The Chair (Mr Gerard
Kennedy): Welcome, Minister. With your permission, we'd
like to start the proceedings. I'd like to welcome everyone.
Perhaps we could advise the third party; I know they were here a
few moments ago.
For the benefit of everybody,
the hour and 31 minutes remaining for consideration of the
estimates of the Ministry of the Environment will be divided
among the three parties, continuing from where we left off. In
the 20-minute rotation, the government caucus had used four
minutes, and so we will resume with the remaining 16 minutes. We
will then go through the rotation once, with 20 minutes per
party, and that will leave a final 15 minutes, which we will
divide at five minutes per party. At the end of that, I will call
the votes and, following the voting, we will consider the
estimates of the ministry, which is allocated seven and a half
hours, with a 30-minute statement expected from the minister and
then each of the three parties for 30 minutes.
Just as a reminder, I will be
ensuring the proceedings are conducted in a manner that respects
the democratic rights of all the members, so that the democratic
rights of all members will be assured.
Hon Dan Newman
(Minister of the Environment): Did you say
statements?
The Chair: I'm
sorry. I was just reminding the committee as a whole for the
ministry that follows you. The ministry which follows you is the
Ministry of Education.
Hon Mr Newman:
Thanks.
The Chair: The
purpose of the committee is to review the projected expenditures
of the ministries selected for consideration. To that end, I will
endeavour to ensure that members ask questions in a respectful
manner to elicit relevant information and the ministers and their
representatives have the opportunity to answer and present their
views. This part of the estimates committee, though, is about
questions and answers. It is up to the minister to give an answer
or not give an answer, but it is important that they not be
unduly long answers and that the answers be on topic. I hope all
members will exhibit the goodwill that we need.
I now turn to the government
caucus for 16 minutes to complete their turn. Mr Barrett.
Mr Toby Barrett
(Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Minister, I appreciate the
fact that you've been on the water file every day for a number of
months now. In August you announced the drinking water protection
regulation for large waterworks and, in addition, on August 8,
announced Operation Clean Water, a series of action steps to
prevent a recurrence of issues like Walkerton. I would mention
that all MPPs around the table have a deep respect for the people
in Walkerton and an appreciation for what they've gone through
for well over three months.
I applaud you for introducing
the new drinking water protection regulation, a new level of
protection for Ontario in terms of standards in monitoring,
reporting and treatment. At this point, for the purposes of this
committee I would wish to receive more details on Operation Clean
Water and how it is designed to protect the people in Ontario. I
direct that to the minister, the deputy or staff.
Hon Mr
Newman: I'd like to thank the Chair and the honourable
members for the opportunity to continue the discussion that began
in June with the standing committee on estimates.
Once again, I'm joined by my
deputy minister, Stien Lal, my ministry's assistant deputy
ministers and some of our directors. They are here to answer any
questions regarding specifics that I may not be able to
provide.
This has been a very active
summer for the Ministry of the Environment, and we've been able
to make strong progress on a number of fronts. Our ongoing
efforts to improve the protection of the environment are meeting
with great success. I am proud of the way we've been able to keep
the momentum going, while also addressing the very difficult
situation in Walkerton following the E coli outbreak. The result
of our actions will be cleaner communities for all Ontarians.
I want to begin this
afternoon by talking about the government's efforts to restore
the municipal water system in the former town of Walkerton and
about our broader initiatives to restore confidence in the
province's drinking water.
As the regulator of public
water systems in the province, Ontario is working with the owners
and operators of waterworks to ensure the public's health and
safety remains the top priority. The province is also
aggressively developing new standards to protect our ground and
surface water supply from pollution that may present a risk to the safety of our drinking
water. This is known as Operation Clean Water, and I would like
to highlight some of those efforts for you here this
afternoon.
We launched the program in
August to focus province-wide efforts to improve water quality
and delivery. The goals of Operation Clean Water are as follows:
tough, clear standards with the full force of the law; effective
inspection and enforcement; tough penalties for non-compliance;
and strategic investments and efficient delivery practices.
1540
The tragic events in
Walkerton raised concerns about the safety of water across the
province. The Ministry of the Environment moved quickly to ensure
that other municipal water systems are not at risk by:
Announcing, in June, an
inspection blitz of all municipal water treatment facilities. As
of September 15, the ministry had inspected 365 of the more than
620 water treatment plants in our province. Where inadequacies
were detected, the owners and operators have been issued orders
requiring corrective action. Results of these inspections are
being made public on a regular basis. This blitz, which will be
completed before the end of the year, is to ensure that all water
treatment plants in this province meet provincial treatment
standards for drinking water, adequately test their drinking
water and have qualified operators running the systems;
Conducting a review and
update of all certificates of approval for water treatment
operations; and
Posting adverse water quality
incident reports on the ministry Web site. The reports have been
posted since July and continue to be updated on a regular
basis.
As part of Operation Clean
Water, the Ministry of the Environment introduced the new
drinking water protection regulation, creating strict and
mandatory requirements for large waterworks in the province. The
new regulation, which came into effect August 26, ensures:
Regular and frequent sampling
and testing of water;
Clear requirements for the
immediate, person-to-person communication of potentially unsafe
water quality to the Ministry of the Environment, the local
medical officer of health and the waterworks owner. The
requirement must be met by laboratories and owner/operators of
waterworks. The ministry is currently reviewing all adverse
water-quality reports to ensure all parties are meeting this
requirement;
All waterworks staff who test
for operational parameters must receive 36 hours of training in
addition to the 40 hours annually they had to receive before
August 26;
All waterworks staff who test
for operational parameters must be licensed by the Ministry of
the Environment;
Stringent treatment
requirements for all drinking water;
Public quality reports on
large waterworks are issued quarterly, with the first reports
being due October 30;
Microbiological and chemical
testing is conducted exclusively by accredited laboratories;
Public access to the records
of all large water works; and,
Engineer's reports on
municipal waterworks are submitted to the Ministry of the
Environment, with the first reports due beginning this
November.
A full package of information
on the regulation was sent to municipalities across the province.
The Ministry of the Environment held information sessions across
the province in August to inform municipalities and other
owner/operators of large waterworks of their obligations under
the new regulation. The ministry also provided information at the
annual meeting of the Association of Municipalities of
Ontario.
After posting the regulation
for public consultation, the ministry is currently reviewing
comments.
With respect to small
waterworks, we are addressing the appropriate level of regulation
for small waterworks. We have launched a consultation with the
owners and users of small waterworks, and a discussion paper has
been released to guide the consultation process. Provincial
ministries are informing stakeholders who may be affected by the
consultation process and encouraging them to offer input.
The Chief Medical Officer of
Health of Ontario, Dr. Colin D'Cunha, has formed a private water
systems committee. The committee has prepared a preliminary
report which lists 12 recommendations. The two main goals of the
committee are to identify the most effective method of ensuring
prompt notification of water results to homeowners and to prepare
and recommend an education plan designed to assist homeowners in
protecting the integrity of their private wells.
The Ministry of Health's
public health laboratories will also test samples brought into
the laboratories by individuals who have their own wells. The
ministry is also accommodating the tenfold increase in
water-testing requests that occurred during the summer.
