can't read your mind.

Hon Mr Newman: You seem to put words in people's mouths.

Mr Hampton: I'm asking you, do you plan to ask for a copy of that report?

Hon Mr Newman: What do you think?

Mr Hampton: Well, let me try another way: When do you plan to ask for a copy of that report, which would seem to me to be germane in terms of the contamination of drinking water?

Hon Mr Newman: The report out of OMAFRA, which is not the ministry that is here before estimates today-that report will be released, obviously. It's up to the minister to release that. I will get my copy and I'll read it, just like everybody-

Mr Hampton: And you haven't asked for a copy of that thus far.

Hon Mr Newman: The report has not been released.

Mr Hampton: The Minister of Agriculture has had it since April 17. He admitted that in the Legislature. And so you're telling me that, despite the fact that this report has been available since April 17, you haven't asked for a copy of it and you haven't asked to be briefed about it.

Hon Mr Newman: I would encourage you to ask the minister from OMAFRA.

Mr Hampton: Was the Premier right when he told the Legislature on May 30 that intensive farming played no role in the contamination of water in Walkerton?

Hon Mr Newman: That's for the inquiry and the three other investigations to determine.

Mr Hampton: You have no opinion on that? You have no view?

Hon Mr Newman: Investigations are underway.

Mr Hampton: And you're not interested in that question, about whether or not there is some connection between intensive farm runoff and contamination of the surface water?

Hon Mr Newman: I didn't say I wasn't interested. I simply indicated to you, had you been listening, that there are the investigations underway. They are still determining the causes of things, and I would encourage you to have an open mind.

Mr Hampton: As I understand it, one of the investigations is to be conducted by the Ministry of the Environment and you are the Minister of the Environment. So have you asked any questions about the connection between the runoff from intensive agricultural operations and the contamination of surface water?

Hon Mr Newman: You know that's an independent investigation through the investigations and enforcement branch. You would know that, or if you don't, you ought to know it.

Mr Hampton: Have you asked the deputy minister for a briefing on the possible contamination of surface water as a result of intensive industrial farm operations?

Hon Mr Newman: These are issues for the inquiry, and there is the review of the ministry underway.

Mr Hampton: So you're not interested in that question.

Hon Mr Newman: I didn't say that. Again, you're putting words in my mouth.

Mr Hampton: Have you asked for a briefing from your deputy minister on that issue?

Hon Mr Newman: I've answered your question.

Mr Hampton: Can you tell me, Minister, did the MOE have any staff working on the Galt report?

1700

Hon Mr Newman: Yes.

Mr Hampton: Have you asked the deputy minister for a briefing on the Galt report from those staff members?

Hon Mr Newman: The report has not been released.

Mr Hampton: So despite the fact that your ministry had staff working on the Galt report on intensive farm issues and the runoff from intensive farm operations, you haven't asked for a briefing on that.

Mr Lal: Mr Chair, if I could, perhaps this is the committee to get to the root of this. As the minister indicated, the lead for this particular activity is with the Ministry of Agriculture. We have been working in an interministerial committee with the Ministry of Agriculture, but it is for them to determine when the report will be ready to be released or to be shared with other ministries. To the best of my knowledge, we haven't quite got to that stage as yet.

Mr Hampton: If I may ask the deputy, have you asked them to share any of the information or has the minister asked them to share any of the information?

Mr Lal: I have not personally asked them to share that information with me or with the minister. As I indicated, we have a secondary role in that process.

Mr Hampton: I appreciate that.

Mr Lal: Whenever we get to that-

Mr Hampton: Minister, have you asked the Minister of Agriculture to share any of that information with you?

Hon Mr Newman: It's up to him to release that report.

The Chair: One more minute.

Mr Hampton: Minister, this is a report called Delivery Strategies by the operations division of the Ministry of the Environment. It was released internally April 9, 1998. It was revealed to the public in February 1999 that this report existed. Have you ever seen this?

Hon Mr Newman: Yes.

Mr Hampton: Do you approve of this document?

Hon Mr Newman: What that document does is look at delivery strategies and how to prioritize those strategies.

Mr Hampton: Do you approve of this document and the strategies outlined in it? Do you approve of the strategies outlined here? Do you understand that the strategies outlined here specifically say that the Ministry of the Environment operations division is to restrict its activities in terms of investigation and enforcement?

Hon Mr Newman: That's not what it says. What it talks about is setting priorities, and you know that.

Mr Hampton: Yes, it says that you'll no longer be able to do some of the work you used to do. Do you approve of that?

Hon Mr Newman: I'll call on Carl Griffith, the ADM for operations. He can explain and expand upon that for you.

Mr Hampton: Mr Griffith, maybe you can tell us. Did the minister approve of this or not approve of it?

The Chair: We have time for a very brief answer.

Mr Hampton: Did the minister approve of this document or not approve of it, or do you know?

The Chair: I think, Mr Hampton, with respect, you've had that answered by the minister.

Mr Hampton: The minister's turned it over to-

The Chair: I understand, but I did hear the minister answer that question very directly. Perhaps we can defer this to the following turn.

Hon Mr Newman: With all due respect, Chair, I indicated and called upon the assistant deputy minister to expand upon that.

The Chair: That specific question?

Hon Mr Newman: Mr Hampton raised some points within that report. I've asked the ADM for that division to answer the question.

Mr Hampton: If I can ask the assistant deputy minister, is it your understanding that the minister has approved of this report-whatever it's called-Delivery Strategies?

The Chair: Could you introduce yourself for the purposes of Hansard, and I'll ask for a brief reply.

Mr Carl Griffith: I'm Carl Griffith, assistant deputy minister for regional operations, Ministry of the Environment.

The Chair: Thank you. A brief reply or comment, please.

Mr Griffith: The reply to the question-I believe the minister's already responded to that.

Mr Hampton: To your knowledge, the minister has approved of this report or this strategy?

