MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

CONTENTS

Wednesday 21 June 2000

Ministry of the Environment
Hon Dan Newman, Minister of the Environment
Mr Edward Piché, director, environmental monitoring and reporting branch
Dr Walter Chan, assistant director, air policy and climate change branch
Ms Carmen Gauthier, director, business and fiscal planning branch
Mr Tony Rockingham, director, air policy and climate change branch
Mr Carl Griffith, assistant deputy minister, corporate management division
Mr Bob Shaw, director, central region, investigations and enforcement branch
Mr Michael Williams, director, environmental assessment and approvals branch

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 L)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant PC)
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood ND)
Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington L)
Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River ND)

Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes

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

The committee met at 1539 in room 228.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

The Chair (Mr Gerard Kennedy): I'll call this meeting to order. For the information of members, just as a reminder, we start off with the third party and their remaining three minutes, followed by the government caucus. Minister, staff and everyone who's here, thank you for joining us.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Minister, are you aware of this cabinet submission dated March 14, 2000? It's called A Cleaner Ontario: Toughest Penalties Legislation, Environmental SWAT Teams, and a Toll-free Pollution Hotline.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): Which vote in the book are we on?

Mr Hampton: Simple question: Are you aware of this document?

The Chair: General vote. Vote 1101

Hon Mr Newman: We're still on 1101. OK. That's good.

Mr Hampton: Were you aware of this document?

Hon Mr Newman: No such document has gone before cabinet.

Mr Hampton: I didn't ask you if this particular document went before cabinet. I said, are you aware of this document? Were you aware of this document in your ministry?

Hon Mr Newman: I can tell you again that no document like that has gone before cabinet.

Mr Hampton: Minister, it has a position on it for your signature-it's on page 28 of 28-and for the signature of the deputy minister. Did the deputy minister or any other official in the ministry brief you about this document or the information contained in this document?

Hon Mr Newman: I think that document says "draft" on it. Is that correct?

Mr Hampton: Yes.

Hon Mr Newman: Oh, it does say "draft." OK. I can tell you-

Mr Hampton: Did the deputy minister or any other official in the ministry brief you about the contents of this document?

The Chair: Please let the minister respond.

Hon Mr Newman: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that opportunity. I can tell you that indeed in the Blueprint document, this document here, there was a firm commitment to an environment SWAT team being put in place.

Mr Hampton: Minister, did the deputy minister or any other official in the ministry brief you about this cabinet submission-

Hon Mr Newman: Chair, am I not allowed to answer the question?

Mr Hampton: -or the information contained in it?

The Chair: Mr Hampton, I'll ask you to address your comments through the Chair. Mr Newman, you've answered the question?

Hon Mr Newman: No, I haven't. I was getting to it. I was trying to point out that in this Blueprint document here, which was the campaign commitment of the party of which I am a member-

The Chair: Minister, please answer the question you've been asked.

Hon Mr Newman: I'm trying. This is very pertinent to what we're talking about. It says: "To help enforce these new penalties, we'll create an `environmental SWAT team,' a specialized group of environment ministry staff who will audit industries to make sure they're obeying the rules.

"We'll also combine the patchwork quilt of laws that protect the environment into one clear, comprehensive and easily enforced set of environmental laws."

So there is a commitment on the part of the governing party to ensure that an environmental SWAT team is in place and I can tell you again-

Mr Hampton: I'll ask the question for the fourth time. Did the deputy minister or any other official in the ministry-

Hon Mr Newman: I can tell you again-

Mr Hampton: -brief you about this document?

The Chair: Mr Hampton, I'm going to have to ask you to please address your comments through the Chair. Mr Newman, it sounds like you're finishing up. Could you please continue?

Hon Mr Newman: No, I'm trying to tie it together. There are several commitments with respect to the environment. I have made the commitment as environment minister to ensure that each and every one of those commitments that have been made with respect to the environment are indeed fulfilled. In the Common Sense Revolution-

Mr Hampton: You might as well tell us now because it's going to come out at the inquiry.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): A point of order, Mr Chair, if I may.

The Chair: Mr O'Toole, if you have a point of order, please cite the order or the precedent.

Mr O'Toole: The constant interruption of the minister when trying to respond is not appropriate.

The Chair: No, that's not a point of order. I will chair this meeting, Mr O'Toole. Mr Hampton, I will ask you to address your comments through the Chair and to please await your recognition for the question. We're just wasting time. I'd prefer not to do that. I'm looking for the co-operation of all parties.

Hon Mr Newman: The point I'm trying to make is that I, as environment minister, am going to ensure that all of the environmental commitments that we made in this document are indeed fulfilled, because in the 1994 document, the Common Sense Revolution, each and every one of those commitments was kept. Those promises that were made have been kept by the government. I am going to ensure that each and every one of the commitments in the environmental section of the Blueprint document is indeed adhered to.

Mr Hampton: The Premier has said that this document is as phony as a three-dollar bill and doesn't exist. Do you agree with the Premier?

Hon Mr Newman: You're talking about a document there. I can tell you that no such document has gone before cabinet.

Mr Hampton: The Premier has said that this document doesn't exist and that it's as phony as a three-dollar bill. Do you agree with the Premier?

Hon Mr Newman: I believe I've answered your question, Mr Hampton.

The Chair: You've got 30 seconds.

Mr Hampton: This document says that it would have cost your government $17.6 million to hire the 134 inspectors, enforcement officers and technical staff. This is March 14. This is before Walkerton. The first thing listed in the outcomes is better protection of Ontario's drinking water. Can you tell me why you and your government turned down this document when it gives you a clear path to providing better protection for Ontario's drinking water at a cost of only $17.6 million a year or less?

Hon Mr Newman: What I can tell you is that we did make a commitment in our Blueprint document to have an environmental SWAT team in place, the specialized group of Ministry of the Environment staff who are going to audit industry to make sure they're obeying the rules. That's what I can tell you our commitment is.

The Chair: I'm sorry, the time has expired. You will have another opportunity. We will now turn to the government caucus.

Mr O'Toole: I would like to preface any questions I have with generally striking the tone of the intention of the government caucus members here, which is to ask questions that are pertinent to the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment. To this point, I have found that, because of the media-worthiness of Walkerton, this has precipitated into an aggressive, overassumptive kind of argument from the third party-Mr Hampton. It is in no way relevant in most cases to the process of the estimates itself.

I will be asking the minister about his responsibilities, which are-as I saw in his 30-minute presentation at the beginning-to focus the resources of the ministry on investigation and enforcement. I am convinced that if we can determine that through appropriate questions, the Ministry of the Environment and its business plan can be better understood by the people of Ontario.

If this is only to be used by Mr Hampton as a political platform to ingratiate his own position, I find it's not the process of the estimates to do that.

Mr Hampton: Are you going to shut it down now?

Mr O'Toole: I would like to have my time as my time. In fact, I'm going to make one other point for the record. It's important.

As you know, the Speaker of the Legislature of Ontario ruled today pretty much, as you would understand, to say that there shouldn't be interruption. Furthermore, during the 30-minute preamble to the estimates process, the NDP launched into a very aggressive kind of staccato questioning, which we witnessed here again today, that I find is more theatre than substance. That has to be put on the record.

It's my interpretation that the Speaker of the Legislature agreed substantively with our position and our argument. We have questions we need answers to. We want answers to the questions, not just about Walkerton, but about the environment. That includes the air, water and soil. I am going to relinquish this time to Mr Barrett, who has been part of the discussions and is parliamentary assistant to the minister.

The Chair: Thank you for your comments in general. I am just going to take one second, and I won't take it from your time.

There was a ruling by the Speaker today, perhaps not exactly as characterized, but I think it is helpful that each member of the committee receive a copy of the ruling so they are able to know what that determination was. I certainly want to advise each member of the committee that we will be bound by that interpretation, which I see as consistent with my outlook. It may not have been adequately explained, but certainly I feel very comfortable pursuing what the Speaker is recommending.

Now we will continue with the government caucus.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I wish to question the minister or, if need be, ministry staff with respect to acid rain. More specifically, I would like some more detailed information on the status, past and present, of the acid rain deposition program.

Certainly this was on the public agenda. As I recall, in the 1970s and the 1980s there was so much in the news about that. Back in 1984 the program received funding of something like $10 million and monitored something like 40 monthly sites. In 1992 and 1993, during the NDP era, deposition funding was reduced to $100,000 and the number of sites had decreased to 24.

Leading off from that, I'm certainly aware that the federal government is involved in this program. There is a supportive role, as I understand it, between the Ontario government and the federal government. Very specifically, it's my understanding that the federal government has ceased to fulfill its funding commitment to this joint acid rain program.

1550

Minister, what does this mean to this program and what does it mean with respect to the ability of the province to continue to monitor acid rain? Again, I ask this question in light of the ruling. I have not had a chance to read it, but I understand and I have certainly observed over the last five years a well-established practice that ministry staff be called on to provide answers. I'm interested in some very detailed answers beyond what one would hear from a politician, if I can put it that way.

Hon Mr Newman: The Countdown Acid Rain program has indeed been in existence since 1985. It has been a very successful initiative in terms of the amount of information that we've been able to accumulate, as well as to the quality of that information.

The function of the program was to monitor air and precipitation samples and to track emerging trends in order to supplement Environment Canada data, as well as our own, and to better understand the links to acid rain while enhancing our strategy against it.

Ontario's Countdown Acid Rain program and the United States Environmental Protection Agency's 1990 Clean Air Act amendments were two of the regulatory approaches used to reduce acidifying emissions and their effects in Ontario. The success of these regulatory approaches has provided us with an excellent model of acid rain trends and means that intensive monitoring activities can be redirected to the next phases of the program.

My ministry continues to provide acid rain deposition mapping, using its sophisticated mathematical models and Environment Canada monitoring data. We also continue to support university partnerships to provide long-term assessments of aquatic and biological effects caused by acid deposition and acid-sensitive watersheds.

In fact, in 1984 the program received funding of $10 million and monitored over 40 monthly and 16 daily sites. Approximately $1 million was allotted to deposition activities. By 1992-93, deposition funding had been reduced to $100,000 and the number of sites had decreased to 24.

By 1993-94, the number of monitoring sites had been reduced to 16. As of the conclusion of the deposition phase of the program, there were 13 monthly sites, one daily site and three special study sites in Sudbury.

The natural conclusion of some aspects of the program have allowed the next steps to be taken. The government is making great progress in its efforts to reduce and eliminate acid rain. We currently have partnerships with Laurentian, Trent and York universities to provide long-term assessments of aquatic and biological effects caused by acid deposition in acid-sensitive watersheds in the Dorset, Sudbury and Killarney areas.

The mandatory emissions monitoring and reporting regulation announced January 24 will also help reduce smog, acid rain, air toxins and climate-change-contributing emissions and improve air quality in Ontario. The ministry will continue to monitor smog precursors, particulate matter, including acid-related sulphates and nitrates, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and ozone at over 70 sites across Ontario.

To further expand upon this, I am now going to call upon Ed Piché.

Mr Edward Piché: Beginning as yesterday, my name is Edward Piché. I am director of the environmental monitoring and reporting branch of the environmental sciences and standards division of the Ministry of the Environment. It's my pleasure to be here today.

If I can pick up and expand a little on what the minister said, there is a story here that all Ontarians, and in fact North Americans, should take some pride in. The story began in the mid-1970s and the focal point was actually in 1979, with the inauguration of the acidic precipitation in Ontario study of.

In fact, at that time the government of the day committed in excess of $10 million, and for a considerable period of time after that, other governments in North America, principally in the United States, contributed very significant amounts of money, because the relationship between emissions of oxides or gases containing sulphur and nitrogen and what happened in the environment wasn't entirely clear.

At that time, Ontario established over 40 sites to measure deposition of the material that comes down in the environment. The thesis was going back to the time of Newton that whatever goes up comes down. That was before rockets and space flight and so on. In any event, the problem was that there were a lot of naysayers who didn't understand the relationship between what went up and what came down. They said, "If one molecule of sulphur went up, five molecules could come down." Obviously, that required a lot of investigation.

Over that period of time, Ontario, together with various partners including a knowledgeable and supportive public, established a large number of sites in Ontario where we measured the deposition of these materials going into the environment. We also embarked on very aggressive programs with the federal government to attempt to persuade our American colleagues and friends that what they were doing down there was having a very great and significant impact on us.