This past summer, four
publications regarding water wells in Ontario were revised. The
documents are located on the new water regulation link on the
Ministry of the Environment's Web site and through the ministry's
public information centre.
The Ministry of the
Environment, in co-operation with other ministries, is conducting
an exhaustive review of Ontario government and broader public
sector facilities that are not connected to municipal water
systems. It is a priority of the provincial government to move
quickly to ensure the broader public sector is aware of its
responsibilities for the provision of safe drinking water.
On September 21, I announced
the SWAT team, a major offensive against polluters, including the
formation of the SWAT team and legislation introducing the
toughest fines and longest jail terms in all Canada for major
environmental offences.
The SWAT team will be a
highly mobile compliance, inspection and enforcement unit. Its
primary focus will be on finding companies or individuals that
systematically or flagrantly defy the law by engaging in
practices that damage public health and the environment.
On August 10, my colleague the Honourable Tony
Clement, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, announced
immediate infrastructure investments that focus on water safety,
as well as a long-term water and sewer infrastructure investment
and financing strategy. The minimum $240 million in provincial
support is to help Ontario communities comply fully and quickly
with the new drinking water protection regulation. The
government's investments will flow through the OSTAR initiative
that was announced in the 2000 Ontario budget. Moving toward full
cost recovery for water and sewer treatment services will be a
fundamental principle of the government's long-term strategy to
ensure that future investment needs are met on a timely
basis.
With respect to the task
force on intensive agricultural operations in Ontario
consultation, consultations were held in January and February
this year in response to ongoing concerns about the effects of
intensive agricultural operations in rural Ontario. They were led
by Dr Doug Galt, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of
Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, who I see is here today, and
by my parliamentary assistant, Toby Barrett. The objective was to
develop options that meet both the productivity and environmental
needs of the agriculture sector and rural residents.
On July 10, Minister of
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Ernie Hardeman released the report
and his proposal to establish standards for agricultural
operations. OMAFRA also announced that they would do further
consultation with key stakeholders during the summer on proposed
new legislation.
Twenty-six rural
water-quality and -quantity projects have been submitted under
the four-year, $90 million healthy futures for Ontario
agriculture program. The government has committed $1 million
toward five projects and will be approving more. The program
encourages the agri-food industry to enhance the safety and
quality of Ontario food products, capitalize on marketing and
exporting opportunities, improve rural water quality and make
efficient use of rural water resources.
With respect to biosolids
disposal and the application of septage, the Ministry of the
Environment is currently reviewing its requirements for land
application of sewage biosolids, septage and pulp and paper
sludge to ensure strict environmental standards are met. These
are all currently regulated through certificates of approval from
the ministry.
With respect to groundwater
monitoring and its strategy, during the next three years the
Ministry of the Environment will invest more than $6 million for
the establishment of a new provincial groundwater monitoring
network in partnership with Conservation Ontario, its member
conservation authorities and some municipalities. The first
monitoring stations will be in place this year, with more to
follow. This network will provide more information for
decision-making on water takings, drought management, protection
of groundwater quality, land use planning and related health and
safety issues. Work in eight critical watersheds began this
summer.
Ensuring and improving the
quality of drinking water is one of this government's top
priorities. We are committed to ensuring that our Ontario
drinking water standards incorporate and reflect the latest
scientific information. Following a careful and thorough
scientific review, the Ministry of the Environment is reaffirming
the Ontario drinking water standard for fluoride and lowering the
recommended level of fluoride in drinking water where
fluoridation is practised. This change was posted for public
comment on September 20. In addition, the ministry has adopted
the federal government's guidelines for radionuclides.
1550
The Chair:
Two minutes remaining.
Hon Mr
Newman: Thank you, Chair.
This strengthens current
standards for four existing radionuclides and establishes limits
for 73 additional radionuclides. The ministry is also proposing
to adopt the Canadian drinking water guideline for bromate as an
Ontario drinking water standard.
On September 20, the Ministry
of the Environment released the l998 and 1999 results of the
drinking water surveillance program. More than 99.9% of the
samples analyzed met the health-related objectives. This is a
voluntary monitoring program carried out by the ministry and
participating municipalities to provide information on the
quality of municipal drinking water. The data provided by the
program support standard-setting and provide an early warning
system of emerging problems.
The program augments the
routine monitoring of drinking water that municipalities carry
out on a daily basis. This program will change and information
will become more current as the ministry begins receiving
quarterly reports on large waterworks beginning October 30.
As you can see, we've been
very busy over the summer since we last met. I believe it was
June 21. I'd like to thank all of the members here today for the
opportunity to tell the standing committee on estimates about our
efforts to alleviate the difficult situation in Walkerton and to
ensure that no Ontario community ever has a similar
experience.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Minister. That concludes your time. I now
turn to the official opposition, Mr Bradley.
Mr James J. Bradley
(St Catharines): Mrs Dombrowsky will begin.
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky
(Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): Mr Minister,
I have with me a copy of a letter that the Premier wrote in 1995
to the community of Vaughan. In this letter he indicated very
clearly-and this was part of your election platform when you made
a number of promises to the people of the province-that you would
return the responsibility for waste management to municipalities
and also that no municipality would be forced against its will by
a Harris government to accept another municipality's garbage.
Even as recently as today in
the House, the Premier made reference to "a willing host." First
of all, what I'd like to
understand from you this afternoon is, what do you consider a
willing host?
Hon Mr
Newman: On this issue that you're talking about, in the
statements the Premier made he also said that this government
would ensure that equity and fairness are foundations for waste
management.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I don't see that in the letter.
Hon Mr
Newman: You've asked a question and I'm answering
it.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: You've made reference to something in the
context of the letter that I don't see. If you could point it out
to me.
The Chair:
Mrs Dombrowsky, if you could let the minister answer and we'll
see where we end up. Mr Minister.
Hon Mr
Newman: Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to answer
the question.
I was saying that in a
statement to this issue, the Premier also said that this
government would ensure that equity and fairness are foundations
for waste management, and the most important aspect of any
disposal option is that it must go through a full environmental
assessment.
This government maintains
that equity and fairness must be the foundation for
decision-making in the area of municipal waste management. The
tool is to ensure this happens, and that's the environmental
assessment process. Ontario's environmental assessment requires
that proposals like the Adams mine-
Mrs
Dombrowsky: He's not answering the question.
The Chair:
Excuse me, Mr Minister.
To explain it, Mrs
Dombrowsky, you put the question; the minister puts the answer.
If you think you've been answered or you're not receiving the
answer you'd like, you can indicate. It's your time to use as you
see fit.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I would, for clarification, perhaps restate:
how do you define a willing host?
Hon Mr
Newman: I'll get Michael Williams here from the
environmental assessment director.
Mr Michael
Williams: My name is Michael Williams. I am the director
of environmental assessment and approvals for the Ministry of the
Environment.
The issue of a municipality's
willingness or desire to support a project or be a host for a
project is part of the overall environmental effects that are
considered when an environmental assessment is undertaken. There
are both positive effects and negative effects that are
considered. When we look at the environment, it's the social,
cultural, natural and economic features that are looked at.
I would suggest that the
desire of a municipality to have a site occur within their
municipal boundaries is best expressed in the context of an
examination of the social and cultural aspects of the
environmental assessment.