The Chair: Mr Hampton, with respect, that answer was given directly by the minister. We are unfortunately out of time so I'll have to defer this to the next round. We now turn to the government party.

Mr Mazzilli: Minister, when you look at some of the evidence in Ontario in sheer frequency and duration, there have been fewer air quality alerts to date than in the past 13 years. In fact, we have the lowest levels since air quality index readings first started taking place in 1988, and 1993. But the warmer weather is certainly coming and that causes us some concern, with the potential for smog. I know that the Drive Clean program is being expanded to 13 urban areas, from Peterborough to Windsor, and test procedures have been enhanced. Minister, either yourself or a staff member in charge of Drive Clean from your ministry is welcome to explain the beginning of Drive Clean to where we are today, with some detail, please.

Hon Mr Newman: Certainly. I'm going to have to call Dave Crump up to answer a bit, and then I'll expand upon that. Why don't I lead off here, then Dave will follow up on what I'm saying.

I want to say to the member for London-Fanshawe that fighting smog is a top priority for this government and for me as minister. We are moving forward on schedule with Drive Clean. The Drive Clean program is making a difference to the quality of the air that we breathe.

In 1999, the Drive Clean program tested one million vehicles, which is just less than 20% of the Ontario fleet, and cut smog emissions by almost 7%. When fully implemented, Drive Clean will cut emissions of smog-causing pollutants from vehicles in the program area by 22%, particulate emissions by 220 tonnes and greenhouse gases by 100,000 tonnes annually. Drive Clean is identifying the dirtiest vehicles and making sure the emissions problems are fixed before they are licensed for the road.

I'm committed to continuous improvement and accountability and to providing the best emission reduction program possible. We are working to improve Drive Clean through a review of its first year of operation. Proposed changes will reflect my commitment to emissions reductions, consumer satisfaction, fairness and business integrity.

Consumer protection is a priority of the Drive Clean program. The ministry has zero tolerance for fraud or customer abuse. The ministry conducts frequent, overt and covert audits to monitor the performance of Drive Clean facilities and ensure that they are meeting their performance requirements.

Finding a Drive Clean facility is very easy. There are over 1,000 accredited Drive Clean facilities and over 4,850 certified inspectors and repair technicians in the light-duty vehicle program registered in the GTA and the Hamilton-Wentworth area. The program will be expanded to 13 other urban areas, as well as commuting zones, by 2001, one year ahead of the original schedule.

Since September 1999, an additional 650 accredited Drive Clean facilities began testing heavy-duty trucks and buses for smog-causing pollutants. The smog patrol is also in full force. I'm sure you may see them along the 401 as you commute back and forth from your riding in London. They're taking immediate action against polluting vehicles, including those from out of the province and out of the country. In 1999, the smog patrol performed close to 3,000 pre-inspections, 1,000 tests, and issued 425 tickets. We've recently increased the on-road enforcement aspects of the Drive Clean program with the addition of new smog patrol staff.

Drive Clean is one of the largest and most comprehensive programs of its type in North America. Ontario is only one of three jurisdictions-Ontario, California and New Jersey-to have mandatory periodic inspections of trucks and buses, as well as an on-road enforcement program. You should know that more than 4.7 million vehicles will be covered by the program once it is fully implemented in 2001-02. We are committed to this program and to ensuring its effective and timely delivery.

We believe the private sector is best equipped and has the expertise to deliver components of the Drive Clean program. Drive Clean is being delivered by a number of private sector service providers under contract to the government. The government's role is to ensure that implementation satisfies the commitment to emissions reductions, consumer satisfaction and fairness. Emission tests must be done at accredited Drive Clean facilities to protect consumers against fraud and to ensure properly trained personnel conduct the tests. Former Minister of the Environment, Tony Clement, committed to a Drive Clean program review in the summer of 1999. In the September 1999 throne speech, a commitment was made to improve that program while meeting smart reduction goals.

Since I've been appointed as the Minister of the Environment, I've been looking at ways to improve the Drive Clean program. I am committed to continuous improvement and accountability and to providing the best emission reduction program possible. I plan to bring forward the findings of our program review in the next few months, and any changes to the program as a result of this review will reflect my commitment to emission reductions, consumer satisfaction, fairness and business integrity.

1710

Drive Clean is projected to be revenue-neutral based on test-fee revenues over a seven-year period. Clean vehicles which pass the test do not have to pay PST. Vehicles which require repairs as a result of failure to meet vehicle emission standards are required to pay provincial sales tax on the cost of the repairs and on the tests when the test and the repairs are invoiced together. While there is significant PST revenue, estimated at almost $3.8 million in 1999, generated by emissions-related repairs, the average amount paid per vehicle repaired is $24. These are repairs that responsible car owners would make independent of Drive Clean.

Ontario's Drive Clean program is a self-funded program. The province's portion of the fee, $10 for light-duty vehicles and $15 for heavy-duty vehicles, ensures that there is no direct cost to the general taxpayer. The majority of the costs are for the Drive Clean services, quality assurance and quality control, including over 156,000 audits and inspections, a public call centre, public education and awareness, training the inspectors and repair technicians, a dispute resolution mechanism and referee process, an independent auditor to review the entire program, and operation and maintenance of the computer system. Other costs of the program include the smog patrol, which apprehends dirty vehicles on the highways, MTO costs of processing and sending out Drive Clean notices and providing compliance-checking services for registration renewals and ownership transfers, and the Drive Clean office and management of the program.

Mr Mazzilli: Minister, can either you or one of the staff members explain the smog patrol so that my constituents have a better understanding of what the smog patrol does and what the intention is?

Hon Mr Newman: Certainly. It's a great program. I'd like to have Dave Crump tell you all about it.

Mr Dave Crump: The smog patrol is part of our investigations and enforcement branch. It's funded out of the Drive Clean revenue stream. In other words, the cost of the certificates that the province sells through Drive Clean facilities is the source of revenue to fund all the things the minister talked about, including the smog patrol.