As the program evolved, as the minister said, culminating in the mid-1980s with these key initiatives for the Countdown Acid Rain program in Ontario and, in 1990, as a consequence of very aggressive communication programs that Ontario engaged in with the federal government, the so-called promulgation in November 1990 of the Clean Air Act, those programs together-the Countdown Acid Rain one in Ontario and the EPA Clean Air Act in the United States-had a very significant impact in reducing emissions of sulphur. Our monitoring program demonstrated that that in fact was the case.

Together with those programs, again beginning in the late 1970s, we had intensive partnerships, with the Ministry of Natural Resources, with various universities in Ontario, with Inco Ltd in Sudbury, at various times with Ontario Hydro and also with Falconbridge, to investigate the impact of the deposition on lakes, both in the greater Sudbury area and in central and eastern Ontario, the Muskoka-Haliburton area.

What we have seen over that period of time, and again factually since 1971, has been an 83% reduction in emissions of sulphur from the complexes in Sudbury. What has been the consequence of that for the environment in Ontario and in eastern North America? Very significant improvement in the lakes in the greater Sudbury area; in fact, unprecedented improvements on a world basis. There is no comparable experiment anywhere in the world that has the database or the consequence of abatement action.

In the greater Dorset-Muskoka-Haliburton area, the so-called playground of the good part of Ontario, there has been in excess of a 30% improvement in lakes in that area. The story is not completely good, though. There are still some lakes in that area that aren't progressing as we would like. So we have continued with our so-called biogeochemical studies, these calibrated watershed studies in the Muskoka-Haliburton area, focused more energy and effort there, and decoupled from areas where we understand the physics and chemistry; that is, the deposition monitoring.

All of this has been done over that period of time in partnership with municipalities, with academia, with industry and with the federal government. Collectively, as I said, that information has painted a very important picture, a very constructive picture and, I would like to think, a successful picture of what can happen when appropriate actions are taken and what benefits can be measured.

The story isn't completed yet. Earlier this year the government made a commitment to a further very significant reduction in our contribution to the problem in lieu of this feedback that we have from those environmental monitoring activities. We are continuing our partnerships in Sudbury, in Killarney and in Muskoka-Haliburton.

I failed to mention earlier that one of our key partners is the Norwegian institute of the environment. They have been a partner with us now for several years. Some of you may be aware that there's very significant similar phenomena in Europe. We have worked very closely internationally, as well as nationally.

We're continuing to monitor the success of the reductions and will continue to do so until such time as the broad community is satisfied that the actions taken are necessary and sufficient to restore and improve the environment to a level acceptable to all Ontarians.

1600

Mr Barrett: Mr Chair, if I could continue, with the permission of my colleagues, I have another question in the area of air quality but a slightly different tack. I think today's the first day of summer. As I understand it, there have already been a number of smog alerts, Minister, an obvious indicator of impact on air quality. As we go into summer, the potential for smog days increases. There will be a possibility for more smog alerts, I'm assuming. I know it's important for everyone to do their part. But there is a responsibility on governments, municipal and at the provincial level.

I'm aware of a guide to municipalities titled Smog Alert: A Municipal Response Guide, which details good examples of things that we can all do to reduce the effect on air quality. We did hear what I consider a very detailed explanation of the Drive Clean program yesterday. Specifically, further to Drive Clean, what are we doing to continue to protect air quality in the province of Ontario? I don't know whether Mr Piché has further information.

Hon Mr Newman: I'll call up Walter Chan.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Alvin Curling): May I just add that we have about two and a half minutes or so, so conduct your response in that time.

Dr Walter Chan: My name is Walter Chan. I am assistant director of the air policy and climate change branch of the ministry. I want to describe for you a multi-stakeholder forum which the ministry has set up to engage stakeholders in the battle against smog and improvement of air quality. The anti-smog action plan is a multi-stakeholder forum which was set up by the Ontario government back in 1996 to address the issue of smog in Ontario. The plan was initially named Ontario's Smog Plan, which is familiar to most people. It was renamed the anti-smog action plan, in short ASAP, in October 1999.

Being aware of the health and environmental impacts associated with smog, which includes ground level ozone and fine particulate, Ontario was proactive in preparing a discussion paper, Towards a Smog Plan for Ontario, and organizing a two-day workshop back in June 1996. At that point, we began the journey to improve air quality due to smog. About 150 people participated in this two-day workshop. At the end of the workshop, Ontario proposed air quality reduction targets for the stakeholders and invited them to join us in a partnership to work together collectively to address the issue.

In September 1996, the first meeting of the Smog Plan steering committee was held and we agreed on a structure, including a number of working groups to follow. The working groups will help develop information on emissions, look at technology information and propose initiatives which would allow us to reduce smog precursors.

In January 1998, the steering committee published Ontario's Smog Plan: A Partnership for Collective Action.

The Vice-Chair: You have about a minute.

Dr Chan: In this document, the partnership affirmed the collective goal of 45% NO_x and VOCs reduction from the 1990 levels and also proposed to develop a particulate strategy. In the meantime, since we did not know very much about the particulate issue, we also announced an interim goal of 10% minimum reduction of emissions that would contribute towards particulate formation in the atmosphere.

At this moment, over 50 partners, including industry, companies and governments, have signed the Anti-Smog Accord. Many other partners, who did not sign the accord for a number of reasons, also participate in the ASAP operating committee, including a number of environmental and health groups as well as the federal government and municipal governments.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. I will have to stop you with that. Mr Bradley.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): If I may go back to the document entitled A Cleaner Ontario, to which reference has been made, this cabinet document which has "draft" on the outside, "draft" is an interesting word that allows ministers, I am told, to be evasive about whether it's a cabinet document or not. So I'm going to try to smoke out of you, or I should say ask the question, whether anyone in your ministry has seen this document, whether you specifically, your deputy minister, or any senior person in your ministry has seen this. I can't believe a document of this kind could exist as extensively as it does and not appropriately consult the ministry.

Hon Mr Newman: I have not seen the document. I can tell you that there was a Blueprint commitment to have a SWAT team.

Mr Bradley: I'm aware of that.

Hon Mr Newman: No, I want to make something perfectly clear. I think it's important for everyone here today-

Mr Bradley: You answered that for Mr Hampton.

Hon Mr Newman: Well, sometimes members aren't listening, and I want to take that opportunity-

Mr Bradley: Or sometimes ministers are trying to skate.

Hon Mr Newman: I'm trying to answer your question to the best of my ability. I can tell you that in 1994 we brought forward a document called the Common Sense Revolution. It had a series of promises and commitments that the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario ran on as its platform. It's a platform that was put out clearly one year before the election. We fulfilled our commitment in that document.

This document, which was for the 1999 campaign, the Blueprint document, "Mike Harris's Plan to Keep Ontario on the Right Track," had specific commitments with respect to the environment, one of them of course being the environmental SWAT team. I want to quote from that. It says, "The Strongest Enforcement in Canada. To help enforce these new penalties," which refers back to the fact that we made a commitment to have the toughest penalties in the country with respect to the environment, we would actually see a doubling of the maximum fines for first-time offences-

Mr Bradley: It's all in the document. I've seen it.

Hon Mr Newman: -which would go from $1 million to $2 million, and then for repeat offenders the maximum fine would go from $2 million to $4 million. So when it refers to the penalties, those are the penalties it refers to. Then it goes on to say-

Mr Bradley: I will take that as a given.

Hon Mr Newman: I'm trying to answer, Chair.

Mr Bradley: I'm actually happy with the answer you've given me.

Hon Mr Newman: Well, I'm not, because I want to give better.

Mr Bradley: I am delighted with the answer you've given me so far, and I would like to go on to another question.

Hon Mr Newman: It says that we're going to create "an `environmental SWAT team'-a specialized group of environment ministry staff who will audit industries to make sure they're obeying the rules.

"We'll also combine the patchwork quilt of laws that protect the environment into one clear, comprehensive and easily enforced set of environmental laws.

"We also think that the public can be a tremendous resource for protecting our environment against polluters."

Mr Bradley: Once I say I'm satisfied with the answer, that should be all I get.

Hon Mr Newman: Just to wrap up, "To help people get more involved in protecting the environment, we'll develop and promote a toll-free pollution hotline"-

Mr Bradley: This doesn't do you any good.

Hon Mr Newman: -"for Ontarians to report possible acts of pollution."

Those are some of the commitments that we've made. In answer to your question, yes, the SWAT team was one of the commitments we made.

Mr Bradley: I specifically didn't ask that. What I asked was whether you had seen the document, whether the deputy minister had seen the document, or any senior officials. All it required was a yes or no answer. I'd be delighted to hear that yes or no answer. Did you-you said no, you did not. I take you at your word.

Hon Mr Newman: I've answered your question.

Mr Bradley: Did your deputy minister or any other senior staff within your ministry see this document?

Hon Mr Newman: I've answered your question. Again, it is a Blueprint commitment. I can assure you-

Mr Bradley: You've answered by not answering.

Hon Mr Newman: -that I'm going to ensure that happens.

1610

Mr Bradley: Why would this document have been killed? It looks like a very extensive proposal. Normally, as you would know, because you're a minister, this goes through committees of cabinet and it has to be vetted by the Premier's office. My worry is that it got killed in the Premier's office, but perhaps that is not the case. Can you figure out how this document got off the rails, how it was before you, before cabinet in some way or other, and then it got off the rails?

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I'm asking for a ruling here from the Chair. There's a lot of leeway on questioning, but when questions are direct and then become vague as to who knew where a report was-

Mr Bradley: I was specific.

The Chair: Mr Mazzilli, that is not a point of order. I will just remind members: Please cite order or precedents in raising points of order. I'd be very happy to hear them for the better process of the committee. Mr Bradley.

Mr Bradley: The timing of this document is very interesting because it came in March of this year. That was before Walkerton; that was before there was a lot of media attention being devoted to the environment. Certainly, while there were questions in the House, opposition critics would have had to scurry to get anyone to pay attention and you would have been able to slip through the scrum quickly. After Walkerton, there is a lot of interest in this.

Do you think that perhaps it got scuttled in March, which was just before the budget was announced, and you need budget consideration for this, because there was a perception by many in government-I'm not saying you, but many in government-that somehow environment wasn't a front-burner issue so therefore it was safe to at best postpone it, or at worst deep-six it?

Hon Mr Newman: That's a hypothetical question you're asking that I can't give you an answer to.

Mr Bradley: So you cannot answer that question.

Hon Mr Newman: What I said is-

Mr Bradley: I understand.

Hon Mr Newman: Let me be very clear: I said I don't answer hypothetical questions.

Mr Bradley: I understand. In the document, on page 3 of 28, it says, "Historically, the ministry approach of working co-operatively with industry to develop workable solutions to reduce their pollutant releases has been only moderately successful. The existing low inspection rate referred to above allows numerous industries the opportunity to break the law."

Was that your perception, that after the cuts of 1995 and 1996, the huge and massive cuts to your budget and staff, the "existing low inspection rate referred to above allows numerous industries the opportunity to break the law"? Would you agree with that?

Hon Mr Newman: I just want to refer to my notes here on staffing issues because there shouldn't have been any effect on front-line services with the numbers of staff.

In the mid-1990s there were various constraint programs that netted selected funding increases. In the government's expenditure control in 1993-94, $50.7 million was cut from the ministry, including $2 million in salaries. In the late 1990s, significant budgetary reductions took place, during 1996-97 and 1997-98. These were strategic business plan reductions that included eliminating the subsidy programs and attendant administration, which was 62 staff and $153.3 million. There's the termination of 10 agencies, boards and committees: 44 staff, $4.9 million. There were 229 operations staff, including the closure of three regional laboratories. That was 50 staff, keeping in mind that at time half of the municipalities and public utilities weren't using the ministry labs to do their testing. There are 37 district environmental officers, seven investigative support staff, 32 management positions, 44 administrative positions and 59 scientific, technical and professional staff.

What the operations staff reductions focused on was the fact that there was refocusing and restructuring of compliance, enforcement and technical activities by reorganizing and merging district offices, focusing on land use policy as opposed to specialized land use approvals.