The other point I'd like to
make about this is that there are other approvals required once
the environmental assessment-
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I'm interested in the definition of "a
willing host."
The Chair:
Are you able to help us with that?
Mr Williams:
I'm able to help you with that to the extent that the willingness
of a municipality to be a host or to agree to a project going in
their particular area of jurisdiction is determined under the
environmental assessment process.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: If I could, then, pursue that with the
minister. I'm somewhat confused, because in recent media reports,
the mayor of the town of Napanee, which is the proposed host for
the Richmond landfill expansion, has insisted that you told him
that the town could not stop the dump. He says that you told
them, in fact, their opinion did not matter because they did not
own the property. I quote from what the mayor said to the media:
"It's not the mayor telling people that; it's the minister."
I'm somewhat confused,
because your Premier has indicated that municipalities do have a
role to play and yet you have certainly left the impression with
the mayor of the town of Napanee that they don't. I was wondering
if you would be able to clarify that for me this afternoon.
Hon Mr
Newman: First off, I said no such thing. Canadian Waste
Services requires approvals for the expansion of their Richmond
landfill under the Environmental Assessment Act and, as well,
under the Environmental Protection Act. I approved Canadian Waste
Services' proposed terms of reference. Canadian Waste Services is
now proceeding to prepare an environmental assessment in the
courts with the approved terms of reference, and a decision
regarding the proposed expansion of the Richmond landfill will
follow the preparation, submission and public review of the
environmental assessment.
I can tell you that Canadian
Waste Services is currently developing an environmental
assessment study group to work through the environmental
assessment process.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: The Richmond landfill site is located on a
fractured bedrock. The Ministry of the Environment engineered
facilities policy states that fractured bedrock sites are not
preferred for landfill. Will you implement this policy when you
review the environmental assessment for the Richmond
landfill?
Hon Mr
Newman: I refer that to Michael.
Mr Williams:
The policies that will be looked at will all be examined under
the environmental assessment as Canadian Waste Services proceeds
with this. The issue of bedrock fractures and subsurface
conditions will be thoroughly examined by technical experts, and
the Ministry of the Environment staff will be making a
recommendation to the minister based on how those concerns and
issues are addressed and what technical concerns come to light.
If it's proven that that site is not acceptable to have a
landfill expansion on those grounds, then the approvals would be
denied.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Will you guarantee that the Richmond
landfill will not become a contingency location for Toronto
garbage?
Mr Williams:
I am not aware of the plans for Canadian Waste Services' area of
service or the nature of the waste that would be proposed to enter the
Richmond landfill, but I would undertake that we can pose that
question to the proponent of the environmental assessment during
the review, and we can ask them to address where they plan to get
waste from to be deposited on the site then.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Finally, in the riding of Sarnia-Lambton is
the site Safety-Kleen, the toxic, hazardous waste landfill site,
and it has been drawn to the attention of my colleague MPP
Caroline Di Cocco that there has been neglect at this site. Ms Di
Cocco has requested that a full-time inspector and geotechnical
engineer be placed at the site, as they have been in other sites,
by the Ministry of the Environment.
The Environmental
Commissioner has stated that this is a reasonable request. What
action will the ministry take on this matter?
1600
Hon Mr
Newman: First off, I answered that back in June. I don't
know if you recall that or not.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: I'm asking this on behalf of my
colleague.
Hon Mr
Newman: She asked it. She's the one who asked it,
though.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Obviously, maybe there hasn't-
Mr Bradley:
She didn't get an answer then. She thinks she might get one
now.
Hon Mr
Newman: She got an answer. Carl?
Mr Carl
Griffith: Carl Griffith. I'm assistant deputy minister
of the operations division at environment.
We have had ongoing
discussions over the past several months with Safety-Kleen. We're
working on the terms of reference. They seem to be quite willing
to entertain the notion of hiring additional staff who would be
full-time inspectors at the site. My regional staff are working
closely with the company and we hope to have some form of
agreement and arrangement done in the not-too-distant future.
Mr David Ramsay
(Timiskaming-Cochrane): Minister, with regard to the
Adams mine, we're all very curious about using a fractured rock
pit, as my colleague has said, for a landfill, as it tends to go
counter to the best principles of the day that say that to find
an ideal site, one wants to keep water and garbage separated.
Designers do this through design, the use of liners, be they
plastic or rubber, in order to prevent this contamination of
water.
If we were to put our heads
together here and try to find the ideal site in Ontario, would we
design something like the Adams mine today? Would that be the
chosen type of site the ministry believes in?
Mr
Williams: I'd like to address the question around the
issue of hydraulic containment and potential groundwater and
surface water contamination because I think it's really important
that we are absolutely clear on what's proposed for that site. I
accept the question in terms of, is that the best set of
circumstances for which a landfill should be sited on?
I want to speak just for a
moment around hydraulic containment. What that means is the
inward flow of water, from groundwater into the pit or the
landfill site, and that inward flow will prevent the outward
movement of leachate, away from the site. The only way that will
work in a practical sense is where the level of water in the pit
is much lower than the water that is flowing into it.
That is the situation
that's known as hydraulic containment and that's exactly what
we've got with respect to the Adams mine. As long as the level of
water in the pit does not rise higher than the groundwater coming
in, then that's suitable. That's something that has to be
safeguarded and that's a simple law of nature.
Mr Ramsay:
Is that the ideal situation, to put 20 million tonnes into that
situation, knowing that we are dependent on a mechanical
operating system for, as you know, according to the proponent, up
to 100 to 125 years in order to keep that hydraulic containment
principle sound?
Mr
Williams: We've been assured, and my engineering and
hydrogeological experts have looked at this thing from a number
of ways. It's thoroughly reviewed. We don't believe there's
potential for contaminants within the waste to enter the
surrounding groundwater as long as the hydraulic containment is
maintained.
I'd like to address the
issue of maintaining the hydraulic containment because you quite
correctly raised the matter, that there's a long time in the
future that this would have to be looked at if that site is used.
I'd like to explain that in the context of financial assurance
and how we're planning to manage that.
The financial assurance
program that the ministry has is designed to ensure there's
sufficient funding collected to have that site appropriately
maintained in the long term. Under the certificate of approval
that's issued for the Adams mine, there are a number of
conditions pertaining to this. I can tell you that the financial
assurance plan was approved in December 1998 and it's
incorporated in there for three things: for the closure of the
site, post-closure care and contingencies.
Let me just give you an
idea of the level of protection that will provide. The financial
assurance will be provided to the ministry based on how much
material comes into the site over time. The total closure cost of
that pit is estimated at approximately $5 million. That means
there will be a requirement for 17 cents per tonne of waste to go
in for the one-time landfill closure cost.
But you asked me for more
than the closure; you asked me for the post-closure information.
The provision for post-closure care will cost 99 cents per tonne
of waste received and the provision for any contingencies is
costed at 50 cents per tonne. What that means is that there's
$1.66 per tonne in 1997 dollars that will be collected and it
will be annually adjusted to account for inflation. There's a
20-year lifespan predicted for that site. If the site is utilized
and if the average annual fill rates of approximately 700,000
tonnes to a million tonnes of waste occur, then the total amount
the government will collect for financial assurance at the end of
that site's life will be
in excess of $20 million for post-closure care and $10 million
for-
Mr Ramsay:
OK. I'd like to move on to another question, because everybody
talked about this being an ideal site. Is there another type of
site like this in Ontario?