The smog patrol does lots of important things. One of the most important things is they identify smoking vehicles on the road. They can be either cars or trucks. With trucks, they will pull them over and test them. They're tested by the same procedure that we use at heavy-duty vehicle Drive Clean facilities and measured against the same standards, and those vehicles can be ticketed. Whether they're Ontario-plated or not, they can be ticketed for not complying with the standards in the regulation. The smog patrols also deal with light-duty vehicles. In addition to gross polluters on the road that they can see, they also deal with provisions in our legislation that make it an offence to sell a vehicle that's had pollution-control equipment removed from it. So they do spot checks and blitzes of used car dealers, taxi fleets and the like, to look for tampering with the pollution control devices on vehicles.

There are some other pieces related to the delivery of the Drive Clean program itself that they assist my office with, and that is, looking for and following up on evidence of falsified tests or fraud. Those instances are rare but they are there, and it's nice to have our police force to follow up on them and gather the information and, if necessary, lay charges where that type of thing happens. As the minister said-and this goes a bit beyond smog patrol-we have quite a strong compliance component to Drive Clean. Most of it is through an outside contractor, a company called Protect Air. The contract is worth about $27 million over the seven-year life of this Drive Clean program. That contractor works very closely with our smog patrol staff so that there's a coordinated approach to compliance monitoring and enforcement. The enforcement that is applied through our contractor is things like suspension of facilities or termination and revocation of the facility's licence, for example, if they carry out fraudulent repairs.

There are other parts of the government-the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, which administers the Motor Vehicle Repair Act-that we liaise very closely with as well, and an organization called OMVIC, Ontario Motor Vehicles Industry Council, that regulates used car dealers and licenses them and can revoke licences. We have built quite a strong enforcement compliance monitoring piece in which our smog patrol is very much linked and very much involved. So in addition to those on-road things, they have a lot of involvement in the day-to-day maintenance of a vehicle repair program. I want to stress that Drive Clean isn't just testing. Drive Clean is about repairing vehicles that don't comply with the emission standards. There's a very strong involvement in building consumer confidence that the repair industry isn't the bunch of slime balls we all think it is and that this partnership between government-which many people out there also think is a bunch of slime balls-and the repair industry is a good partnership that will deliver a good program. That's sort of it in a nutshell on the smog patrol and some of the things they do.

Mr Mazzilli: How many enforcement officers are involved in the smog patrol?

Mr Crump: The smog patrol currently has 10 permanent staff. They're in the process of recruiting some additional staff. I believe the number is something like 15 or 16 who will be directly involved in this program.

Mr Mazzilli: These are the people who obviously conducted the 3,000 pre-inspections and the 1,000 tests and issued 425 tickets?

Mr Crump: That's correct.

Mr Mazzilli: Does it require some level of expertise to be an inspector of the smog patrol?

Mr Crump: Indeed it does. There are two kinds of expertise. One is, you have to have an understanding of the law, the Provincial Offences Act, and how you gather evidence and all those things that are important to the courts when you're presenting a case, should it get to court. All our enforcement officers have that kind of training, so they know how to go about questioning witnesses, how to go about gathering evidence and how to write a ticket properly.

The other side of it is technical training. I talked about testing the vehicles on-road. The devices to test cars and trucks are not simple devices; they're quite complex. They're very delicate instruments that can deliver up astoundingly accurate results and very repeatable results, but they have to be operated properly, they have to be calibrated properly, very much like a radar device on the road. The police who use radar have to be trained in its use and trained to maintain the instrument properly and use it properly. It's very much the same with the smog patrol people and the instruments they use on the road for testing. So there's a lot of training involved. I couldn't do it, quite frankly.

Mr O'Toole: Just following up on the Drive Clean, I find it interesting. I am in a personal sense looking into this with two vehicles-

Mr Crump: Did your vehicle fail?

Mr O'Toole: No.

On a more serious note, how do you tie the actual test, that is, the vehicle identification number, to the event, date and time? Are there some data on record there? Is there any chance of any fraud? For instance, I have a standard vehicle on the dynamometer, or whatever it is, and I just put in new VINs and use the same car.

Mr Crump: Yes. It's a fairly complex issue for me to explain, but let me start by saying firstly that every single make and model of vehicle has specific standards that depend on the vehicle weight, the engine size, the engine horsepower. Every vehicle is measured against those particular standards. The dynamometer, the treadmill device that the vehicles are tested on, adjusts the load on the vehicle in accordance with those parameters: how heavy is it, what is the engine horsepower, what is the engine displacement. Every make and model of vehicle delivers up different results depending on a couple of things: what it is and how it's been maintained. It also delivers up a piece of information that's quite unique to each particular vehicle and that's the engine RPM during the test. We gather a lot of information about the vehicle during the test. The VIN is input, and as you've correctly said, someone could input the wrong VIN and test a different vehicle. The data profile will tell us that wasn't a 1993 Nissan Maxima, it was a 1992 Chevy Cavalier, because the picture is quite different for those two vehicles. Even though the emission standards might be quite similar, the picture that we see from those two vehicles is quite different, the relationship between carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons and NO_x for the contaminants that are measured.

1720

Mr O'Toole: At the risk of the Chair accusing me of interrupting, which maybe should have happened earlier today-

The Vice-Chair (Mr Alvin Curling): I wouldn't do a thing like that.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Chair.

This is what I'm trying to establish: Is there an internal data management system? When I key in a VIN, that VIN tells me specifically what year, engine, cylinder-it tells me everything on that vehicle.

Mr Crump: That's right.

Mr O'Toole: Is there a corresponding data relationship between the test to tell the operator, or anyone looking at the data track, that there has been a falsification of testing records? I have a constituent who has accused me of that happening. This opportunity is a wonderful opportunity to save me writing a letter, because I will send him Hansard, if you know what I mean.