Mr Bradley: Thank you. I'll cry uncle now and I'll move on to another question.

Hon Mr Newman: There's also regional restructuring-

The Chair: Minister, I just wanted to tell you that I appreciate your commitment in providing full answers, but within reason, I hope you'll agree that you'll allow for questioning as well.

Mr Bradley: I'm satisfied with that answer.

Hon Mr Newman: But, Chair, am I not allowed to answer the question?

Mr Bradley: That was very helpful to me.

The Chair: Just by way of guidance, because we have some time left in the hearings and I think it would be helpful for everyone, I'd just refer you to the Speaker's ruling. It indicates that it is the role of the Chair to ensure the answers that are given are on topic, and I will rule on that from time to time. I will rule as little as possible. I would again ask for a fair give-and-take in terms of when it is the time for each of the parties they can determine how they wish to ask questions and hopefully there's reasonable time given for an answer.

Hon Mr Newman: I was just wrapping up, Chair.

Mr Bradley: On page 2 of 28-

Mr Barrett: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The Speaker's ruling makes reference to: "the Chair should need to inject him- or herself into the proceedings of a committee only relatively rarely. The Chair should be an impartial, largely silent observer of the committee's proceedings who has no voice except in the case of disorder."

Again, this is my experience, having chaired a standing committee for four years. I tried to follow that guideline and I find it heartening that the Speaker has presented this very recently in the Legislature. So only in the case of disorder-

The Chair: I appreciate that, Mr Barrett. It is not a point of order. I appreciate your drawing it to our attention. Each person has in front of them the ruling of the Speaker. I want to be clear: We will stay on topic. The estimates committee is unique in the sense that there is a part of this proceeding which is about questions and answers. It is completely up to the minister to give an answer or not give an answer, but it is important, and the Speaker has affirmed, that there not be unduly long answers and that the answers be on topic, and those will be my guidelines in terms of ruling. I hope that all members of the committee will exhibit the goodwill that we need.

Mr Mazzilli: Chair-

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Mazzilli, please cite precedent or something from the orders.

Mr Bradley: You're looking bad doing this, Frank.

Mr Mazzilli: The reports by committees, I'd like to-

The Chair: I'm sorry, that's not a point of order, Mr Mazzilli.

Mr Bradley: I'm going to go to a question. On page 2 of 28 of the confidential document, the March 14, 2000, draft, it says the following:

"Less than 10% of sources of pollution in the province (those most likely to cause health or environmental problems) are inspected in any one year. The capacity for inspection and investigation activities needs to be increased and the compliance and enforcement approach needs to be toughened so that the ministry can effectively and visibly deter those who choose to operate outside of the law and threaten public health and our air, land and water."

Would you agree, Mr Minister, that less than 10% of the sources of pollution in the province-and they are the ones most likely to cause health or environmental problems-are inspected in any one year? Would you agree with that?

Hon Mr Newman: Do I think there are inspections done-

Mr Bradley: Less than 10%, it says, are done in a year. Would you agree with that?

Hon Mr Newman: For example, on the water facilities, I can tell you this year that we are going to inspect every one of the 630 facilities in the province. That's a commitment that I've made and a commitment that I'm going to ensure-

Mr Bradley: That's after Walkerton.

Hon Mr Newman: Give me the opportunity. You've asked a question on inspections. I just want to answer that for you. Again, the 630 facilities in the province are going to be inspected. We're going to ensure that they're visited and that proper inspection takes place by qualified personnel. We're going to ensure that any facility that is not in compliance will be brought into compliance by field orders. I can tell you that in fact they're all going to be done. We're going to go beyond that and ensure that the certificates of approval for each facility are reviewed. In the end there'll be one certificate of approval for each facility in Ontario. After that, we're going to ensure that certificates of approval are reviewed every three years after that.

1620

But with respect to the number of inspections, I can tell you that in the year 1999-2000 inspections conducted by the operations division staff were 7,055. I look back to 1994-95 and the number was 7,010. So we've seen an increase over the 1994-95 numbers and increases over all the other years. In the past year there have been 7,055 inspections. That deals with air. It deals with pesticides. It deals with the waste issue, both hazardous and liquid industrial waste; solid and non-hazardous waste as well. Many inspections were done there. Also with sewage: Municipal, private and commercial operations are being inspected, industrial sewage is being inspected; communal water systems, surface water and groundwater are being inspected. There have been many, inspections done by the operations division staff; in fact, an increase over the 1994-95 numbers in the past year.

Mr Bradley: Let me try to help you out with the Treasurer. In the document, on page 11 of 28, it says: "The ministry intends to have SWAT staff field operational by the fall of 2000. This is an ambitious time frame and requires a series of actions and resources commencing early in 2000."

In fact, in the budget for the 2000-01, the upcoming budget, your budget was cut substantially and yet it says you were to implement the SWAT team by the fall of 2000. Does that not really mean, then, that the government abandoned or at least significantly postponed the implementation of this policy? If indeed your budget was cut and they said that you would need a series of actions and resources commencing early in 2000, how can you have a budget cut and at the same time implement this policy?

Hon Mr Newman: Again, with respect to the budget numbers, let's keep in mind why some of the numbers are what they are. First off, we're not funding the Y2K situation, because it doesn't need to be funded. If you're suggesting today that we should put more money into the Y2K situation, I disagree with you, because that problem has been solved. We don't need to spend $8 million on the Y2K problem, because we are past that. There are other costs from the previous year-relocation costs; I understand around $2 million in relocation costs that are one-time costs. There have been salary awards for staff totalling about $1 million. These are costs that were from the previous year. There have been staff and money transferred to the shared serves bureau of Management Board of Cabinet.

We saw the provincial water protection fund accelerate. You'd be aware that that program was to be over a three-year period. The money was accelerated so that municipalities could take advantage of the money earlier over a two-year basis. We saw it as a priority. That's why we accelerated that money. Instead of having it over the three years, we did it over two years to assist municipalities.

It goes on and on. The important thing is that the number of investigators, for example, within the ministry has remained the same. No investigators have been reduced in field offices. I point out to you and I think I pointed out before, but I'll point it out again, there were 44 investigators in 1995 and today there are 44.

We've taken strong measures within the Ministry of the Environment to continue to protect the environment. In fact, in the fall of 1998 the government introduced Bill 82, the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act.

Mr Bradley: I remember that. That's history now.

Hon Mr Newman: But it's very important to what the discussion is today. Bill 82 introduced a number of significant amendments which enhanced the Ministry of the Environment's ability to enforce laws which protect the environment. I see this as a good thing. I'm not sure if you do or not, but I see this as a very positive step forward. The legislation creates a regulatory authority for administrative monetary penalties-I think you had a question on that the other day-and also for electronic service and submission of documents to the ministry. This is a good way to do business in the province.

What the administrative monetary penalty regulations do-they've been drafted in a draft regulation, as I'm sure you're aware-

Mr Bradley: Uncle, uncle, uncle. I call uncle. The next question-

Hon Mr Newman: I'd like to finish, Chair.

Mr Bradley: I'm satisfied with the answer. I want to tell you that. So let's go to the next one.

Hon Mr Newman: But I haven't even finished.

Mr Bradley: Doesn't this document, Minister, really represent a cry from your ministry for the resources to do the job that the Ministry of the Environment is mandated to do, that you, as minister, need these resources, that the ministry staff who are here today need these resources? Doesn't this document, which talks about at least 137 people for your so-called SWAT team, up to hundreds of people to be hired by the ministry and more resources, really represent a cry from your ministry for the resources they expect, they need and they deserve and that you need to do your job as Minister of the Environment?

Hon Mr Newman: Again, I would draw to your attention the fact that that was a campaign commitment in the Blueprint document.

Mr Bradley: No money.

Hon Mr Newman: With respect to having an environmental SWAT team, we clearly said that. I can tell you that as Minister of the Environment I'm going to ensure that every environmental commitment in the Blueprint document becomes reality. I can tell you that's going to be my commitment to the people of Ontario.

But again, let's look back at the inspections that took place. Let's compare the numbers from 1994-95 to last year.

Mr Bradley: You've given those and I appreciate that.

The Chair: Minister, I'm going to have to interject.

Mr Bradley: I appreciate that very much.

Hon Mr Newman: Chair, with all due respect, I'm trying to answer the question.

Mr Bradley: You've given me the information and I appreciate it.

The Chair: If the information's already given, Mr Minister, then we'll return to questions.

Mr Bradley: I'm going to ask your opinion, because you've been around the House now for a little over five years. This document is a cry from your ministry for the resources it needs to do its job; a cry from you, if you will, for the resources you need to do your job. Why do you think it was deep-sixed and where do you think it was deep-sixed: in the Premier's office, in the cabinet? Where do you think this document was deep-sixed?

Hon Mr Newman: I think that's a presumption on your part. But again, I take you back to the Blueprint document: the fact that we made a commitment to have an environmental SWAT team. I again tell you, that as minister I'm going to ensure that each and every one of the environmental commitments made in the Blueprint document become reality. I make that commitment to the people of Ontario.

Mr Mazzilli: On a point of order, Chair: On June 13 the NDP started right into questions, deferring their opening statement. I certainly ask for a ruling from the Chair as to when they will be making their 30-minute opening statement. The Speaker has ruled that that is part of the process.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Mazzilli, I could inquire of the Speaker exactly what was intended. We have had a convention here, for at least the last three years, that the opening statement involves a choice of statements or questions. If you look, in fact, to the Speaker's ruling, he says it's quite in order for anyone to ask questions, it just isn't a requirement that the minister answer them.

Mr Mazzilli: From the Chair, was that clearly indicated to the minister?

The Chair: I wasn't sitting in the chair, but I'll refer you to Hansard when the Hon Mr Curling was sitting in the chair, and he asked for statements from each of the parties and did not invite questions. Each party conducted itself accordingly, subsequently.

So, Mr Mazzilli, I think you'll agree that the time we spend on points of procedure is added to the environment ministry's time when they have to return, so I don't wish to inconvenience the minister or his staff or any of you. I'd like to now turn to Ms Churley.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): I'll give a brief statement here. I see that the government backbenchers here are trying every way they can to bring up points of order to avoid the minister having to answer my questions. I guess I can be flattered by that.

Let me now get on to asking my questions. Minister, I want to get to the bottom of this document, this cabinet document, and who saw it, who was aware of it and to what level it went up within your ministry. I heard you in the scrum deny that you knew about the existence of this document. Did you ask your deputy what happened with this document?

1630

Hon Mr Newman: The document has "draft" on it and I've not seen that document.

Ms Churley: I asked you if you asked your deputy what happened with this document after question period today. Despite what your Premier said about this being as phony as a three-dollar bill and it didn't exist, you now know that it does exist. You said you didn't see it; have you asked your deputy and your staff what became of this cabinet submission? I'd like an answer to that.

Hon Mr Newman: Again, it's a document that has "draft" on it. You would know that we made a commitment in the 1999 campaign to have an environmental SWAT team. I'm going to ensure, as the Minister of the Environment, that that becomes reality, as do the other environmental commitments that are made in the Blueprint document. I'm going to see that that happens, including having the toughest penalties-

Ms Churley: I asked a specific question.

Hon Mr Newman: -doubling the maximum fines for first-time offenders from $1 million to $2 million and subsequent fines for repeat offenders from $2 million to $4 million.

Ms Churley: Minister, I'm sorry, but I asked a specific question. If I wanted information about that, I would ask you, and I may yet.

Hon Mr Newman: I'm simply answering the question.

Ms Churley: I asked you if you'd asked your deputy or your staff what became of this, and yes, it says on it "draft" cabinet submission. As an ex-minister, I remember many draft cabinet submissions. I can assure you, Minister, when it gets to this stage, where there's a page in there for cabinet sign-off and the minister's sign-off, my political staff would be aware of it and I would be made aware of it at this stage. I would assume that it went as far as committee. I want an answer as to where this cabinet document ended up. It's very, very complete.

Hon Mr Newman: That may have been the procedure when you were in government.

Ms Churley: OK, I guess you're not going to answer that question. But minister, I'd say to you that-

Hon Mr Newman: I've answered your question.