Mr
Williams: There are three sites in Ontario that employ
similar principles of the groundwater flowing in and that
pressure that I talked about in my response earlier. The Halton
landfill, the Grimsby landfill and Green Lane landfills all rely
on those principles.
For the proposal for
leachate containment and collection, the exact system that's
being proposed is operational in Canada. It's in Saskatchewan at
the Rabbit Lake uranium mine. That was brought to bear during the
hearings and was demonstrated during the hearings as an
operational element so that people could have some degree of
confidence that this was actually occurring, that these
principles were in place in Ontario and that the actual practice
of what's proposed for leachate containment and the collection
system is in play in Canada.
Mr Ramsay:
Since Walkerton, I see at home that people have really developed
a new appreciation of how we should be caring for groundwater.
That we purposely design a site that uses these vast quantities
of groundwater as a cleaning and filtering agent for the toxins
in garbage, with the hope that we can collect every last drop of
that and put it through a purification plant before we discharge
it to the environment, is just not the sort of project we should
be embarking upon today. It's just too big a gamble.
We're talking about some of
the best water in Ontario. As you know, it's right at the top of
the Atlantic watershed. For the lifespan of this project, to be
using that vast quantity of water that I would say in 25 or 50
years we're going to really have a need for in Ontario is
criminal. I would just say to the minister I would advise that we
don't undertake this project or any other project that purposely
uses that.
I know in the end sometimes
we have to have a landfill, but we should be seeking sites where
we can guarantee as much as possible that we keep water away from
the waste so we don't contaminate our groundwater, and not embark
upon this foolishness. To me it's a crapshoot and I would just
plead with you not to go ahead with this. Thank you.
Mr
Bradley: You have had the Premier hire on your behalf
one of the top spin doctors in Ontario, public relations expert
Paul Rhodes, who used to work in the Premier's office. He also
worked for Ontario Hydro at $225,000 or $250,000 a year, one of
those figures anyway. Very high-priced help he was. He seemed to
be there when the Premier perceived there was some kind of public
relations problem, or he would call it a communications problem.
I would have thought the money for his salary would have been
expended on environmental officers in Ontario instead.
How much is the taxpayer of
Ontario paying Paul Rhodes to do public relations for the
Ministry of the Environment?
Hon Mr
Newman: I want to say to you that the situation in
Walkerton has created considerable concern for the people of
Ontario. It's important to ensure that we as a ministry were
effectively communicating the necessary information to the people
of Walkerton in a timely fashion. Given the increased attention
on water initiatives, it was necessary to hire additional
resources to communicate the initiatives we've undertaken-
Mr
Bradley: How much are you paying Paul Rhodes?
Hon Mr
Newman: -to assure the people of Ontario that their
drinking water is safe. We've had several initiatives: first off,
we've replaced 4.6 kilometres of water mains-
1610
Mr
Bradley: All that is fine, Mr Minister, but it's not the
question I asked. The question I asked was, how much are you
paying Paul Rhodes?
Mr Doug Galt
(Northumberland): Give him a chance.
The Chair:
Order, Mr Galt. We're giving the minister ample time to answer
the questions.
Mr
Bradley: The question was specific, Mr Galt. You can be
the block if you want.
The Chair:
Mr Galt, your turn will come. You'll be able to dictate what kind
of answer and question you have.
Mr
Bradley: It was a very specific question: how much is
the taxpayer of this province paying Paul Rhodes to work on
behalf of your ministry at the present time? I didn't ask for a
description-
Hon Mr
Newman: No, I'm trying to explain-
Mr
Bradley: Yes, but I'm not asking for a description, I'm
only asking for a figure.
Hon Mr
Newman: I'm trying to put it into some sort of context
for you. All I'm simply saying-
Interjection.
Mr
Bradley: Galt, quit playing the donkey over there. All
we're asking for is a specific question. If you enjoy playing the
donkey to get on the Premier's good side, that's fine for you.
I'm asking a question for the taxpayers of Ontario: How much are
you paying Paul Rhodes? You can't afford people in the
ministry-you've fired 900 of them out the door-but you can damned
well hire Paul Rhodes. How much are you paying him? That's the
question I'm asking. Never mind the blocking from that
donkey.
The Chair:
You've put your question. Minister, if you choose to answer the
question, it's up to you.
Hon Mr
Newman: I'll simply say obviously it's a contractual
matter between the government and the individual-
Mr
Bradley: The taxpayers are paying him, Minister.
Hon Mr
Newman: -and it would be breaching some sort of privacy
concerns there.
Mr
Bradley: The taxpayers are paying him, Mr Minister. How
much are they paying him?
The Chair:
Mr Bradley, I'm going to ask you to ask another question or to
address something to the minister.
Hon Mr Newman: I've answered your
question. You raised the question of hiring staff. You know that
there are 65 new additional Ministry of the Environment staff,
who are now-
Mr
Bradley: I know all that. I want to know what we're
paying Paul Rhodes.
Hon Mr
Newman: You asked a question that touched on ministry
staff, so what I wanted to do was to highlight to you that there
are 65 additional staff. I announced last week, within the
Ministry of the Environment, they will be part of our
environmental SWAT teams-
Mr
Bradley: I know what the deputy minister makes; I want
to know what Paul Rhodes makes.
Hon Mr
Newman: You know what they make. There will be
inspectors; you know that there will be investigators; there will
be many other people within the separate unit within the
ministry. It's a campaign commitment-
The Chair:
Sorry, Minister. Mr Bradley, your time has almost expired.
There's one minute, if there is a further question you'd like to
put. But I'll ask now, in advance, because there will be one more
round; it'll be a brief round. I'll ask for everybody's
reasonableness. I will rule out of order anyone who is not.
Mr
Bradley: The last question I would ask you is this, Mr
Minister: are you giving an undertaking now that a condition of
sale of all coal-fired plants in the province of Ontario,
stipulated by your government, will be conversion to natural
gas?
Hon Mr
Newman: You know we have a review of all the coal-fired
facilities in this province underway. We announced it in May.
It's a very exhaustive review on the part of our ministry experts
to evaluate each and every one of those five facilities that are
coal-fired in the province. We're working hard to ensure that all
these environmental safeguards are in place, and we've said that
those safeguards must be in place before any of those facilities
change hands.
Mr
Bradley: So the answer is no. I detect from that the
answer is no.
Hon Mr
Newman: I think I've answered to your question.
The Chair:
The answer is the answer, Mr Bradley. Thank you.
We now turn to the
government side. You have 20 minutes, Mr Mazzilli. Pardon me;
it's my mistake. It's the third party for 20 minutes. Mr Hampton,
my apologies.
Mr Howard Hampton
(Kenora-Rainy River): I have some specific questions and
I wonder if you can give some specific answers. Can you tell us
how many companies in Ontario today currently have program
approvals issued by your ministry that effectively grant them
immunity from prosecution even though they are out of compliance
with pollution standards?
Hon Mr
Newman: There would be no companies that can violate the
laws of this province. There are no companies that are allowed to
pollute our environment.