Mr Crump: What I should have said initially is that every test that's done at every Drive Clean facility is uploaded to a central database instantly. We have a very large contract with an outside contractor to run probably the most modern database management system I've ever seen. Data are collected remotely, they're uploaded instantly and I have access to that data. At any given time I can tell what vehicle is being tested at what facility, what the VIN is, what the make and model is, who is testing it, at what time and what the results are for that vehicle.

That ability allows us, through our contractor, to look at any data coming in. There is a whole series of triggers. You never know who you can trust, so I'm not going to say too much about how we do our compliance monitoring with the system, but we look at a whole series of triggers. The database constantly looks at all the data that's being collected, compares it against the norm and kicks out anything that looks like an exception, anything that looks like it needs to be followed up.

If the profile for a particular vehicle looks wrong, that vehicle is kicked out. That facility gets a call or a visit from our auditor, and that can be a covert audit: They show up in a vehicle that's been set to pass or set to fail; it's got a known defect. You've read about these kinds of audits in the paper before. We have an auditor. We pay them to do this, to show up and just pretend they're Joe Public or Mary Public: "I've got to get my car tested." We'll see if that facility does something, if that indication of something wrong can be caught by the auditor. We've caught lots of them-by "lots" I mean 15 or so.

The Vice-Chair: You've got about a minute for question and response.

Mr O'Toole: What's the fine? If I may pursue this to its conclusion, could we remove their licence? My understanding is that it's $50,000 to $100,000 and more to get the facility and the dynamometer, blah, blah. Can we just remove their licence or is it that strong, that it needs punitive action?

Mr Crump: We've terminated two facilities; we've taken away their licence to operate. That's for doing what we call "clean piping." That's testing a vehicle other than the one they say they're testing. We caught them and they admitted to it and we've taken away their licence to operate. There are a number of others we've suspended for periods up to 60 days, and that's costly too, because there's no revenue.

Mr O'Toole: So strong enforcement, strong inspection, a plan that helps the environment and people's breathing problems: I'm going to use this in the House. Next week we're not sitting, unfortunately. Thank you very much for that response. It was very thorough.

The Vice-Chair: The official opposition has 20 minutes.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I would like to ask a question that is directly in connection with protection of public safety. Minister, my question deals with the largest toxic hazardous waste dump in Canada that is provincially run, to my understanding-at least, it's under your ministry. I have asked this of you in the House concerning a full-time inspector. I would just like to know why it is that site does not have a full-time inspector when Taro landfill has a full-time inspector, and I also understand Keele Valley has two full-time inspectors. I would like to know why we cannot have a full-time inspector on that site.

Hon Mr Newman: There are formal inspections by ministry staff, as I've indicated to you. We also inspect the site on a regular basis to respond to complaints or to evaluate any changes in the operation at the facility that you speak about.

Recent comments in regard to the adequacy of the ministry monitoring the site overlook the fact that the company itself already employs inspection personnel. There are consultants and geoscience professionals who monitor the site operations and report their findings to the ministry.

Ms Di Cocco: I understand it's self-monitored. I already understand that.

Hon Mr Newman: But the ministry itself also does formal inspections, and you can't lose sight of that fact.

Ms Di Cocco: Why is it that the Taro landfill can have a full-time inspector and we can't?

Hon Mr Newman: There is a review of the ministry underway. We're going to look at all things within the ministry and I'm sure this is something we can look at.

Ms Di Cocco: I certainly wouldn't want to feel that we were discriminated against down in the farther south of the province. It is a toxic hazardous waste site.

The other issue I've asked about is that we are in the process of repairs because that site had a leak. There's an integrity problem with the site. There was a leak in cell 3. You closed down cell 3 but there was still dumping within 15 metres of that cell and it's still going on. It's almost business as usual.

So they are repairing and they were supposed to have the repairs done by about February. This is now June. I understand that even the proposal for repairs has been questioned by the ministry. I'll ask again, why is it that we cannot have a geotechnical engineer from the ministry overseeing the repairs on that site, considering the potential impact that crack could have on that site?

Hon Mr Newman: I can tell you that ministry staff have completed their technical review of the report submitted by Safety-Kleen on the proposed remedial measures and the study of tension cracks. Ministry comments were provided to Safety-Kleen on May 9 of this year. The ministry review identified a number of concerns related to the proposal. Concerns focused on the effects of the shearing stresses on the integrity of the natural barrier, the ability of a clay liner to adequately replace 20 metres of low permeable native clay fill, the potential movement of landfill contaminants downward, whether or not the water and gas venting were accurately assessed and the company's ability to depressurize the groundwater aquifer to facilitate liner replacement.

I can tell you that ministry staff will be meeting with Safety-Kleen, tentatively scheduled for the week of June 19, to discuss the company's response to the identified concerns with the plant for remediation.

Ms Di Cocco: I understand there has been a review of the reports that Safety-Kleen did. There is another problem with trust here. Again, I'm asking why it is that the technical expertise from the ministry cannot be on site to oversee what is going to be repaired on that site.

Hon Mr Newman: Again, ministry staff are going to meet with the company in question. We want to ensure that the environment is indeed protected.

Ms Di Cocco: We now have just one more quick question. As you know, there are a lot of financial problems that this company is encountering, the same as in the United States. I believe the state has asked for US$60 million in bonds from Safety-Kleen, whereas here in Ontario you've got $2.25 million from them. I would like to know what protection the citizens of that area have when it comes to the potential for this company, because it's having all of these financial troubles. What is your ministry doing to give the same kind of financial security that a smaller site has in the United States?

1730

Hon Mr Newman: First off, in the United States Safety-Kleen is a much larger operation. They may have many sites in a particular state. You did mention that we have bonds with a value of $2.25 million posted as financial assurance. That was part of the 1997 approval requirements for Safety-Kleen. The current bonds are guaranteed to November 24, 2000, and will renew automatically. The amount of financial assurance required is based upon the associated risk and the nature of the work required to close and monitor the site if circumstances warrant. If there's any change in the status of the bond, the ministry will be notified immediately. I should also indicate to you that Safety-Kleen is required by the Ministry of the Environment to carry $10 million in environmental liability insurance. Safety-Kleen does carry $20 million, so that's $10 million more than the ministry requires.