Ms Churley: -this cabinet submission is clearly-I read through it carefully-in my view, a cry for help. The way this is drafted, in fact, it recommends that there should be 500 new staff hired. I think that the feeling was they weren't going to get that, so they ended up asking for 138 new staff. Although, having said that, to really be able to inspect all points of pollution, up to 500 should be hired. As you know, you let over 900 go.

They were reduced to coming up with the SWAT team idea so that it would cost just about $18 million. Let me ask you, Minister, if that's the case, with all the cries for help and all of the information we now know, that we've asked you and the Premier daily in the House-both internally, within the ministry, you were warned that there were problems with our water, and externally, time and time again. Even if you hadn't seen it yourself, which you said you hadn't, it was very clear there were repeated attempts by staff and outside of staff to warn you there was a problem. I want to ask you, therefore, when you have a cabinet submission that recommends the lesser option of spending about $18 million, why in the world-if you were committed to at least this SWAT team-would you have allowed another $16 million to be taken out of the 2000 budget when it's almost the exact amount that was needed for this SWAT team?

Hon Mr Newman: It's not a cabinet submission. It has "draft" on it.

Ms Churley: I can't hear you, Minister.

Hon Mr Newman: But I bring to your attention the fact that, again, there've been no investigators reduced in the ministry. There were 44 investigators in 1995; there are 44 today. With respect to inspections, there were 7,055 total inspections within the ministry through the operations division by staff with respect to air and pesticides, waste-hazardous, liquid, industrial and solid-and also non-hazardous waste, municipal, private and commercial sewage operations, industrial sewage, communal water systems, surface and groundwater. So we see more inspections in the year 1999-2000 than in 1994-95. But when I look at it-I know you probably-

Ms Churley: Minister, you're just not answering my question again.

Hon Mr Newman: I'm trying to answer the question. You may not like my answer, but I'm answering your question.

Ms Churley: It isn't the answer to my question.

Hon Mr Newman: Because you're not letting me finish again.

Interjections.

Ms Churley: Take it easy, guys.

Hon Mr Newman: Again, I encourage you to look at the Liberal red book of 1995.

Ms Churley: I don't care about the Liberal red book. We've got 18 people dead here, and you're talking to me about the Liberal red book.

Hon Mr Newman: It says, "The NDP has promised to overhaul `the air pollution laws of the province.' Yet the government has cut funding for air pollution measures by 50%"-

Ms Churley: Just answer the question.

The Chair: Ms Churley, I'd ask you-

Hon Mr Newman: -"ignored air pollution generated by stationary sources"-

The Chair: Minister.

Hon Mr Newman: -"and failed to deal effectively with greenhouse gases."

The Chair: Minister, please. You need to respond in the direction of the Chair so we can maintain order.

Ms Churley, I would ask you to please address your questions through the Chair. I will give you every opportunity to ask questions.

Ms Churley: OK. Thank you.

The Chair: We have already asked the minister to stay on topic, and we believe in good faith that he will and the committee will proceed.

Ms Churley: Minister, I would like your deputy to answer directly, if he would. Perhaps he knows-

Mr Mazzilli: Point of order, Mr Chair: There's no authority to ask questions directly to the deputy minister. They're addressed to the minister.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Mazzilli, you are not on a point of order, and I'll ask you to please wait for your time.

Ms Churley: I'll put it this way, Mr Chair: I'm asking the minister if we could hear from his deputy, because perhaps he knows what happened to this very complete cabinet submission with very clear recommendations in it. I'm asking you if you would allow your deputy to answer that question.

Hon Mr Newman: Again I can tell you we made a commitment in the Blueprint document to have an environmental SWAT team in place, and I'm going to ensure that happens.

Ms Churley: So you won't allow your deputy to answer the question as to what happened to this document.

Hon Mr Newman: I've answered your question.

Ms Churley: OK. I want to turn to the hiring of new staff. I want to say for the record that I know that staff at the Ministry of the Environment have been struggling very hard to cope with the cuts that have happened under your watch. This is by no means a criticism of any staff within the Ministry of the Environment. In fact, from time to time I have heard from particular staff people asking for my assistance to try to get reinforcements and new staff hired in the ministry to help them.

I want to turn to the Ministry of the Environment estimates briefing book, 2000-01. If you turn to pages 9 and 10, on page 9 there's a graph which shows the programs and standard accounts overall summary for both operating and capital. Under "services," which is fourth down the list, you see ministry administration, $21 million; environmental protection, $33 million; conservation and stewardship etc. That's 24% of ministry spending under your very reduced budget. The total is $55.056 million. I want to ask you what "services" means. I'm very concerned about contracting out and, if you look at these figures, I believe there is some contracting out involved. I want to know, out of all those figures, this 24% of your budget, how many of these numbers would mean contracting services outside the ministry?

Hon Mr Newman: This is Carmen Gauthier, director of business and fiscal planning.

Ms Carmen Gauthier: The services account comprises a variety of payments, including a payment of around $15 million to the Ontario Realty Corp for rents that are charged, various services, maintenance contracts on our office equipment and the like, studies-in this case, we have monies for contracts. The consultants who are working on our Drive Clean program are using around 17 million of these dollars to deliver the program.

Ms Churley: Seventeen?

Ms Gauthier: I believe that's the-

Ms Churley: That's fine. OK. I don't have a lot of time here. I'm sorry if I'm rushing you a bit.

1640

Ms Gauthier: There's approximately $9 million associated with our cleanup of the Deloro project, the arsenic-contaminated site. We have a number of engineering consultants who are helping us do that cleanup. Apart from these, I would say there are very few dollars associated with management consultants in the ministry.

Ms Churley: OK. Perhaps at a later date the minister could provide me with a breakdown of these services.

Hon Mr Newman: You want a breakdown of all the services?

Ms Churley: Particularly any services that involve contracting out of a specific-

Interjection.

Ms Churley: Sure. I'm sorry, but I do want to move on.

Coming back to this cabinet document that we released today, Minister, I want to ask you specifically-this report says the preference would be to hire up to 500 new staff in order to deal adequately with the prevention of all pollution. The recommended delivery option here is the hiring of 138 new staff. It says the team would focus on four or five special assignments per year. Do you think, given the other contents of this report and all the other information that has come your way over the past three weeks, that a SWAT team of 138 new staff to deal with four or five special assignments per year is adequate? Do you think that's adequate?

Hon Mr Newman: Which is adequate? Could you just repeat the last part?

Ms Churley: The 138 new staff. The recommendation in the report is that it would be good to hire 500 new staff. The document here says the team they're recommending would be able to focus only on four or five special assignments per year. Do you think that is adequate, given all the information we have now that your ministry is severely underfunded and understaffed in practically every area, if not all?

Hon Mr Newman: The whole idea of the SWAT team within the Blueprint document was to be strategic. But again, I draw to your attention that there is a review underway of the ministry right now with respect to policies and procedures so that we can be strategic, so that we're able to position the ministry environment so that it's the best possible Ministry of the Environment it can be for the 21st century. There may very well be recommendations coming back with respect to staffing. I await Valerie Gibbons's recommendations on all the issues with respect to the Ministry of the Environment, including staffing. I will have a look at those recommendations at that point and go from there.

Ms Churley: Minister, in the 1999 campaign one of the things the NDP said-and I agree it wasn't a popular move at the time; we didn't do very well in the election-was that we'd take back some of the tax cut and immediately rehire with some of that money 500 new staff to replace some of the ones who have been let go since Mike Harris took office in 1995. Now we have a document that-coincidentally, but I suppose this is real common sense-recommends that 500 would be a good number to rehire in order to deal with pollution in this province. I want to ask you again, given all the information you have from your own ministry and externally, do you think even the 138 new staff are adequate to cover the kinds of pollution control, particularly now that we know, just with water alone-all of the boil water orders?

The Premier's advice yesterday, that people either boil their water or bring bottled water if they're worried about the water, wasn't good enough. Those glib answers don't get us anywhere. We need staff to make sure our water is safe to drink and our air is safe to breathe. Are you going to fight in cabinet for those 500 new staff that have been recommended in this cabinet submission?

Hon Mr Newman: First off, your plan was to take back the tax cut. I think you were selective on people $80,000-

Ms Churley: Individuals, that's right.

Hon Mr Newman: Individuals. It would have exempted MPPs. The fact of the matter was if you were going to add money back to the environment budget, you would have been adding money back to the money that you had cut as a government. In 1992-93 to 1993-94, you reduced money in the ministry by $26.4 million through the managed savings strategy. The 1993-94 budget saw a budget reduction to the Ministry of the Environment of $22.3 million-$16.2 million on the capital side, $6.1 million on the operating side.

Ms Churley: Minister, you're trying to compare your environmental record to the NDP. Don't waste your time.

Hon Mr Newman: I can tell you that from 1993-94 to 1994-95, the expenditure control plan-

Ms Churley: Minister, 18 people are now dead.

Hon Mr Newman: -$55.1 million. In 1994-95 there was $5 million reduced by the blue box program, $5.2 million in the capital budget-

Ms Churley: Minister, what are you going to do about the problem?

Hon Mr Newman: -$2.5 million-

Ms Churley: This is ridiculous.

The Chair: Ms Churley, please.

Hon Mr Newman: Thank you, Chair.

Ms Churley: He's not answering my question-

Hon Mr Newman: -$2.5 million to the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

Ms Churley: -about the hiring of 500 new staff.

Hon Mr Newman: The NDP, during their time in office, cut positions at the Ministry of the Environment by 208.

Ms Churley: You should be ashamed of yourself.

Hon Mr Newman: I can tell you that in anything we've done we've always tried to put the ministry in the best light. The number of inspections was up last year, 7,055, versus the numbers from 1994-95, which were 7,010. I can tell you that we are doing better here. We're seeing more inspections done.

Ms Churley: Are you saying that you haven't drastically reduced the Ministry of the Environment budget to the same level in real dollars as it was in the 1970s when the Ministry of the Environment was first created? I've got the figures here, Minister. It's the reality.

Hon Mr Newman: If that's a question, I'm going to take that and I'm going to answer that. Again, I've gone through the numbers within the ministry for you. In 1990-91, the ministry had 3,317 funded positions. It now has 1,501. Since 1990-91-

Ms Churley: Minister, do not give me the litany of stuff that your-

Hon Mr Newman: -there have been 980 positions transferred to OCWA, 117 positions-

Ms Churley: Mr Chair.

The Chair: Ms Churley, I want to be able to listen to the minister and I can't listen to the minister if you're interjecting.

Ms Churley: He's stalling for time and reading out numbers from 1990 to 1995.

The Chair: I'm going to ask that the same respect be accorded to him. The minister is entitled to answer within reason if he stays on the point. Ms Churley, I can't hear the minister if you're interjecting.

Ms Churley: Sorry.

The Chair: Minister, please continue.

Hon Mr Newman: I'm simply trying to draw a comparison. From 1990-91, when you were the government-you may want to deny that you were the government, but you were-980 positions were transferred to the Ontario Clean Water Agency, so you can confirm or deny that; 117 positions were transferred to the Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology. As you are aware, it was the Ministry of Energy and Environment in the past; it is now the Ministry of the Environment.

Ms Churley: Minister, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Hon Mr Newman: So 117 positions transferred there. Fifty-six positions have been transferred to the shared services bureau of the Management Board of Cabinet. There are 21 positions at the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

The Chair: We've heard that list before and I appreciate-

Hon Mr Newman: I'm sorry-

The Chair: I know, but there is a very scarce amount of time.

Hon Mr Newman: I've been asked a question with respect to the budget. The fact that she doesn't want to acknowledge that 21 positions were transferred out of the Ministry of Natural Resources-

The Chair: Minister, I'm sorry, but I'm going to ask you to stop there and we'll turn to Ms Churley's next question.

Ms Churley: How much time do I have left?

The Chair: About a minute.

Ms Churley: Well, Minister, it's just scandalous what you're doing here, when we've got 18 people dead to date and you're reciting the numbers from 1990 to 1995. You've been in government since 1995. We're talking about what is going on under your watch. There's nobody in this room or outside the room-it's laughable that you're trying to insinuate that the Ministry of the Environment budget is actually lower now than it was from 1990 to 1995.

Hon Mr Newman: That's not what I said.

Ms Churley: My last question to you in this minute-

Hon Mr Newman: All I simply said was that under their watch-

The Chair: Minister, I really ask your indulgence here.