Mr
Hampton: Will you table a list of all the program
approvals currently in effect?
Hon Mr
Newman: Yes, of course. We're always willing to share
information with you.
Mr
Hampton: I'll repeat the question: Will you table a list
of all the program approvals currently in effect?
Hon Mr
Newman: Which program approvals? You're not being
specific enough for me. Normally you would give me a very
specific question. That's a very broad question there.
Mr
Hampton: I'm asking you to table the program approvals
currently in effect through your ministry.
Hon Mr
Newman: Which programs? You're not being specific
enough. I'm trying to help you.
Mr
Hampton: We'll move on. Your senior ministry staff have
documented at least 111 industrial plants in Ontario that are
consistently out of compliance with Ontario's clean water
regulations. They say that, as of March of this year, 79 of them
have been out of compliance for more than two years, yet they are
not even being addressed by the Ministry of Environment. Your
staff said that these companies are putting contaminants into
waterways that affect drinking water, but nothing is being
done.
Hon Mr
Newman: I'll have Carl Griffith help you out here.
Mr
Griffith: I don't have the statistics in front of me to
comment on the accuracy. I would state that-and I think the
minister has answered this question before-when you look at the
discharges report and people who are out of compliance, that can
range from a whole list of non-compliance issues, from operating
procedures to actual discharges. We do take action on those
items, so I would-
Mr
Hampton: Do you deny that 79 companies were out of
compliance for two years or more?
Mr
Griffith: Mr Chair, I can neither confirm nor deny that.
I don't have those statistics with me. I would be happy to try to
confirm those numbers, but I don't have-
Mr
Hampton: Will you provide us with the names of the
companies that have been out of compliance for two years or
more?
Mr Frank Mazzilli
(London-Fanshawe): All questions should be pointed to
the minister.
Ms Marilyn Churley
(Toronto-Danforth): That's what we want.
The Chair:
Mr Mazzilli, direct your intervention to the Chair. I'm going to
be adding time to the third party if there are interventions that
aren't warranted.
Mr
Hampton: I'm waiting for an answer, rather than a-
The Chair:
It is entirely at the discretion of the ministry to answer or
not.
Hon Mr
Newman: We can provide the information. We've been
forthright in sharing information. You would know that.
Mr
Hampton: In 1998, your ministry identified 3,300 water
pollution violations by industrial and municipal plants. Some of these, including
Walkerton, by the way, were long-time repeat violators and yet
there was only one single prosecution. Can you explain that?
Hon Mr
Newman: Are you talking about waste water discharge
here? Is that what you're talking about?
Mr
Hampton: I'm talking about a series of water pollution
violations by industrial and municipal plants.
Hon Mr
Newman: Yes, I just want it to be a little more
specific. Then I can try to answer that question for you.
Mr
Hampton: Well, put it this way: take your pick. There
was only one prosecution. Can you explain having only one
prosecution, when it was pretty clear that there were a series of
water pollution violations?
Hon Mr
Newman: Carl, can fill you in on our efforts to have
industries and municipalities comply with the laws of this
province?
Mr
Griffith: I'd like to again try to address that
question. I don't have those statistics in front of me and I'm
sorry. But prosecutions are only one way that we get companies
back into compliance. We do try to work with companies. We do
issue orders. Prosecutions can take a long time. That is right at
the tail end of our attempts to get companies back into
compliance, so an awful lot of work and compliance takes place in
the absence of having a prosecution. Again, I cannot confirm-I'm
sorry-at this time the statistics that you're reading.
Mr
Hampton: I'll move on and get to another area. Last week
your ministry finally got around to releasing the drinking water
surveillance program, DWSP, results for 1998-99. Can you explain
why you've narrowed the scope from health-related guidelines to
only health-related Ontario drinking water objectives? Can you
explain how these reports can make the claim for many communities
that no health-related ODWOs were exceeded when, according to
documents released by MOE in 1996, this program stopped sampling
for some of the most important ODWO health-related
parameters?
Hon Mr
Newman: It's really Jim MacLean.
Mr Jim
MacLean: I'm Jim MacLean, the assistant deputy minister
of environmental sciences and standards. The Ontario drinking
water surveillance program monitors, on a voluntary basis, a
range of 200 parameters in communities. The surveillance program
is not a compliance monitoring tool but an early detection system
for problems and issues that arise in such communities. The
information is provided to the drinking water owner, to
operational staff and to the public. The Ontario drinking water
objectives, all of the health-related parameters, are part of the
scan except for the bacteriological samples. With those
parameters, given the surveillance program that looks at each of
the waterworks from one to six times a year, it was decided that
this was not the appropriate mechanism, the surveillance program,
to address those. There was monitoring required under the
objectives and now under the new regulations of those
bacteriological parameters at a great deal higher frequency than
the surveillance program was going to be able to mount. It was
felt that the decision to curtail those bacteriological
parameters was based on the high probability of not detecting,
given the low frequency of the surveillance program.
1620
Mr
Hampton: Don't you think it's a bit misleading to some
Ontarians? They get a report; they'll get into the executive
summaries for Balmertown, Nipigon and Owen Sound. That's for
1998-99, so this is the material you released. It says in the
text, "No other health-related ODWOs were exceeded." Somebody who
gets this might think that, gee, their water has received a clean
bill of health, wouldn't they?
Mr
MacLean: I think the parameters that the surveillance
program does measure are clearly described at the front end of
that report. There is an indication of what parameters are
measured and the references in the text are to those parameters
that are measured as part of the surveillance program. It is not
the only source of information available to the public on the
quality of their drinking water. There are other sources
available, particularly now under the new regulations.
Mr
Hampton: Can you confirm that this surveillance program
doesn't test for microbiological parameters such as E coli?
Mr
MacLean: It does not and has not for some time.
Mr
Hampton: Can you confirm that it doesn't test, for
example, for cryptosporidium and giardia?
Mr
MacLean: There are currently no accredited tests for
cryptosporidium or giardia in Canada. This is a problem that the
Canadian drinking water community is working on at this time, to
try and develop accredited tests that will provide accurate
results of the levels of those two parasites in water.
Mr
Hampton: But can you tell me this: we've witnessed the
disaster at Walkerton, over 2,000 people ill and at least six
people have died. Wouldn't you put on this test then in red
letters, "Please note E coli not tested for"?
Mr
MacLean: We indicated clearly in all of the reports
which parameters we're measuring for in doing the surveillance
program and have referenced in analyzing each of the waterworks
the parameters that we are measuring.
Mr
Hampton: Can you tell us why, since Walkerton, you
haven't started testing for E coli as part of this drinking water
surveillance program?
Mr
MacLean: Since Walkerton, we've put in place very strict
requirements for measuring, reporting and notification on those
measurements for E coli and other bacteriological parameters at a
far greater frequency than the surveillance program is able to
mount.
Hon Mr
Newman: In fact, from the long-term monitoring point of
view the drinking water surveillance program looks at those
long-term trends in drinking water. If you're looking at the
shorter-term focus, that's why the new, tough regulation calls
for increased testing and sampling requirements. The very thing
you want to see tested now is part of the regulation that those
types of tests must be conducted and, more important, that they
must be conducted at
accredited laboratories. I think that should give you some
comfort.