Ms Di Cocco: So am I hearing that you are looking after the store when it comes to the largest toxic hazardous waste dump in Canada? When it comes to a full-time inspector, will you put one on there?

Hon Mr Newman: I've answered your question. You asked the question about the $2.25 million in financial assurance. I've told you that is in place. I also told you that Safety-Kleen has $20 million in environmental liability insurance, which is $10 million more than they are required to.

I can also tell you that with respect to hazardous waste, we are tough on hazardous waste management. We've announced and implemented a six-point plan. It's an action plan to address hazardous waste, which means waste at any facility in Ontario will be handled in a safe and responsible way.

Ms Di Cocco: The manager of that same type of facility in Detroit said that if they were dumping hazardous waste the way we dump it in Ontario, they would be in jail, because our standards are not up to the landfill standards of hazardous waste in the United States.

Minister, are you going to actually do something and raise the standards, and legislate and enforce it for landfill?

Hon Mr Newman: I don't know when that person made those comments, but we do have a six-point plan actually in place. As I've indicated to you, it's a six-point plan that addresses the needs of the people of Ontario. I can tell you that there are regulations in place that were outdated, that were some 15 years old, that didn't adequately address the needs of the people of Ontario with respect to hazardous waste.

I can tell you that the plan gives immediate legal force to the generator registration manual. This is a policy manual which outlines exactly how different types of hazardous waste are described. It also revised a hazardous waste regulation that ensured that even if a hazardous material is mixed with another substance, it would be considered the same type of hazardous waste. This fixes a regulation which has been in effect since 1985, some 15 years ago. We've been able to change that and I think that's been positively received and is viewed as being something very positive for the environment here in Ontario.

The plan also revises the hazardous waste manifest and regulation. It is now the toughest in history and has been revised with a view to making it comparable and compatible with US rules and guidelines. We're also amending the certificate of approval for the Philip enterprises Imperial Street facility in Hamilton. This tightens the regulations surrounding the facility and imposes more restrictions on waste stabilization and disposal.

We have revised other certificates of approval at similar facilities across Ontario. With respect to Taro, we've established an independent expert panel to examine whether or not there will be any long-term effects from hazardous waste deposited at the Taro landfill site. We've also consulted with the Stoney Creek community through a community liaison committee for coming up with the composition and terms of reference for the panel.

The Chair: OK, are you satisfied with that answer?

Ms Di Cocco: No, I'm not.

Mr Bradley: She's not satisfied, but she's going to be.

I have a question, if I may continue, and if you'll alert me to the last couple of minutes so I can tell my friend from St Thomas when he comes in.

I asked you a question in the House maybe once or twice-you never did give me an answer-about the status of the Ontario Clean Water Agency: Was it on the auction block? When I asked you, you didn't give me an answer in the House, which may be understandable. If you didn't know the answer you couldn't give me an answer-I understand that-or if you weren't aware of the status at the time.

However, when you came out into the scrum you said, "No, it's not for sale." Then, the next day, at the extravaganza at the SkyDome they asked the Premier, "Is it for sale?" The Premier said, "If the price is right, it's for sale." Could you tell us whether OCWA is indeed on the privatization block, or is it right off the privatization block? I saw it on the Web site and it said "For sale" or words to that effect. What is the status?

Hon Mr Newman: Let me tell you that there's no review underway at this time.

Mr Bradley: So you've taken it off the auction block.

Hon Mr Newman: What I've indicated is that there's no review underway at this time.

Mr Bradley: That's an evasive answer, but I'll take it for now and see what I can make of it.

I'm concerned about the Red Tape Commission. It got re-established the day Walkerton broke as a story. The former-I guess he's recycled as one of the chairs now. Frank Sheehan sent a letter to the Ministry of the Environment urging it to drop a prosecution of a company that violated a provincial landfill regulation. He wrote in 1998 to then Environment Minister Norm Sterling demanding that the government not prosecute a St Thomas waste disposal operator charged with violating a regulation forbidding it from dumping waste into its landfill from outside its service area. The regulation gives the ministry control over the rate at which landfill capacity is used up and limits the ability of some municipalities to use others as hosts for their garbage disposal problems. Mr Sheehan's commission recommended the requirement be scrapped as unnecessary, but the rule was in force at the time he wrote the letter. "The ministry is continuing to pursue enforcement of this matter with vigour that might be better applied elsewhere," he suggested. "We have difficulty imagining what environmental horror is being averted by prosecuting a company for a technical violation of an unnecessary requirement," Mr Sheehan wrote. The letter was dated March 2, the same day the company, Green Lane Environmental, was in court pleading guilty to the charge.

My question is this: Are you not concerned with the number of times that the Red Tape Commission-I think you need a green tape commission-is trying to weaken regulations of the Ministry of the Environment, and was your ministry not offended by a member of the Legislature, the chair of the Red Tape Commission, writing to your people telling you not to prosecute somebody who was at the time violating the laws of the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Newman: First off, I haven't seen any such letter. If you want to share it with me I'd be prepared to give you a more fulsome response. Again, it's a letter that you indicate was written by a former member of the Legislative Assembly, Mr Sheehan. If you want to provide that, I'd be prepared to give you an expanded answer.

Mr Bradley: I'll let you look it up in your files. It is March 2, 1998. So you may look it up and provide an answer perhaps at a future time.

But to go back to two things: One, what is your opinion of members of the Legislature, particularly members of the government, writing to the Ministry of the Environment telling them not to prosecute? Let's say that in a generic and general way; let's not put any names to it. What would be your opinion of someone from the Legislature writing to tell you not to prosecute somebody who was in violation of a law of the province when that case was in fact before the court? What's your opinion of that?