Ms Churley: I didn't ask you a question.

Hon Mr Newman: -the NDP had cut the money within the-

The Chair: Minister, I don't want to cite you for not being co-operative. Perhaps you don't understand that I would like to extend the same courtesy to the person asking the question as I'm trying to have them extend to you, and I can't do that if you don't co-operate.

Ms Churley: Minister, that wasn't a question. I went to the clean air summit today. In your statement you talked about the ministry continuing to take a balanced approach to environmental protection. What did you mean by "a balanced approach"?

Hon Mr Newman: What I said was the approach that the ministry was taking was to ensure that air quality is indeed protected.

1650

Ms Churley: You said "balanced." I've got your statement right here. I want to know what you meant by "balanced."

Hon Mr Newman: You may want to check the audio.

Ms Churley: I notice you took it out because I did you a favour today. I told Hal Vincent and your other assistant that it was a really dumb thing to put "balanced" in that statement today. It's written in your statement. I actually helped him out today, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Churley. The government caucus.

Mr Barrett: To follow up on Ms Churley's question concerning the smog-busting summit sponsored by the city of Toronto, I don't know, Minister, whether in previous questions this afternoon on smog and air quality you had time to give a complete answer. I know you were also questioned in the House today with respect to this. I wonder if you could expand a bit, something beyond perhaps the 60 seconds allowed, with respect to air quality and smog or anything further that you could let us know on the city of Toronto smog-busting summit.

I might mention, too, I have a second question-again this has been raised by Mr Bradley-with respect to coal-fired generating stations. I have Nanticoke in my riding. I just wonder if you could wrap up on the comments on air quality and smog.

Hon Mr Newman: Indeed the smog summit today was a good event organized by the city of Toronto, the Toronto Environmental Alliance and the Toronto Atmospheric Fund. I was at this very worthwhile event, as was the federal Minister of the Environment, as well as the federal minister for the GTA and others. The issue of smog was indeed discussed and I can tell you today that the government is committed to reducing smog-causing pollutants and protecting the air that we all breathe in this province.

Our anti-smog action plan includes long-range commitments to reduce smog-causing emissions. The first is a 25% reduction of NO_x and VOCs from the 1990 base levels by 2005, and an accelerated reduction of 45% by 2010. I can also tell you that on Tuesday, June 6, at the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment meeting in Quebec, we accelerated our second commitment to set a target of 45% by 2010.

We were also very successful in lobbying the federal government to agree to obtain commitments from the United States for increasing action in smog reduction. This will dramatically increase the effectiveness of our programs. As much as 90% of the smog in certain parts of Ontario originates from the United States. Since 1996, our air quality index readings have been good to very good in that category some 95% of the time. This percentage has been steadily increasing since 1995. But I can assure you that there's always more that can be done and we will ensure that more is done.

On April 26 of this year I announced the implementation of Ontario's enhanced smog alert and air quality reporting program. The program, which began on May 1, provides Ontarians with improved reporting through comprehensive and timely air quality readings. These can be obtained through our new Web site at airqualityontario.com-that's all one word-and I would encourage everyone here to go on to that Web site. I know that in the first eight weeks or so we had over 370,000 hits to that Web site, so indeed the people of Ontario are making very good use of this very productive Web site.

We were also awarded intervener status in the United States Environmental Protection Agency lawsuit to ensure that the United States does its part to clean up 50% of our smog problem which comes from across the border. We've also updated 130 air quality standards, many of which were 20 years old. To think that those 130 air standards had been updated is only good news for the people of Ontario.

As I mentioned, we implemented the Drive Clean program to tackle the problem of automotive pollution, including smog. A brief review of those initiatives included mandatory testing of cars that began in the GTA and Hamilton-Wentworth area on April 1, 1999. The trucks and buses testing program was launched September 30, 1999 and I can tell you that testing will begin in the phase 2 areas for light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty non-diesel vehicles on January 1, 2000.

We launched the smog patrol, which is the roadside testing system to stop grossly polluting vehicles, includeing those from out of province and out of country. Since April 1, we've inspected over 2,000 vehicles and we've issued more than 270 tickets. So it's basically "Repair the car or get it off the road." That's the tough stance that we take.

The on-road enforcement of Drive Clean became even stronger on November 9, 1999, with the addition of new smog patrol staff who are patrolling our highways and pulling over those grossly emitting vehicles.

We also had a significant initiative, the Partners in Air program. That complements the smog plan and the Drive Clean program by promoting awareness in how each person can make a difference. It's something that is done in our high schools, and I believe there are 14 high schools across Ontario that are participating in this program. It truly makes learning fun when our young people can monitor the air in that respect.

Pollutant emissions from the incinerator sector are being addressed in part through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Under this national process, for which Ontario is the champion, emission standards are being set for dioxins and mercury.

There are potential health impacts associated with poor air quality, and that's something that is important to this government. The use of air quality advisories is one of the tools used to keep the public informed. We have prepared a smog alert and municipal response guide that has been sent to each and every one of the municipalities in Ontario to encourage them to do their part to reduce smog.

There's the memorandum of understanding that's been developed in several industrial subsectors. That includes provisions for the development and implementation of pollution prevention plans into our codes of management practice, improved operating procedures and the use of best management practices. It is a major concern that 50% of the ground-level ozone comes from the Unites States during our bad air days. We are working with the environmental authorities from 11 US states to encourage action on air issues because, as you know, pollution and smog know no boundaries and no jurisdiction.

Ontario has introduced a-

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): On a point of order, Mr Chair: Is it within our standing order rules of the House that it's permissible for a parliamentary assistant to question his own minister on the estimates of that department before this committee?

The Chair: Sorry, I don't think that's a point of order, Mr Gerretsen, and in direct response, I don't believe there are any applicable standing orders. I'd ask the minister to continue.

Hon Mr Newman: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): Mr Barrett is the parliamentary assistant, as a point of information.

Hon Mr Newman: Chair, I haven't lost any time there, have I?

The Chair: No.

Hon Mr Newman: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.

Just let me collect my thoughts for a moment and continue with what I was about to say, the fact that it is a major concern that 50% of the ground-level ozone comes from the United States during bad air days. I don't think anyone disputes that fact, and we're working with environmental authorities from 11 US states to encourage joint action on air issues. This is a very important issue.

Our province has introduced an interim standard for particulate matter: PM10. As you would be well aware, that is a key component of smog which will guide Ontario's air quality program decisions until the Canada-wide PM standards are developed. So we're out there at the forefront.

We've also published a compendium document on the fine particulate matter issues in Ontario and a particulate matter strategy option document. Both reports have been reviewed by an expert panel and will be used as resources for development of Ontario's fine particulate matter strategy.

The government has implemented a regulation requiring less polluting gasoline formulas during the summer months. That may be of interest to some members here. It's expected to reduce emissions of smog-causing volatile organic compounds by some 19,000 tonnes a year. What we must all recognize is that each one of us contributes to air pollution-every one of us in this room. Every time we drive, every time we use the gas lawn mower, every time we paint our home, we contribute to smog, and we must all do our part to solve the problem.

Perhaps Ed Piché may be able to expand a little bit more-oh, sorry. The second part of your question, if I recall, was coal-fired plants.

1700

Mr Barrett: In fact, on the Partners in Air, I know there's at least one high school in Scarborough that has a Partners in Air program. I might mention on behalf of my own riding-and I don't think I'm speaking as parliamentary assistant-that there are two high schools-Burford high school and Valley Heights Secondary School-in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant that are very interested in this Partners in Air program. Part of this is driven by the fact that, as you mentioned, 50% of our ground-level ozone comes across the border, from across Lake Erie in our case, and there's a very heightened awareness of this problem in my area. You would know this through the work of the Long Point Foundation on Lake Erie. Of course, we contribute as well through the coal-fired station in Nanticoke.

If there's time permitting, Chair, I would like to raise the issue of the status of the coal-fired plants. I know last month you, as minister, declared a moratorium on the sale of coal-fired generating stations.

Hon Mr Newman: I just want to make reference back to the Partners in Air program. Yes, there is a school in my riding, Birchmount Park Collegiate Institute, that's involved in the program and has been for a number of years. I know staff and students really enjoy that program. So it's good to see we have it across the province.

With respect to the coal-fired generation facilities within the province, the government is committed to ensuring that strong environmental protection measures are in place as it moves forward in the competitive electricity system. Our commitment to the environment has been a mainstay throughout the restructuring initiative. We have backed this commitment up with unprecedented actions, targeting smog, acid rain and climate change. Strict emissions limits, mandatory monitoring and reporting, and emissions performance standards are among a list of initiatives that will improve our air quality and protect the health of our families in the province.

As Minister of the Environment, I am very concerned about the health and environmental impacts of coal-fired generation facilities. It's my job to ensure that environmental concerns are at the forefront of any decisions regarding the potential sale of these facilities.

The review that's underway, and it's a very important review, builds on the strong framework of measures already introduced by extending and applying environmental vigilance to the assessment of individual facilities. The review will look at options for establishing environmental safeguards prior to the sale of coal-fired stations. The key elements of the review will include options for maximizing environmental performance, individual plant emissions and impacts to local and regional air quality-that's a very key issue-the timing of improvements, as well as the age and efficiency of the plants.

Our actions prove our commitment to the protection of the environment. Unlike previous governments who had the chance to do this years ago-and they all had it, I want to say to the members-once again, it's up to this government to do the responsible thing to protect Ontario's environment.

I'll now turn it over to Tony Rockingham.

Mr Tony Rockingham: My name is Tony Rockingham. I'm the director of the air policy and climate change branch in the integrated environmental planning division of the ministry.

Just to perhaps extend on a few points the minister raised, we are taking a look at all of the coal-fired stations in Ontario. We will be looking at the age of the stations, the technologies that are in use, the plans that are in place, so additional pollution control technologies may already be planned.

We are looking at the use of the stations and how that has changed over time: whether there is increased electricity production from these stations or whether indeed the use of the stations is declining.

We are also very conscious of alternative technologies that have been developed for pollution control. We will be reviewing the technologies that exist in the market now, the technologies that are being developed and are perhaps being used on a pilot basis in other countries.

We are looking at a comparison of the stations with similar stations around the world to establish what is best practice and what pollution control technologies are practical in different situations.

We are also looking at the environmental controls that have been applied elsewhere in competitive electricity systems. In particular we're looking at details that were proposed in the emissions credit trading system that was proposed by the government on January 24 to ensure, when we finalize details of that credit trading system, that we are cognizant of the level of environmental protection it affords the people of Ontario for the coal-fired stations.

In that regard, we're building on the experience that we've had in what's referred to as the PERT program, that's the pilot emissions reductions trading system. This is a system that was started several years ago by a group of industries that were interested in learning more about one of the leading edge areas for environmental control. As I say, PERT is an industry-led initiative, but we have been participating enthusiastically on that initiative for several years now. It's a method for us to bring together and learn from the experts in Canada and across North America on how pollution reduction trading can be used to ensure that strict environmental standards are met.

The participants in Ontario include the Ontario steelmakers-both Dofasco and Stelco are participating in that; the natural gas companies, Union Gas and Consumers' Gas, or Enbridge, as it's now called; Ontario Power Generation; John Deere; Shell Chemicals; Dupont Canada.

We also have environmental groups that are participating in the program because we believe they recognize the importance of emissions trading and how it can provide a real benefit to the environment, especially in a competitive electricity system. Pollution Probe is a member of the pilot project, the asthma society, a Montreal-based environmental organization called STOP, Environment Canada and Industry Canada.

We are using the experience in the PERT program to learn about emissions trading and to shape our regulations, which will have a major influence and impact on the pollution control at coal-fired stations and to encourage investments in pollution control at coal-fired stations or, indeed, to encourage companies to take the assets at coal-fired stations and convert fuels, change fuels, so that perhaps those coal-fired stations could run on natural gas.

The results so far of the demonstration project: We've seen trades that have occurred where emission reductions have been undertaken by companies that go well beyond the regulated limits. As an incentive for that, they are allowed to create credits which can be sold on the market. The experience to date is that, indeed, by offering credits, by creating a market for emission credits, companies have the incentive to go well beyond what the regulations require.