Mr
Hampton: I want to ask you a question about landfills.
The Keele Valley landfill is set to close, and your ministry has
done nothing to help Toronto find a solution other than direct
them to the Adams mine site. Your own senior MOE staff told you
that at least 183 landfill sites in Ontario will be full by the
year 2005, and yet you haven't managed to ensure that a search
for new sites is underway. Can you tell us why?
Hon Mr
Newman: Basically all municipalities, including the city
of Toronto, have a responsibility for their long-term planning
for waste disposal. They have that responsibility. Michael can
tell you a little bit more about that, but municipalities have
that responsibility for the waste disposal.
Mr
Hampton: Can you tell me then, if it's the
municipality's responsibility, why did the province close Keele
Valley?
Hon Mr
Newman: Michael?
Mr
Williams: Waste management is indeed a municipal
responsibility, sir.
Mr
Hampton: Then why did the province step in in Keele
Valley?
Mr
Williams: I think it's fair to say that there is an
expectation, and there has been an expectation, that the useful
life of Keele Valley would come to-
Mr
Hampton: But that's for the municipality to decide.
According to your rules, that's for the municipality to
decide.
Interjections.
The Chair:
Mr Mazzilli, I don't need any assistance from you. Once the
minister has made a referral, staff may answer questions. I will
ask you to refrain until you have your time.
Ms
Churley: We would prefer for the minister to answer,
actually. He keeps passing it off.
The Chair:
I'm sorry for the interruption. Mr Hampton?
Mr
Hampton: Here's the conundrum: you say on the one hand
that this is no longer a provincial responsibility, that it is a
municipal responsibility. Yet the province steps in and says that
Keele Valley will no longer operate. So which is it? Is it a
provincial responsibility, in which case why aren't you doing
something about the 138 other landfill sites that are due to
reach capacity? Why do you only interfere in some? When is it a
municipal responsibility and when is it a provincial
responsibility? Which is it?
Mr
Williams: I'd like to just clarify, Mr Chair, that it is
a municipal responsibility. In the case of Keele Valley, the city
has indicated that Keele will be closed in 2002 when it reaches
capacity. So it's a decision they are taking.
I also have information, if
you'd like me to outline the process, that the city of Toronto
has used and has gone through to determine how best to manage its
waste management decisions with respect to Keele and other
potential sites. Would you be interested in that chronology,
sir?
Mr
Hampton: No. The chronology isn't of interest. What's of
interest is that the province seems to interfere in some sites
and not interfere in other sites, and I still haven't received an
explanation from either you or the ministry of how the Ministry
of the Environment decides that at some sites the province will
exercise a decision and in other situations it is foisted on to
municipalities.
Mr
Williams: In the program area for which I have
responsibility, which is the environmental assessment program, I
can advise the members here today that we have a large number of
landfill proposals, either new or expansion, under consideration
by my staff. All of them are being put forward by the respective
municipalities.
Mr
Hampton: That tells us nothing. Thank you.
We understand from reports
by senior MOE staff that recycling by the ICI sector in Ontario
is declining. Can you tell us what steps you've taken to rectify
that problem? Why do we see a decline in recycling in that
sector?
Hon Mr
Newman: I'll let George do that.
Mr George
Rocoski: My name is George Rocoski and I'm the acting
director of the waste management policy branch.
The ministry, the
government, has taken efforts to increase recycling activities
through the creation of the Waste Diversion Organization.
Mr
Hampton: Can you tell us why there has been a decline?
That's historical fact. Why has there been a decline? I'd like
you to answer the question.
Mr
Rocoski: I don't have the figures that you're quoting
from. I'm not aware of a particular decline from the ICI sector
of recycling myself.
1630
Mr
Hampton: Since you're the one chosen to answer this, I'm
going to show you a document and ask you if you've ever seen this
document before. It's a cabinet document and it's dated March 14,
2000. Did you ever see a draft cabinet document like that?
Mr
Rocoski: I'd have to look at it closer, sir. I don't
know.
Mr
Hampton: Would you like to look at it more closely?
Mr
Mazzilli: Mr Chair, if that's going to be entered in as
evidence-
The Chair:
Mr Mazzilli, if you want to raise a point of order, please raise
a point of order. Otherwise, please don't interrupt the
proceedings.
Mr
Mazzilli: On a point of order, Mr Chair: If the document
is going to be presented-
Mr
Hampton: I've already presented the document. I think
everyone here has a copy.
Mr
Mazzilli: -certainly the members of this committee
should be-
Mr
Hampton: Have you seen that?
Mr
Rocoski: No, sir, I have not.
Mr
Hampton: You've never seen that document?
The Chair: I'll be happy to make
it available, Mr Mazzilli, on the point of order.
Mr
Hampton: Have you ever had a briefing on that
document?
Mr
Rocoski: No, sir, I have not.
Mr
Hampton: Have you ever heard that document referred
to?
Mr
Rocoski: No, sir, I have not.
Mr
Hampton: So you've never seen or heard of-
Mr
Rocoski: Not that document, no, sir.
Mr
Bradley: The Premier always calls it a phony-baloney
document.
Mr
Hampton: Since the deputy is examining it, I'll ask the
deputy. Have you ever seen that document?
Mr
Mazzilli: Mr Chair, on a point of order: Questions
should be directed to the minister.
The Chair:
Mr Mazzilli, I'm sorry but you are interrupting the proceedings
unnecessarily and I'm just going to have to allocate time to make
sure that-
Mr
Mazzilli: There is no provision in the hearings to
directly ask the deputy minister.
The Chair:
Mr Mazzilli, I'm sorry, you are out of order and I'll ask you to
co-operate. Mr Deputy.
Mr Stien
Lal: Mr Chair, just to assist the committee, the answer
is no, I have not seen this document.
Mr
Hampton: And you've never had a briefing or a briefing
note with respect to that document?
Mr Lal:
Not with respect to this document, no.
Mr
Hampton: And you've never seen a similar document
dealing with the same issues?
Mr Lal: I
may have seen documents that may be similar to this document, but
unless I specifically see the document, I'm sorry, I can't assist
you, Mr Hampton.
Mr
Hampton: Well, let's cut to the chase. Have you seen a
document by senior MOE staff that points out that recycling by
the ICI sector in Ontario is declining and has been
declining?
Mr Lal:
Not to my knowledge, but if there is such an issue, it would have
been brought to my attention by the director of the waste
management branch.
Mr
Hampton: So it's your position and the director's
position that recycling by the ICI sector is not declining?
Mr Lal:
No. What we've indicated is that we have not seen any evidence of
it.
Mr
Hampton: So it's your position, then, that it's not
declining?
Mr Lal: Mr
Chair, I think I've answered the question.
The Chair:
Mr Deputy, your answers are your answers. I don't edit them.
You're welcome to make that conclusion.
Mr
Hampton: I'll go back to the minister. Your handpicked
Waste Diversion Organization says that Ontario probably can't
meet the 50% diversion target without banning organics from
landfills. Do you support the decision or the recommendation to
ban organics from landfills and will you set a target date for
that implementation?
The Chair:
This is the final question. You have less than a minute to
answer.