Hon Mr Newman: Any time anyone writes a letter when there's an investigation underway or a court case or something that's a quasi-judicial body, it would be inappropriate, in my opinion.

Mr Bradley: That will be on record. Perhaps we can send the Hansard to Mr Sheehan and tell him you consider it to be inappropriate. Frankly, I'm happy with the answer.

Hon Mr Newman: You asked in a general way.

Mr Bradley: Frankly, I'm happy with that particular answer. I agree with you: It's inappropriate.

Let's get back to the government, and it's not just one individual I'm talking about. Mr Sheehan and Mr Wood co-chair the-what would you call it?-reincarnation of this commission. How much input do you have into this Red Tape Commission, which seems to be intent upon weakening environmental regulations in this province, no doubt much to your chagrin?

Hon Mr Newman: My job as Minister of the Environment is to ensure that the environment is protected for the people of Ontario. That means the air, the water, the land. That's what I do.

Mr Bradley: That's a very general answer. I guess I'm asking for something more specific. If you can accommodate me by being more specific, what input do you have into this Red Tape Commission? Do you go before the Red Tape Commission? Do their workings come to your attention? Do you have your ministry officials help you to respond to what the Red Tape Commission might be up to behind your back? This sounds like a cell working somewhere in the government trying to undermine you, and I certainly want to be on your side in fighting this kind of cell in the government that's trying to undermine the Ministry of the Environment.

1740

Hon Mr Newman: I can tell you that the ministry has been working closely with the Red Tape Commission in implementing the 1997 and 1999 red tape recommendations and in developing policy, regulations and legislation that are consistent with the principles of the Red Tape Commission, namely, that the enforcement and compliance would be consistent with the objectives of the policy and risks of non-compliance. The ministry continues to review regulations to make sure they're better, stronger and clearer.

Mr Bradley: I worry that the Red Tape Commission is not there to toughen anything. I'm going to recommend that you ask the Premier to set up a green tape commission to see how you can strengthen the regulations and retain many of the regulations that some of the more Neanderthal-thinking say don't belong.

I'm going to allow my colleague Mr Peters to pursue an issue.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): Minister, when you look at the environmental protection compliance operating budget and you look at the increase in salaries and wages, and taking out negotiated bargaining unit salary awards-

Hon Mr Newman: Sorry, which page?

Mr Peters: Page 55-it works out to an increase of $47,000 in salaries and wages. Where are you going to find the money to undertake 630 audits of water plants with a $47,000 increase in salary operating budget? Where's that money going to come from?

Hon Mr Newman: I can assure you that each facility in the province, each of the 630 facilities, will be inspected. They will be inspected by the end of this year. The certificates of approval for each of those 630 facilities will be reviewed as well. There will be one certificate of approval per facility in the province. Certificates of approval will be reviewed every three years after that. But I can assure you that each and every one of those facilities will be inspected.

Mr Peters: I didn't really get the answer. I was wanting to know where you're going to find the money. Dealing specifically with those 630 sites, I take it that the Elgin area water system is one of those 630 sites. The Elgin area water system feeds into the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital, which right now is on a boil-water order because of an E coli breakout. Is the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital system one of those 630 that will be audited?

Hon Mr Newman: In St Thomas it would be the municipal system.

Mr Peters: No, the psychiatric hospital system, which is the end product of the Elgin area water system.

Hon Mr Newman: We will look at the distribution system within that municipal facility. Carl Griffith can probably expand upon that.

Mr Griffith: If it is a separate water distribution system, particularly because there has been a problem with it, we will be looking at that. My understanding is that it is part of a larger water distribution system.

Mr Peters: It goes into two holding tanks and then is redistributed to the psychiatric hospital. But I'll leave it at that.

I just want to make one final comment and come back to a comment that was made earlier regarding the intensive farming report. Minister, I really think this is the crux of the problem in this province: There's no one ministry responsible for water. You've got your ministry doing something; you've got OMAFRA doing something, which you have some representatives on but it's doing its own intensive farming report which is related to water; you've got the Ministry of Natural Resources doing something with water; you've got the Ministry of Health involved through the health units in the testing of water. In my mind what I find very frustrating is that there's no coordinated plan.

You say you have an inter-ministerial committee dealing with intensive farming. I'd like to know who sits on this inter-ministerial committee and what is the end result planned to be. Is it a solid, single strategy for water, or are we going to continue to go around in circles, one ministry saying, as you said earlier, "That's Ag and Food," and Ag and Food is going to say, "That's MOE," and MOE is going to say, "That's MNR"? When are we going to see one strategy in this province dealing with water, whether that be groundwater or water plants, water in general? When?

Hon Mr Newman: There are different aspects with respect to water. The quality issue is something that falls under the purview of the Ministry of the Environment. The quantity issue falls under the Ministry of Natural Resources. But there are several ministries that look after aspects of water in the province, and I'm sure Carl Griffith can expand upon it a little more for you.

Mr Peters: That's good, Mr Chairman.

Mr Bradley: He can decide whether he wants to answer it any further. He doesn't.

The Chair: Your time is up. The third party has nominated three or four minutes to be used by the official opposition until Mr Hampton returns.

Mr Bradley: Thank you. That's very kind of them to do that. I'll share some with you as well.

When your government came into power, your ministry officials at the regional offices and perhaps other places were told to be business-friendly. What does "business-friendly" mean?

Hon Mr Newman: You want to have clearer, stronger regulations, less ambiguity than there's been in the past.

Mr Bradley: They perhaps would interpret it as being that you shouldn't get in the face of business in this province unnecessarily. That's certainly the way your officials, some of whom have now left the ministry because they've been asked to leave, because you're downsizing-others who may still be there have characterized it as meaning, "We should go easier on the companies and not be bothering business"; in other words, the promise to get MOE out of your face. So how should they interpret that imploring to be business-friendly?