Through the PERT program, we're aware of emissions trading systems that are actually up and running in the US northeast and have been instrumental in reducing smog. We're also aware of emissions trading that has taken place in California and, again, has been credited with reducing smog-causing precursors.

In Ontario, we've seen trade such as the scrapping of high-emission vehicles earlier than they would otherwise have been, so that activity gets those vehicles off the road. We've seen a company called Environmental Interface Ltd. create credits through NO_x reductions from energy-saving retrofits of schools and hospitals. Again, they are going well beyond what regulations require.

We've seen credits created actually at coal-fired stations outside the jurisdiction. We've seen 400 tonnes of NO_x credits purchased by Ontario Hydro from Detroit Edison, and that's the Monroe plant near Detroit. That could be very important in reducing smog-causing emissions that would otherwise cross the border into Ontario, causing smog. The NO_x credits have also been created by Ontario Hydro through the installation, prior to the requirement by regulation, of low-NO_x burners on their coal-fired stations.

In fact, we've been very pleased to see credits that have been sold across international boundaries the other way; that is, that Connecticut has actually purchased credits from Ontario because they are of the view that by encouraging emission reductions upstream, they are helping their smog situation in Connecticut.

That program has been very important to us in learning about emissions trading, and looking at the systems approach is part of what we are doing on the coal review. I also touch on the fact that the coal review is being done in the context, as the minister said, of a number of initiatives that are already underway, such as the mandatory reporting and monitoring regulation which is already in place for the electricity sector, and will allow us and the public to have, for the first time, much better information on some 28 substances of concern from those stations.

1710

Mr Barrett: I really appreciate this explanation of the emissions reduction trading program. It's very hard for me to explain this to constituents. Last month, there was the requirement for emissions reporting, not only in the electrical sector, but down the road, industry in general. Just a quick thumbnail sketch on how that works?

Mr Rockingham: Yes, indeed, there was a proposal made on January 24 for the monitoring and reporting in the electricity sector first, but to extend to all major emitting sources. The target date for that is January 1, 2001, and we are working with stakeholders to develop a list of substances of concern. It will be a much more extensive list than for the electricity sector and it will include sectors such as petroleum refineries, automotive makers, in fact, all major emission sources.

Mr Bradley: I have some very straightforward questions, which I know will elicit very straightforward answers from the minister. Since the town of Walkerton had E coli of the most virulent kind in its water and it was through all the system and they have to go home to home to flush it out and get rid of it, what are you doing with the sludge from Walkerton, not only from the sewage treatment plant, but from the septic tanks around there, since the sludge, presumably, will have E coli of the most virulent kind in it? You're not spreading that on fields, are you?

Hon Mr Newman: Absolutely not. In fact, OCWA, the Ontario Clean Water Agency-

Mr Bradley: The one you're going to sell, OK. Go ahead, sorry. I shouldn't interrupt you. I apologize.

Hon Mr Newman: Chair, I've been interrupted here, I can't-

Mr Bradley: My sincere apology.

Hon Mr Newman: I accept that, because I know that you truly mean that.

All I was saying was that OCWA is looking after that. They are ensuring that the system is entirely clean, and that would include the material to which you referred. I can assure you that they'll take all measures possible to ensure that it is environmentally disposed of appropriately.

Mr Bradley: Where is that sludge now? I presume that if you don't know, your waste management people will know. Where is that sludge at this moment, and second, what are you going to do with that sludge specifically? Maybe you've got it contained somewhere right now and it's piling up. If it is-

Hon Mr Newman: It's still within the container system.

Mr Bradley: It's in a container system. You're telling us that. I accept that. What are you going to do with it once it leaves the container system? Whatever are you going to do with that sludge then?

Hon Mr Newman: You're talking sewage system now?

Mr Bradley: I'm talking about both the sewage system and-because you would know there would also be people on septic tanks-septic as well.

Hon Mr Newman: I just wanted to ensure specifically what your question was. I would want to answer it to the best of my ability, to confirm that you're talking about water and you're talking about sewer. You're talking about the two systems?

Mr Bradley: You'll fill me in on this if I'm not certain of this: Don't some people who have a septic tank system have water as well that they get that-

Hon Mr Newman: I'm sorry. I was listening to your question. I didn't quite know specifically what you were saying, but I can tell you anything to do with Walkerton, whether it's the swabbing of the water system or sludge from the sewer system, I can tell you that OCWA will be looking at that issue and disposing of it in an environmentally appropriate manner.

Mr Bradley: That doesn't give me an answer. "Appropriate manner" doesn't tell me specifically what they're going to do with it. I know it's a challenge for you. I want to be fair to you. I know it's a challenge. That's why I'm wondering what on earth you're going to do to it to make it acceptable to dispose of somehow or other. Maybe some of your staff could help us out.

Hon Mr Newman: I was just going to ask Carl Griffith if he would answer that question, because I don't believe at this point it has been disposed of. I'll have Carl answer that for you.

Mr Carl Griffith: There are several options available. One is incineration; another is landfilling. Obviously the material that is in storage right now would have to, if it was going to be used or dealt with in any manner, meet whatever the environmental standards were in place for that particular use. All those options are available to us right now.

Mr Bradley: Can you help me out with this? I understand that if you have a sewage treatment system and you get the sludge from there you can keep it somewhere. What's happening with septic tanks? People who are on septic water, they still get water from a well, but they have septic tanks and there's a hauler, presumably, who would haul that stuff somewhere once it fills up. Where would that go and how would it be treated in Walkerton's case with E coli?

Mr Griffith: I can respond to that. In general, again, it would have to be dealt with in an environmentally acceptable manner, whether it was taken to some form of landfill storage or incineration; or if it passed our environmental requirements, it may be spread.

Mr Bradley: I'll remain worried about that and move on to another question, not so much about the town itself-I'm worried about the septic ones-but I'll ask the minister a question in the House, maybe tomorrow or next week when we're back in session.

Hon Mr Newman: I would not want to see that spread and I will tell you we'll do everything we can to ensure that it's not spread.

Mr Bradley: OK, thanks very much.

Are you prepared to table the 1998 and 1999 drinking water surveillance program results? It used to be that those results were provided to the people of Ontario every year. It was a very good package. Our Ministry of the Environment in Ontario did a very good job of that. They provided that information to folks every year in a nice booklet you could get and go through, and the media could easily go through it. Would you be able to table that for this committee in the near future?

Hon Mr Newman: Sure, once the report's compiled and completed, I'd be pleased to table it with this committee.

Mr Bradley: Does that mean that the 1998 report, from two years ago, is not done yet?

Hon Mr Newman: As you would know, it takes time.

Mr Bradley: I understand.

Hon Mr Newman: Reports do come in. I always go back to the CEC report that people want to quote from, from 1997; people seem to believe that's OK to quote from. The ministry has the 1997 drinking water surveillance program report listed on the Web site and available. Information past that date obviously has to be analyzed and put in the form of a report. The ministry would need to do work with that. As soon as the report is completed, I'll make sure that everyone gets a copy.

Mr Bradley: Is the reason we don't have a report from 1998 and 1999-we're now into June of the year 2000-is that you don't have the staff to do it? I can't believe that you simply want to hide the results; I'm not that cynical to think that. Is the real reason that you simply don't have the staff to do it and that's why we don't have a report for 1998 and 1999?

Hon Mr Newman: Not at all. In fact, as you know, it takes time to get that information together, to analyze it, to go through all the different facilities in the drinking water surveillance program. You know the number has increased every year. I can tell you that obviously a report is compiled, and once the report is ready, I'll make sure everyone gets a copy.

Mr Bradley: I mentioned inspections from this secret document that got leaked today, that you haven't seen, that originated presumably in your ministry. It's always interesting that you haven't seen it, but there it is, I have to accept what you say.

I'll tell you why I want to get to it so I'll give you some time to think about it, which is fair enough. As you know from my questions in the House, I'm worried that you don't have the staff to do the thorough inspection of all those water treatment plants in Ontario by the end of the year, as you say you're going to. I'm worried about that aspect of it and that if you do it you're going to haul them from somewhere else; in other words, you're going to abandon sewage treatment plant inspections or you're going to have to take the staff from somewhere else where they're doing things they should be doing now.

1720

I'm worried because this document talks about that. It says: "Existing MOE inspectors and investigators are fully committed to their current work plan activities. Through these activities (inspect/assess, respond) approximately 10% of current known sources of pollution are inspected annually." That's only 10%. "Taking staff away from these activities would result in slippages which would negate the positive impact of the new program. Therefore new staffing will be required for this new program."

When we asked in the House if you were hiring new people, and I think on a permanent basis for this, the Premier said: "No, why would you need those? It's just a bulge." So I'm asking where you're getting the staff, specifically, how many staff you are getting and what specific qualifications would they have? I know not everybody could do that; I couldn't begin to do that. I don't know if your air inspection people, even as smart as they are-they're much smarter than I am-they couldn't even do that if they went to a plant. I'll leave it open to you now to answer.

Hon Mr Newman: I won't comment on that, but I will assure you that you need not worry.

Mr Bradley: I am worried.

Hon Mr Newman: I know that's a concern and I want to reassure you that each and every one of the 630 facilities in this province is going to be inspected by the end of this year. Every one of them is going to be inspected by a qualified person, by qualified personnel.

Mr Bradley: Sorry, would you mind me interrupting for a second just to ask what is qualified, if you can help me out there?

Hon Mr Newman: I'm simply trying to make a point, that you needn't worry, that each of the 630 facilities is going to be inspected. We're going to ensure that's done by the end of this year, by the end of this calendar year, by the end of the year 2000.

Mr Bradley: I call that mission impossible, but that's OK.

Hon Mr Newman: Well, to you it may be impossible, but to me it is a very possible mission-

Mr Bradley: Sorry, I apologize.

Hon Mr Newman: -and it's something that's going to be done. I can tell you that we at the Ministry of the Environment take this very seriously. This is a goal and an objective that I've set as minister. I hope that when it's all done you will be up there applauding, saying, "Minister, yes, you did see that every site was inspected and I commend you for that."

Each of them is going to be inspected by the end of the year. We're going to go beyond that; we're going to ensure that every certificate of approval within the province of Ontario for water facilities is reviewed. We're going to see that when it's done each water facility only has one certificate of approval, rather than some having a series. There will be a single certificate of approval for each facility. Beyond that, we're going to ensure that certificates of approval are reviewed every three years after that. This is a very proactive and positive step that I'm taking as minister, that the ministry is taking and that the government is taking to ensure, again, that each of the 630 facilities is inspected by a qualified person.

Mr Bradley: I've talked to people who have inspected plants and they tell me it's quite a process. You and I might go in and just have a look around; we don't know what to look for. These people know what to look for and they tell me that process takes at least a week, maybe longer, to do a thorough job. That's all the paperwork, assessing the systems and so on. Could you help me out by describing the components and the process of a plant inspection? How does a plant inspection actually take place and how long would it take to do it and what has to be done? Maybe one of your officials would be happy to help you out.

Hon Mr Newman: Just before I do turn it over to a ministry official, Bob Shaw, I want to again reiterate that the inspections are done by experienced senior environmental officers and engineers. Yes, it is a complex procedure to inspect those facilities, but again, be assured, each of the 630 facilities will be inspected. Now I'll now call on Bob Shaw.

Mr Bradley: Just as you do the hand-off to Mr Shaw, are you taking them from other places in the ministry, and if they take them from other places in the ministry, what happens to the jobs those people are supposed to be doing?

Hon Mr Newman: First off, let me answer your question with respect to the inspection of the water plants. I'm going to have Bob Shaw answer that. Hopefully, we'll have some time to answer the other question.

Mr Bob Shaw: I'm the regional director of central region with the environment.

The purpose of the ministry's inspection is to focus on whether or not the water treatment facility is operating in compliance. In terms of operating within compliance, the first thing we're looking for is whether or not it's in compliance with its certificates of approval.

You can divide the inspection into three pieces. As you've alluded to, Mr Bradley, you have to look at the certificates of approval, and that is normally done before the inspector leaves the office and goes out into the field. There is a second piece, which is the actual visit to the plant, its physical inspection, and then there's a third piece, which is when the inspector writes up their report on the facility.