Hon Mr
Newman: OK, Chair. That's the very reason why we created
the Waste Diversion Organization. As you would know, they did
submit a final report to me on September 1 of this year. We are
committed to the blue box program and we want to ensure that it
remains sustainable over the long term. Again, that's why we
established the Waste Diversion Organization, to provide
municipalities with the blue box funding support and the tools
they need to achieve greater waste diversion, which I think is a
goal that we all share. Waste diversion is an important aspect of
the long-term sustainability of our environment and obviously I
would encourage all municipalities and all sectors to include
these alternatives in their waste management plans. The people
who have worked on the WDO report have worked very hard. They've
put a lot of time and effort into it. Obviously through their
efforts we are going to respond to that report, but we, as a
government, encourage recycling and other waste diversion methods
in this province.
The Chair:
The time has expired for the third party. I will now turn to the
government side. You have 20 minutes.
Mr
Mazzilli: Minister, certainly I would like to know more
about the Adams mine landfill project, but before I give you and
the ministry an opportunity to explain in detail about that
project, I have a few specific questions. Has the opposition or
Dalton McGuinty himself provided any direct alternatives for
landfill sites in this province to you?
Hon Mr
Newman: No, he hasn't. He's offered no alternatives.
Mr
Mazzilli: Has the environment critic, Jim Bradley,
provided any alternatives to the Adams landfill site to you?
Hon Mr
Newman: No, he hasn't, not as yet.
Mr
Mazzilli: Has Mr Hampton provided any alternatives to
you?
Hon Mr
Newman: No, sir, he hasn't.
Mr
Mazzilli: Therefore, Minister, can you explain the
entire process that you and your ministry undertook to create the
Adams landfill site?
Hon Mr
Newman: There was obviously a thorough environmental
assessment undertaken on the project. I'm just going to go
through it, and I'm going to have Michael Williams expand upon
what I say. There is also an Environmental Assessment Board
hearing, as you would be aware. There is also a judicial review
of that, as well as an appeal of the judicial review. So there
are many checks and balances along the way. The federal
government has had an opportunity to be involved along the way;
people have had an opportunity for input. There has to be a
process in place, and that quite obviously is the environmental
assessment process. That's left there for the experts to
determine, whether or not all the environmental concerns have
been met.
On the issue of process, I
really think it's important that you hear that on April 23, 1992,
Dalton McGuinty said in the House-it's in Hansard: "The
environmental assessment affords an opportunity for an issue to
be heard in an
impartial, objective manner by a group of experts who consider
these matters intelligently, expertly and in a forum devoid of
emotion." That's what he said. So obviously he agreed that the
environmental assessment process is the way to go, and I would
agree. That's why we undertook the environmental assessment on
that. Michael Williams can fill you in with a few more of the
details.
Mr
Mazzilli: Minister, one more question prior to the
details: have you ever seen an environmental assessment in
relation to a landfill being an easy decision or a
non-contentious decision?
Hon Mr
Newman: They're not easy decisions, obviously, but the
experts, the engineers, make those decisions based on sound
science and the protection of the environment. That is the
responsibility of those people who conduct the environmental
assessments. Michael Williams can expand on that.
Mr
Williams: I'd like to answer the honourable member's
question by outlining the process, since you raise some issues
around it. I'd like to begin by saying that the original
environmental assessment submitted by Notre Development, who is
the proponent for that site, asked for government approval of
three pits at the Adams mine site as landfills. This ministry
said no. The ministry said no because there hadn't been enough
work done to to provide us with the information we needed to look
at all aspects of that. The proponent then redirected their
efforts to the south pit only, which is the proposal that is
presently approved under an environmental assessment. They were
able to provide us with all the detailed technical information we
needed to undertake the reviews and analysis necessary to reach
an informed decision on the proposal.
I'd also like to point out
that during this process it wasn't just government reviews. There
were peer reviews done on the work the proponent had completed,
and those peer reviews were done in three principal areas:
geology, hydrogeology and hydrology. It included a thorough and
complete examination of the surface and groundwater potential for
contamination from landfilling and predicting movement of
leachate. I spoke a little earlier today about those. It also
looked at the design and operation of the landfill. I'd like to
make it clear that those reviews that were undertaken were in
addition to what the proponent's engineers and scientists did and
in addition to the ministry's experts.
As part of the
Environmental Assessment Act review process, it is also important
to know that we had a team of government ministries look at this
proposal-and agencies, and it wasn't just then provincial
government. The Ministry of the Environment of course spearheaded
this effort with the Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment
Canada was there and the federal Department of Fisheries and
Oceans was there, and they analyzed the Adams mine landfill
proposal. All of those ministries and agencies contributed to
developing the conditions that would be placed on that particular
site.
1640
In addition, both the
Ministry of Natural Resources and the federal government through
Environment Canada participated on a monitoring and contingency
planning working group, and this was looked at under the
Environmental Protection Act application that was before us. We
asked them to look at the details of the certificate of approval
and ensure that all of their concerns were properly addressed
before it was issued.
It's fair to say that
during the process we received hundreds of submissions. That's
understandable with respect to any landfill application. The
issue that was raised first and foremost on the Adams mine
proposal, the most critical environmental question that we had to
wrestle with, was the concern that the pit would leak and
potentially contaminate groundwater. I want to tell you that
based on those public submissions there was a decision that a
former Minister of the Environment made to determine that a
public hearing was necessary on this issue. That public hearing
was before the Environmental Assessment Board and it was held in
1998. The board was asked specifically to zero in and look at the
design of the site and respond to concerns, given the presence of
fractured rock which we've heard discussed and the potential
concerns about groundwater contamination.
After hearing from the
technical experts from the ministry, from the proponents'
experts, from the public and from the local environmental groups,
the Environmental Assessment Board gave its decision, and it
concluded in that decision that the landfill could be approved
subject to very specific conditions. It's fair to say that we're
confident the board heard all sides of the argument, both pro and
con. They had access to the best technical information available.
The board rendered its decision, and it's a decision that the
ministry accepts.
I want to be clear that one
of the conditions the board applied on this required additional
drilling and testing of the site hydrogeology to further confirm
the information and substantiate the data collected to date
before it would allow the director to make a decision on the
Environmental Protection Act application. That work was
completed. It was undertaken as part of the detailed technical
review process under the Environmental Protection Act.
In September 1998 the
Canadian Environmental Law Association, representing the Adams
Mine Intervention Coalition, applied for a judicial review of the
decisions that were made in 1998 by the Environmental Assessment
Board, by the minister and by cabinet on the landfill EA. That
judicial review did not go anywhere. The hearing was held by
Divisional Court on July 13, 1999, and that court upheld that the
minister and the board decisions on the Adams mine landfill could
stand. I think it's important to note that following that
decision there was leave to appeal and there was a request to
overturn the Divisional Court's decision. On October 14, 1999,
the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to
appeal. So there is, in our view, confirmation that the
decision-making process that was followed was appropriate.
In April 1999 in my branch we issued what's known
as a certificate of approval under the Environmental Protection
Act. I think it's important for the members to note that the
certificate that was issued had 66 conditions attached to it. It
has requirements for the final site design, the operations, the
monitoring, the inspections, the reporting, the contingency
plans. It also has the financial assurance provisions that I
spoke to earlier that will see approximately in excess of $30
million to cover off concerns in the future with respect to
post-closure care, landfill closure costs and contingencies. Mr
Chair, I'm not going to go through that breakdown, as I've
previously stated how those figures were determined.