Hon Mr Newman: First off, those are your words, sir; they're not my words. I can tell you that it's not my plan. As a ministry, we have to set priorities and ensure that those people who are polluting, that there are investigations underway to get to the bottom of it and appropriate action taken.

Mr Bradley: Sheila Willis wrote an internal memo in 1996. It's a confidential strategy memo written in December 1996 by Sheila Willis, an assistant deputy minister, to Jack Johnson, the top legal official in the ministry; I don't know if that's true or not. It was based on worries that staff layoffs have compromised the ministry's ability to fully enforce the regulations for which it's responsible, according to another document. It talks about defences being cooked up for such things as 75% of the functions, including initiatives to ensure air quality, surface and groundwater quality, proper waste management, quality of drinking water and safe use of pesticides. Why would the ministry be busy developing these defences against negligence if indeed you were satisfied that there were not going to be any significant problems with your cutting and downsizing, as the Premier said there was none?

Hon Mr Newman: Again, I think it's the issue of risk assessment. Those are comments made by a former assistant deputy minister, but those are the sorts of things that are going to be looked at within the inquiry.

Mr Bradley: Well, they may be looked at within the inquiry, and I hope they are. However, I'm interested in your opinion of a ministry which has massive cuts coming to its budget and its staff and then turns around and says, "We'd better scramble to have some kind of defence because we're making ourselves very vulnerable." Do you not think that in fact your government-not you, your government-was making the Ministry of the Environment very vulnerable by the massive decrease in staff and budget?

Hon Mr Newman: Every good organization does a risk assessment.

Mr Bradley: And so you did a risk assessment in this particular case and developed a defence against it. Let me go on to another issue then.

Hon Mr Newman: That's not what I said. I said every good organization does a risk assessment. And then I think you had said that's a good defence or something. That's not what I said. What I clearly stated was that every good organization does a risk assessment.

Mr Bradley: That was my interpretation, which is fine. I always accept what the minister says as his own words.

What is the administrative monetary penalties program, which was begun in 1999? Is that not a program which was there to weaken enforcement? My friend Frank will be interested in this; he was a police officer. Was this not a program intended to weaken enforcement in the province and provide for smaller penalties?

1750

Hon Mr Newman: I'll have Doug Barnes expand upon that for you.

Mr Doug Barnes: Under Bill 82, authority was given for the ministry to develop regulations to establish administrative monetary penalties. The penalty range has yet to be established. It would apply to the three main pieces of ministry legislation: the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Pesticides Act and the water act. The number of penalties that are potentially available is quite large. We have undertaken a preliminary discussion with different stakeholders in terms of how it will be applied, and our intention would be to post a draft of that regulation on the environmental registry in the near future.

Mr Hampton: Mr Newman, Toby Barrett is your parliamentary assistant, is he not?

Hon Mr Newman: Yes, he is; you're aware of that.

Mr Hampton: And Mr Barrett and Mr Galt together held all of the hearings which go into the Galt report? They heard from 700 farmers, or 700 people, as I understand it, during the hearings?

Hon Mr Newman: Toby Barrett is also a member of the Legislative Assembly. He and Dr Galt went out and did some research on this issue.

Mr Hampton: So despite the fact that your own parliamentary assistant participated in the Galt report, and that officials from your ministry participated in the Galt report, and despite the fact that the report deals with the issue of nutrient management, specifically the enforcement of nutrient management from farms, you haven't asked for a briefing on the report?

Hon Mr Newman: Well, again, the role of the ministry was a secondary role. The lead ministry, as I will say again for you in case you didn't catch it the first two or three times, was the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Mr Hampton: You haven't asked your parliamentary assistant for a briefing on the report?

Hon Mr Newman: I can tell you that the report has not been issued. I think you are aware of that. Any role that he would have played would have been a secondary role.

Mr Hampton: You haven't asked your parliamentary assistant for a briefing on the report?

Hon Mr Newman: Again, the report has not been issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Mr Hampton: Are you aware of a Health Canada study that showed that 40% of the E coli cases in Canada were recorded right here in the province of Ontario? Did you know that the study linked higher incidences of E coli in water resources with intensive numbers of livestock in the area? Were you aware of that report?

Hon Mr Newman: I've read it in the media, but I've not read the report itself. You should also keep in mind there are several different causes for E coli. You would know that some if it is through water, you may or may not know that some of it can be through beef or hamburger that is not cooked properly, that E coli can also be that. So I'm not sure which numbers you're using.

Mr Hampton: Have you asked your deputy minister for a briefing on that report by Health Canada?

Hon Mr Newman: We've asked for many briefings on various issues with respect to E coli.

Mr Hampton: Are you aware of a report called Groundwater in Ontario? This report warns that many aquifers are poorly protected from near-surface contamination sources. It cites that 31% of Ontario wells are contaminated with bacteria. The report was published by a number of organizations including Environment Canada. Have you asked for a briefing on that report?

Hon Mr Newman: That's the type of issue the inquiry will look at.

Mr Hampton: But as the minister responsible for ensuring the safeguarding of our drinking water, have you asked for a briefing on that report?

Mr Mazzilli: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The leader of the third party is referring to specific reports. I think it's only proper that those reports be given to all members of the committee so that certainly we know, in fact-

The Chair: Your request is noted. The clerk, Mr Hampton, would be happy to copy any materials that you have to share.

Mr Hampton: I can provide you those.

The Chair: Please continue.

Mr Hampton: Have you asked for a briefing on that report?

Hon Mr Newman: Which report?

Mr Hampton: Don't worry.

Is your ministry aware of a 1997 study cited by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority that shows that liquid manure applied in accepted quantity and under ideal conditions is leaching through cropland into field tile and finding its way directly into streams and rivers within a half-hour timeframe?

Hon Mr Newman: This would be a report that would be dealt with through the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, which isn't the ministry before the estimates committee today.