As I said, the inspection is focusing on compliance so it's compliance with the certificate of approval, in particular if there were any specific conditions in the certificate of approval as it may apply to additional sampling that is required at that facility.

The second compliance piece is whether or not the facility is operating in compliance with its permits to take water. Quite often, on water supply systems which are operating off groundwater, there are conditions imposed with regard to maximum takings etc to avoid interference with other uses of the groundwater.

The inspection also examines whether or not the facility is operating in compliance with any orders which may have been issued on the facility. This could be a director's order or a field order. At the time of inspection, it is also determined whether or not the facility is being operated by the appropriately licensed personnel. At the time of inspection we also look at the level of treatment which is provided at the facility and whether or not there have been any exceedences in terms of the testing that has been done at the facility with regard to any of the Ontario Drinking Water Objectives. Those are the main components of the inspection that takes place at the actual facility.

Mr Bradley: Thanks very much. I really appreciate that. It gives us a good background on that.

As soon as I get the answer from Mr Newman on where he's going to get these people from other places in the ministry and what jobs they're going to abandon when they do it, I'll go to Mrs Dombrowsky.

Hon Mr Newman: First off, there are different levels of complexity within the Ministry of the Environment and I'm sure you would be aware of that. We are assigning environmental officers based on experience so they can competently handle the area they are put in.

With respect to water facilities, we've set up teams. We've set them up to include qualified, experienced environmental officers and these environmental officers work within a team. The terms of reference are conveyed to the team and how it should be done.

Mr Bradley: Where did you get those people?

Hon Mr Newman: I'm trying to answer the question.

Mr Bradley: You're not taking Mr Piché and making him inspect plants now, I hope.

Hon Mr Newman: I'll tell you something. We are going to make sure that every one of those 630 facilities is inspected this year. The point I was trying to make is that the terms of reference are conveyed to the team, and how it will be done. They're doing that. These teams also have access to the scientific and engineering capabilities, should more complex issues arise. Those scientific and engineering capabilities within the ministry are made available to the teams as they're inspecting the sites. Again, I just want to tell you, 630 sites will be inspected by the end of this year.

Mr Bradley: Mark me down as worried that you're taking them from somewhere else, and let me go to Mrs Dombrowsky.

Hon Mr Newman: Carl is going to finish up.

Mr Bradley: No, I have no more concerns, honestly. I have no more concerns at all and now we'll go to Mrs Dombrowsky.

Interjection: He still didn't answer the question as to where he's getting them.

The Chair: Mrs Dombrowsky, please.

Mr Bradley: I am satisfied with the answer, honest. I'm totally satisfied.

The Chair: Minister, if you wish to spend more time in this committee we welcome your presence, but you're only adding to the time. Mrs Dombrowsky.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): If I could just inquire, how much time is remaining?

The Chair: There is approximately five minutes left.

Mrs Dombrowsky: Minister, the Deloro mine site is located in my riding and you are probably aware that this site is recognized as one of the worst environmental hazards in Ontario. The site is located on the Moira River and it is contaminated with many substances, including arsenic and radioactive soil and waste.

Your ministry has promised to remediate the site to secure these contaminants, these substances. Currently, arsenic levels in the water leaving the site are still not meeting the Ontario Drinking Water Objectives. Your ministry has committed $18 million for site cleanup.

My question and the question that my constituents have is, if this figure of $18 million is not sufficient, if after you've spent that $18 million the water leaving that site is still not meeting the Ontario Drinking Water Objectives, is the ministry prepared to commit the necessary resources to ensure the safety of my constituents who live in that area and downstream, along the watershed of the Moira River?

Hon Mr Newman: Is that your question?

Mrs Dombrowsky: That's my question.

1730

Hon Mr Newman: Let me assure you that we place a high priority on this issue and the health and safety of the people living in the communities near the abandoned Deloro mine site. To date the government has spent over $14 million on the mine site rehabilitation and yes, we do expect to spend an additional $18 million on the final cleanup of the abandoned site. This is more than any government has spent on this site until now, so it is a very important measure.

With respect to a situation after that money has been spent, let's see what happens. We've committed the $18 million. That money will be spent. Obviously, I want to see that site fully remediated.

Mr Curling: You'll get some more money, then.

Hon Mr Newman: Sorry, Chair?

The Chair: I said nothing, Mr Newman.

Hon Mr Newman: I'm sorry, I thought someone had a question over there. This is a very important question.

I personally would want to see that once that money is spent we'll assess the situation at that point, but we want to see that cleaned up.

As you will probably be aware, we released a comprehensive study in July of last year which concluded that the community is safe. The cleanup of this site has been a very long and arduous process, but I think you would agree that we have made some progress.

Mrs Dombrowsky: The staff have really been exceptional.

Hon Mr Newman: It costs money. We've treated the groundwater; we've demolished the unsafe buildings; we've located and sealed the mine shafts. These are important measures that needed to be taken.

You would know that on the Moira River loadings of arsenic have been reduced by more than 80%, so that proves that the remediation efforts of the ministry are taking place. But the job isn't finished. The work continues. There is more work that needs to be done and as Minister of the Environment I am committed to ensuring that job is finished.

Mrs Dombrowsky: You are probably aware that Canada Waste Services currently has a proposal with the Ministry of the Environment to expand the Richmond landfill site, which is located in my riding, and this would become a superdump in Ontario.

I think it's very important for the minister to understand that this site is situated on fractured limestone, not an ideal base for such a site. The region is the home of the loggerhead shrike, which is a bird on the provincial endangered species list. Many area residents, including myself, do not believe that the expansion is in the best interests of our region.

The Premier has indicated that no Ontario community would be forced to take the waste of another community against their will. Will you give your assurance to me today that this is still the case?

Hon Mr Newman: I have Michael Williams here who can answer that very technical question with respect to that dump.

Mr Michael Williams: I'm the director of the environmental assessment and approvals branch of the operations division of the ministry.

With respect to the particular application that's before the ministry by Canadian Waste Services, I can assure the Chair and the members here that our staff will be looking at all aspects, including the technical aspects: groundwater, endangered species, flows, bedrock, the base. All of those things will be considered by our engineering and our technical experts. They will be fully evaluated and a recommendation will be made on the particular disposition of that application in due course.

Mrs Dombrowsky: Just for clarification, though, Minister, your Premier has stated publicly that no community would be forced to take waste from outside their community. I'm asking you to give me that assurance in this particular case as well.

The Chair: Minister, if I could ask you to answer briefly; you have about 20 seconds.

Hon Mr Newman: If the Premier said that, then you have to take the Premier at his word.

The Chair: We now turn to Ms Churley for the third party.

Ms Churley: Minister, can I ask you who the deputy was in March 2000 at the Ministry of the Environment? Who was the deputy minister at that time?

Hon Mr Newman: This deputy here.

Ms Churley: Sorry, I couldn't hear you.

Hon Mr Newman: I said the person who is sitting to my right, Mr Stien Lal, is the deputy.

Ms Churley: Thank you. Then he would know the history of this document before us today, would he not, if he was the deputy at that time?

Hon Mr Newman: I believe I've answered that question.

Ms Churley: Will you not answer that question? Would the deputy know the history of the cabinet-

Hon Mr Newman: I believe I've answered that question previously here today.

Ms Churley: Can I ask you again? I'd like to understand what happened with this document, if you would allow your deputy to tell the committee what happened with this document.

Hon Mr Newman: Again, I've answered that question today.

Ms Churley: So when it's convenient for you to put a staff on, you do it, and when it's not, you won't. I think it's a very clear question-

Hon Mr Newman: Those are your words.

Ms Churley: -that I'm asking you, Minister. Can we expect you to ask him for a briefing on it, since it appears from your previous answers that you haven't yet?

Hon Mr Newman: I've answered that already today.

Ms Churley: I want to ask you a question, Minister. On several occasions, before Walkerton and after Walkerton, both you and your Premier-but since he's not here, I'll speak specifically about you-told the House and the public that the Ministry of the Environment cuts had no impact on the delivery of service. You've got a cabinet submission and many other documents telling you otherwise today. Do you still stand by that statement?

Hon Mr Newman: As you would be aware, we did make a campaign commitment in the 1999 campaign to have an environmental SWAT team in place to audit industries to ensure that they are indeed obeying the rules of this province with respect to the environment. Again I draw you to the fact that in 1999-2000, 7,055 investigations were done by the operations branch of the ministry. In 1994-95 there were 7,010. That is an increase over that time frame for those investigations that have taken place.

With respect to some of your question, please keep in mind that there is the review underway with Valerie Gibbons, reviewing the procedures and practices of the ministry. There are the four investigations underway; the public inquiry, as you know, is underway.

Ms Churley: I am satisfied with the answer, Chair.

Hon Mr Newman: But the bottom line is that we all want answers to get to the bottom of what's happened.

Ms Churley: You haven't answered my question specifically right now. What we're trying to do is avoid other Walkertons from happening and other disasters from happening. Would you still-

Hon Mr Newman: That's why there are the four investigations underway to get to the bottom of it.

Ms Churley: So you're going to wait until those investigations are over?

Hon Mr Newman: No. That's why we have the review underway. The review is separate from those four investigations. We're going to look at everything within the ministry; everything is on the table. We want to ensure that we have the best possible Ministry of the Environment that we can possibly have for the people of Ontario, for the environment of Ontario, so that it's a ministry that is ready and able to protect the people and the environment in the 21st century in this province.

Ms Churley: Minister, you're saying there are four investigations underway and you now have a consultant in to help you.

I have a question. This is a question-

Hon Mr Newman: What I said was there are the four investigations underway, and you know that, but there is also the review underway-

Ms Churley: That's what I'm saying. You're telling me-

Hon Mr Newman: -with Valerie Gibbons and it's there to make recommendations to me as minister.

Ms Churley: I am asking the minister a question and he's not waiting for the question.

The Chair: Order.

Hon Mr Newman: Chair, I'm just trying to answer the question.

Ms Churley: I did not ask you a question yet.

The Chair: Minister. Ms Churley, please address your remarks through the Chair.

Ms Churley: I did not ask him a question yet.

The Chair: All right.

Ms Churley: Let me rephrase that. There are four investigations underway. You have in front of you now this cabinet document. There have been numerous other reports inside and outside the ministry saying that things had to change within your ministry or disasters could happen. You already have one proposal that was apparently thrown out that gave you a suggestion as to what needs to be done right away. What are you going to do immediately, right away, with the clear evidence in front of you that the ministry is understaffed and underresourced, to avoid another Walkerton and more deaths as a result of the lack of resources to protect our health and our environment? That is my question, your immediate response to all of the compelling evidence that there is a problem in your ministry.

1740

Hon Mr Newman: First off, you did mention the four investigations. There is the public inquiry. There is the Ontario Provincial Police investigation-

Ms Churley: Oh, my God.

Hon Mr Newman: Well, you yourself raised the issue.

Ms Churley: I know about all of the inquiries. We called for an inquiry.

The Chair: Ms Churley, come to order.

Hon Mr Newman: I'm shocked.

Ms Churley: Mr Chair, I don't want him repeating a litany of the names of all of the investigations that we all know about to stall for time.

The Chair: Ms Churley, I will ensure the minister does not waste time, but I can't hear his answer if you interject immediately upon his answering. There may be a relevancy to what the minister is saying. I can't determine that if you're going to interject, and I'm going to ask you to come to order.

Hon Mr Newman: Mr Chair, simply, the member indicated there were four investigations, and for all the members present I wanted to elaborate on what those four investigations are. There is the public inquiry that's underway with Mr Justice O'Connor. There is the-

The Chair: Minister, I wonder if I might interject and ask if you could address the question as directly as you can. I appreciate there are-

Hon Mr Newman: Well, Chair-

The Chair: I'm not going to judge your answer, Mr Minister. I would ask you to have regard for that because we're on our last number of minutes here for this inquiry.

Hon Mr Newman: I don't ask people to ask their questions in any way and I don't expect to be told how to answer them.

Ms Churley: Mr Chair, on a point of order: To clarify, perhaps he misunderstood my question. I asked not about the inquiries. I asked about what he's going to do immediately.

The Chair: Yes, I understand, Ms Churley, but your question was a lengthy question and the minister is within his rights to answer. I've given him the opportunity and the goodwill to be direct in his answer. I'm sure the minister will take the committee up on that invitation and I will now permit him to answer, please.

Hon Mr Newman: I would just indicate for all the members present that, the member had referred to the four investigations and I wanted everyone to know that the first one is the public inquiry that is underway. There is the Ontario Provincial Police investigation that's underway. That would be the second investigation. The third investigation would be the coroner's inquest that's underway, looking at the deaths in Walkerton. There's also the fourth investigation, which is the Ministry of the Environment's investigation through the investigations and enforcement branch.

The member asked what we are doing. On top of those reviews, those four investigations, which are going to get to the bottom of what happened in Walkerton, we're going to look at all items. Everything is on the table. What those four investigations are going to do is to provide answers. Obviously I'm anxious to get to the bottom of it. We all want answers.

But in addition to those four investigations, there is also the review of the Ministry of the Environment underway. Everything in the ministry is on the table, all procedures, all operations. We want to ensure this is dealt with. The Premier himself has also stated that whatever is needed will be brought forward.

Ms Churley: What I was saying, Minister, is that I have no problem with the review.

Hon Mr Newman: Sorry? You have a problem with the review?

Ms Churley: What I'm saying is that the resources need to be put back now and I was hoping you would say that would be done immediately.

Can I ask if you're going to release the drinking water test results for all municipalities in Ontario immediately, which I've been repeatedly asking for for the past three weeks-all of the drinking water tests immediately?

Hon Mr Newman: Again, I would encourage you to wait for the review to take its course.

Ms Churley: Oh, no, I can't stand it.

Hon Mr Newman: Listen, you mentioned the review in your question. You said you can't wait for the review. The review has to take its time, has to take its course. Valerie Gibbons has to make her recommendation, has to look at the ministry, has to talk with people, to assess what recommendations would be coming forward. You were the one who raised the issue of the review, not me.

But with respect to the drinking water surveillance program report, I can tell you there is the 1997 report that is available for people on the Web site. The next report, for 1998, that information's all being compiled from all of the municipalities involved. There's analysis that needs to be done by the ministry because to have raw data without any analysis really doesn't help the case at all. We're going to ensure that is put into a report, just as it was in 1997, and ensure it is available to people. I think there will be a lot of interest in this because it is a very important matter.

Ms Churley: Minister, will you tell the public which water treatment plants have outstanding orders against them from the Ministry of the Environment?

Hon Mr Newman: I think what's important is the fact there are these 630 inspections that are going to take place this year. Each and every one of the water facilities in the province is going to be inspected. We're going to know the status of every one of those 630 facilities this year. Any facility that is not in compliance I can assure the member will be brought into compliance. There will be field orders issued for those that aren't. I'm going to ensure that each and every one of those facilities is not only inspected, that the certificate of approval is inspected for that facility, but that in the end there is a single certificate of approval for each and every water facility in this province. After that, those certificates of approval will be reviewed every three years.

Ms Churley: Are you going to hire more staff to make sure that all of this happens?

Hon Mr Newman: Again, I'm not sure if you were here when I answered the question from the member from St Catharines, but obviously you have my commitment that every one of those facilities is going to be inspected by qualified personnel from the ministry just to see that it is done at every one of those 630 facilities, that teams are set up of qualified, experienced environmental officers who are going to see that is all done within the province.

Ms Churley: Why won't you support the Safe Drinking Water Act, which I introduced in the House for first reading last week, which has been supported by environmental groups across the province that have worked extensively around water issues and have said that the regulations you're bringing in would not in fact prevent a Walkerton even if they were in place? Why won't you therefore, when experts are saying that already, support this Safe Drinking Water Act?

Hon Mr Newman: I'm glad you raised the issue, because I think it's important for everyone here to understand that in 1989, when your party was not part of the government, one of your private members, Ruth Grier, brought forward a safe drinking water act. It died in 1990. That private member subsequently became the Minister of the Environment, and you had five years and did nothing.

Ms Churley: I wish we had. But I guess what we're talking about now is that 18 people have died, and 18 people hadn't died from drinking water before this year. We're in a critical situation. The other thing, as you know, Minster, is that our government did create the Ontario Clean Water Agency, and you previously said our government took $200 million out of the Ministry of the Environment which, as you know, wasn't correct. You admitted later that the $200 million went into the-

Hon Mr Newman: It was in reference to a journal that had been printed where the writer quoted the ministry's being cut by $200 million.

Ms Churley: The $200 million went into the clean water agency. We also, under the municipal assistance program and Jobs Ontario money, brought in programs. It was, in fact, because that money was going into sewer and water projects and conservation plans were attached to that. So you'll be well aware that our government had started the whole process, a very difficult process, knowing that the infrastructure of sewer and water plants are in trouble.

We are now talking about the year 2000. You're the minister. You have a bill before you that should be passed to protect the drinking water in Ontario so that what happened in Walkerton won't happen again. Will you support that bill?

Hon Mr Newman: I have a regulation that's coming forward to protect the drinking water in this province. I want to assure you that this will be the toughest drinking water regulation in all of North America. You have my assurance of that. I announced on May 29 that I had instructed ministry staff to begin drafting a regulation with respect to that that would review all of the certificates of approval this year, that would inspect all of the sites this year, that would see to it that certificates of approval are reviewed every three years after that, that would see to it that each and every facility that tests water in this province, every laboratory, is indeed an accredited laboratory within Ontario.

We are also going to ensure that any time a municipality or public utilities commission changes labs that were doing the testing for them, the ministry knows. The regulation, as I indicated on May 29, would also include that there are proper notification procedures in place, that the role of the medical officer of health, of the public utilities commission, of the lab doing the testing, of the local medical officer of health, that the roles everyone had ensured that any adverse test samples were communicated in an effective and timely manner and that information is shared.

This is something I'm doing as minister, and I can assure you that for once in this province we'll see our water protected by giving it the force of law via a regulation. That's what I would say to you.

1750

You also talk about issues of what your government did. Again, in 1992-93 and 1993-94, you cut $26.4 million through your managed savings strategy; you cut the budget in 1993-94 by $22.3 million-$16.2 million of it for capital, $6.1 million for operating. In 1993-94 and 1994-95, your expenditure control plan reduced money to the ministry by $55.1 million; in 1994-95, you cut the blue box program by $5 million; you cut your capital budget by $5.2 million; and you cut $2.5 million from the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

Ms Churley: Everybody knows that since you took over the government you have cut the staff by about a third from what it was in 1994-95 and you have cut the budget by over 40%. That's a fact. I want to ask you, will you revoke the decision to end the water protection fund? You keep saying you've accelerated it from three years to two years, which means it's used up faster. Are you still committed to having zero dollars in that program next year, or are you going to revoke that decision and continue with that fund? Just say yes, Minister, this time.

Hon Mr Newman: The member would know that yes, she is absolutely correct; that money was accelerated. We accelerated to over two years a $200-million fund that was over three years. There is money in that fund. She would know that for the final completion of projects there is the holdback; there is the money there.

I draw her to the Blueprint document. I encourage her to read through that with respect to the SuperBuild Corp and the fact that there's $20 billion over four years in infrastructure money for this government to use. We had an infrastructure deficit in this province because governments of the past failed to invest in infrastructure. That's why, through SuperBuild, the government is giving priority to municipal water needs in proposals for funding under the SuperBuild Millennium and the Ontario small towns and rural fund. As well, you would know that negotiations are underway with the federal government to give priority to infrastructure funding that is directed at municipal water projects.

Ms Churley: That's a long way of saying no. OK. You've mentioned the SuperBuild fund. David Lindsay has said he doesn't think that most of the money from the SuperBuild fund should go towards sewer and water projects. This money has got to be spread over a lot of towns, a lot of municipalities in Ontario, for a lot of different projects. How much money out of that SuperBuild fund would you say should go into sewer and water programs?

Hon Mr Newman: First off, you would have to agree that this is the first government to have a multi-year infrastructure program. Your government didn't have it; the Liberal governments in the past didn't. This is a multi-

Ms Churley: We did so.

Hon Mr Newman: You did not and you know it. I'm surprised that you brought up the Jobs Ontario project. I won't even get into that at this point.

The fact of the matter is that the government is giving priority to proposals for funding for municipal water needs under the SuperBuild Millennium fund, also the Ontario small towns and rural fund. These are ways that money is getting there. We're also working with the federal government, negotiating with them to give priority to infrastructure projects that are directed at municipal water systems. This is good news for Ontario.

The Chair: The minister's time has expired. We now turn to the government caucus. We have about three or four minutes before we hit our time today.

Mr Mazzilli: Minister, yesterday we heard about Drive Clean and some significant investments on very qualified people. It's essentially a tool to improve air quality in Ontario. I commend the Mike Harris government for making that significant investment in air quality in the province. There are two other tools that are very important to protecting our environment: environmental assessments to operate and certificates of approval. Can you or one of your staff members explain in detail how those two tools can ensure that our environment continues to be improved?

Hon Mr Newman: I'll actually do both. I'll answer and then I'll refer the more technical nature to Michael Williams.

Activities that are environmentally significant, such as water and sewage treatment plants, industrial waste water treatment plants, air emissions from industrial sites, landfills and recycling sites, are thoroughly reviewed by professional engineers and other technical specialists. What we have done is streamlined the approvals process through administrative changes which enable the less environmentally significant applications to be reviewed expeditiously within a work unit that specializes in these types of applications. These applications include diesel generators for standby power, heating equipment for large buildings, and water mains and sewers.

The Ministry of the Environment is indeed committed to processing applications for certificates of approval in a timely manner to provide certainty and clarity for proponents and the public about when decisions can be expected. We have a commitment in the ministry's 1999-2000 business plan of 55 days for the timely processing of applications for air emissions certificates of approval. On average, these applications are processed within 48 days.

I'd now like to turn it over to Michael Williams.

Mr Williams: The minister has just outlined some of the changes that we have made to the certificate of approval program under both the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act. I would like to respond to the other part of the question that was raised with respect to the Environmental Assessment Act, which as you know is a very important piece of legislation for environmental protection in the province.

I'd like to let the members know that in the past the reviews that the ministry undertook for environmental assessments took up to two years to get a decision and to get completion, and the environmental assessment program in the province was heavily criticized for these lengthy review times. There has been a recent amendment to the Environmental Assessment Act that occurred in 1997. The changes that occurred to the legislation then made a number of improvements to provide for things like terms of reference that would lay out the ground rules under which an environmental assessment would be conducted so that there was certainty and clarity for both the person proposing the environmental assessment, for the public and for other interested parties in understanding how it was to be undertaken.

Also, that amendment to the legislation enshrined something which is very important, in our view, and that is making public consultation mandatory. It's very important that the public be heard on these matters when there are environmental assessments going on. Further, there were provisions made to the legislation which would allow for mediation at such times when there were tough and difficult issues that needed to be resolved throughout the processing of these applications.

In addition, the minister now has the ability to set deadlines for key components of the assessment and can refer matters to things like the environmental assessment and appeals board to get a decision. Those matters that are referred to the board can be scoped to the basic issues at hand so that we can get decisions on these projects.

I want to tell you a little bit about the process in my branch and how that particular process works. The Environmental Assessment Act deals with very environmentally significant projects. We heard earlier about a proposed landfill site expansion in eastern Ontario. That's a typical kind of application that would come before my branch for consideration. We would also deal with things like transit proposals, highways, perhaps incinerators, and in doing so it's our responsibility to have a large team of reviewers with expertise to be able to look at all of these applications. We now manage that team. That team is known as a government review team, and the job of the planners in our environmental planning unit is to be able to have that team make some decisions on the particular matters at hand.

As I mentioned, the amendments that were proposed addressed a number of historical problems we were having with being able to arrive at decisions and also to deal with some fairly lengthy and very costly hearings that had gone on before the environmental assessment and appeal board.

We think we're providing much better service now with respect to reviewing environmental assessments.

The Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt, but we'll have to hold the remainder of that answer over to the next time we'll be in session. There is about an hour and a half-and the clerk will provide an official time-of ministry estimates remaining. The date and time for those will be established. I understand there was some discussion among the House leaders about possible intersession hearings, but the normal standing orders provide for us to meet again when the House does.

I'd like to thank all the members of the committee for their participation and the minister for his involvement today.

The committee adjourned at 1800.