Mr Hampton: These are all reports dealing with the contamination of groundwater by agricultural runoff. Your parliamentary assistant just participated in a round of hearings where 700 people appeared and a report has been prepared on groundwater runoff from intensive agricultural operations. That report was prepared on April 17. You haven't asked for a copy of that report. You haven't asked for a briefing on it from your deputy minister; from your officials, who sat on the report; or from your parliamentary assistant who was one of the principals of the report. Is that right?

Hon Mr Newman: No. What I've indicated-and I'll say it again-is that the report has not been released. It's not a report that is from the Ministry of the Environment. The Ministry of the Environment is the ministry here today before the estimates committee. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is the ministry leading that. They would be the ones releasing that report. I don't know how many times I've had to repeat myself.

Mr Hampton: In light of Safety-Kleen having filed for bankruptcy, have you instructed your officials to deny the company's request for MOE's permission to increase the volume of hazardous toxic waste that they import from the United States to Flamborough?

Hon Mr Newman: Carl Griffith is here.

Mr Hampton: Maybe you can tell me. Has the minister instructed you to deny the company's request?

Mr Griffith: We are currently looking at their service area to make sure that the waste that is going into that site is in compliance with the service area.

Mr Hampton: Has the minister instructed you to deny the company's request?

Mr Lal: Mr Chair, if I could respond to that question, it is not in the nature of things for the minister to instruct an official on the merits of an application of this sort. This sort of decision would be made by officials, such as the director of the EA branch, who would be dealing with applications of this sort. In the normal course of events, it would not be something which would have a ministerial fiat on it.

Mr Hampton: I'll ask the minister again: Have you been briefed about this request?

Hon Mr Newman: No.

Mr Hampton: You haven't been briefed about this request by Safety-Kleen to increase the volume of hazardous toxic waste that they import from the United States to Flamborough, despite the fact they have filed for bankruptcy.

Hon Mr Newman: I have not been briefed on that issue. It's obviously something that's still within the ministry, through the application process. Many people come forward, many companies come forward with ideas. Not all are accepted; some are accepted, some are rejected.

Mr Hampton: So you have been briefed.

Hon Mr Newman: I didn't say that. Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I did not say that.

Mr Hampton: Have you been briefed?

Hon Mr Newman: I've answered your question.

Mr Hampton: I've asked you a whole bunch of questions about your ministry. Earlier I asked you if you have made any recommendations about increasing staff for your ministry. Let me ask you: Have you made any recommendations or do you have any recommendations for increasing staff related to the drinking water surveillance program?

Hon Mr Newman: I can again assure you, as the Premier has, that whatever it takes, we are prepared to do. There is the review underway of the ministry to ensure that all policies and procedures and operations of the ministry are going to protect the people of this province in the 21st century.

Mr Hampton: Have you made any recommendations regarding more staff in your ministry to do follow-up work with respect to groundwater contamination from intensive livestock operations?

Hon Mr Newman: There is a review underway, as I've indicated. We're going to look at all aspects and make recommendations from there.

Mr Hampton: You indicated earlier that Safety-Kleen has their own inspector for their dump here. Is that correct?

Hon Mr Newman: I said there is on-site inspection, yes.

Mr Hampton: In view of the fact that they have filed for bankruptcy, have you made any recommendations regarding inspection staff to do that inspection work?

Hon Mr Newman: Regional staff attend to that site on a regular basis. With respect to bankruptcy, which you're talking about, I understand that affects their American operations, not their Canadian operations. I don't know if you were out of the room at the time, but I indicated that there is the $2.25-million financial assurance that's put in place by a bond guaranteed to November 24, 2000. It automatically renews at that point.

Mr Hampton: Do you consider that adequate?

Hon Mr Newman: I'd like to finish my answer.

The Chair: Mr Hampton, let him finish his answer, please. Go ahead, Mr Newman.

Hon Mr Newman: I'm allowed to finish. Thank you.

The amount of financial assurance is based upon the associated risk and the nature of the work required to close and monitor the site if the circumstances warrant. If there's any change to the status of the bond, the ministry will be notified immediately. I also indicated that Safety-Kleen is required by the ministry to carry $10 million in environmental liability insurance. Safety-Kleen carries $20 million, which is $10 million more than is required by the ministry.

Mr Hampton: You're aware that in the United States one state alone is asking for a $70-million deposit from the company.

Hon Mr Newman: It depends upon the size of the operation in that state. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Mr Hampton: So the fact that with a state in the United States demanding a $70-million deposit, it doesn't bother you that you're only asking for a $2.5-million deposit.

Hon Mr Newman: That's not what I said. Perhaps you weren't listening to what I said, but I indicated to you that the amount of the bond depends on the size of the operation.

Mr Hampton: You believe the $2.5 million is adequate for the operation here in Ontario?

Hon Mr Newman: Actually, you didn't listen to what I said. What I indicated was, there were bonds totalling $2.25 million as financial assurance. That's what I indicated.

Mr Hampton: You think that's adequate?

Hon Mr Newman: I can tell you that there is the environmental liability insurance that Safety-Kleen has as well. They're required by the ministry to carry $10 million; they carry $20 million.

Mr Hampton: You think that's adequate?

Hon Mr Newman: If you are suggesting that it's inadequate, please provide some information to me. That's what is in place for that site.

Mr Hampton: I take it from your answer you believe that's adequate.

Hon Mr Newman: I've indicated to you what the value of the bond is and what the environmental liability insurance is for that site.

Mr Hampton: Are you aware that your government has sent a list, established by cabinet, to the Ontario Realty-

Hon Mr Newman: Mr Chair, does this go to-

The Chair: It's been drawn to my attention we're now past 6 of the clock. This committee meets for the afternoon, which roughly ends at 6 o'clock. Mr Hampton, I have to declare the meeting adjourned. We'll consider the last three minutes of your questioning when we're reconvened tomorrow at 3:30 or at the end of orders of the day.

The committee adjourned at 1803.