The facts in the Adams mine
case, when you take a look at the process that was followed, are
certainly very clear. This thing has been thoroughly and
professionally reviewed by a team of professional scientists,
including geologists, biologists, environmental engineers,
hydrogeologists from several provincial ministries, federal
agencies, and the province's own northern development and mines.
These experts were not only able to review the proposal, but I
want to stress that they played key roles in proposing the terms
and conditions under which the proposal could receive their
endorsement. I want to assure all members that those terms and
conditions that were discussed, reviewed, debated, proposed and
confirmed are now part of the 66 on that certificate of
approval.
In closing, let me just say
that the decisions to approve the Adams mine landfill were made
only after those thorough technical assessments were undertaken
by experts in engineering and hydrogeology, both from inside and
outside this ministry and the provincial government.
Mr
Mazzilli: Based on the reports from all the engineers
and professionals and so on and the court appeals, what
conclusion do you come to? Is this landfill site safe for the
future?
Mr
Williams: The conclusion we would draw is that it is
safe provided all the terms and conditions on the approvals that
have been issued to date and those yet to come are met. We
absolutely intend to ensure they are met.
Mr
Barrett: I have a question for the minister concerning
the SWAT teams. Minister, earlier this afternoon you described
the various action steps of the recently announced Operation
Clean Water. On September 21, you announced a major offensive
against polluters, including not only legislation that has the
toughest fines and the longest jail terms in Canada for major
environmental offences, but you also made the announcement of the
SWAT team.
Minister, several
questions: How will the SWAT team improve the minister's ability
to crack down on repeat polluters? Is this a new approach, and is
it using new staff?
Hon Mr
Newman: Yes, it is a new approach and yes, it is using
new staff. This highly mobile and focused compliance, inspection
and enforcement SWAT team within the Ministry of the Environment
will crack down on deliberate and repeat polluters and ensure
that they comply with Ontario's environmental laws.
SWAT teams will
aggressively pursue companies or individuals that systematically
or flagrantly defy the law by engaging in practices that threaten
public health and the environment. The new team will be a new
group of environmental officers with an innovative approach. So
yes, it is a new approach. They'll have technological support
that will provide leading-edge environmental compliance. The SWAT
field units will be equipped with state-of-the-art communications
technology to draw on broader resources without leaving the
field.
The unit will identify new
and emerging trends and ensure that all necessary actions are
taken to protect the environment. The SWAT team will be set up as
a separate inspection, compliance and enforcement unit within the
Ministry of the Environment. It will have its own management
structure.
A cell phone
rang.
Hon Mr
Newman: Sorry, I was distracted by a cell phone here.
There was some noise pollution there, Chair.
The Chair:
I'll ask anyone else with cell phones to please kindly turn them
off or take their conversations outside.
Hon Mr
Newman: The team's members will include inspectors,
investigators, environmental engineers, environmental program
analysts, scientists and a laboratory technician.
By bringing polluters into
compliance with Ontario's environmental standards, the SWAT team
will deter companies and individuals who operate outside of the
law. It will improve environmental protection by focusing on
areas of greatest concern, such as air and water quality and
hazardous waste.
The results of the SWAT
team's compliance inspection and enforcement activities will be
made available to the public. Existing staff that currently do
inspections are able to handle most of the enforcement needs of
the province. But as in the case of law enforcement, a more
aggressive and targeted team is required if we want to better
address specialized problem areas in a strategic way.
The team must have the
ability to go after new and emerging issues and the flexibility
and support to stay in the field to ensure that polluters are
caught.
The SWAT team will target
specific areas of concern. The SWAT team will be a highly
qualified and specialized group. By strategically targeting known
problem areas, SWAT will be able to get a high environmental rate
of return for their time. This new team will complement our
existing staff by focusing all of their efforts on compliance
inspections and enforcement activities on specifically targeted
sectors. They'll have a different approach and a different type
of technological support.
1650
Existing staff respond to
more than 22,000 notifications of spills and pollution reports,
assist with more than 16,000 certificates of approval, permits
and licences that the
ministry issues annually, and complete about 4,000 inspections on
an annual basis.
The SWAT team will focus
solely on inspection enforcement and will target specific sectors
or groups. The SWAT team will also aggressively pursue repeat
offenders and deliberate polluters.
Initially, the SWAT team
will have 30 inspectors and nine enforcement investigators. The
approach is new, and appropriate training, job definition and
technological supports must be put in place. As these actions
mature, the nature of the employment contract will be finalized.
The ministry also wants to retain flexibility to ensure that this
new approach is consistent with the best practices review by
Valerie Gibbons.
We promised to get tough
with polluters and we're keeping that promise. The SWAT team and
tougher penalties will give us greater ability to deter and
punish those who choose to operate outside the law and pollute
our soil, air, and water. The SWAT team will aggressively pursue
repeat deliberate offenders. The team will enhance our
environmental protection goals by focusing on the areas of
greatest concern: water quality, air issues, and hazardous waste
management.
Only companies that defy
the law and engage in practices that are damaging to public
health and the environment need worry about the SWAT team and the
tougher penalties. This will level the playing field. Those who
defy environmental laws will not benefit at the expense of good
corporate citizens who are in the majority and comply with laws
of our province.
The Chair:
Further questions?
Mr Galt:
If I may, Minister, ask a couple of questions. One, I was kind of
surprised in the Legislature to hear of a previous minister
waiving environmental assessment. Is that something that you
would be in the habit of doing, waiving environmental
assessments?
Hon Mr
Newman: No. In fact, if I could just go through my
notes-
Mr Galt: I
wouldn't want to mention the name that I heard about.
Mr
Bradley: Rig the rules; change the rules. I wouldn't go
there, Doug, if I were you.
Mr Galt: I
was just checking to see if you were in that habit like some
previous ministers in other governments.
Mr
Bradley: I wouldn't go there if I were you, Doug.
Hon Mr
Newman: My job is to protect the environment and that's
what I do as the environment minister. That issue was indeed
raised today in the House.
Mr Galt: I
am shocked.
Hon Mr
Newman: I have a quote from the other opposition party
as well, from a former environment minister. This environment
minister said, "There has not been an environmental assessment on
the interim emergency solution for Britannia or Keele, nor can
there be. That I acknowledge and that I regret." So they are not
alone.
Mr Galt:
The question I would really like to ask about is smog and some of
the ozone problems. I have a daughter who lives here in Toronto
and has asthma, and I'm very concerned about this issue. Having
been in environment before, for a period of four years that I
really enjoyed as PA, I have some real concerns about the amount
of ozone smog that comes across from the US, estimated at some
50% of the great brown haze over the city that we see on a humid
day in the summertime.
Interjections.
Hon Mr
Newman: Chair, I'm having trouble hearing.
The Chair:
We just have 20 or 30 seconds left.
Mr Galt:
Maybe you could explain what you are doing to try and control
this ozone from the States.
The Chair:
Very briefly, please, Mr Minister.
Hon Mr
Newman: Chair, how much time do I have?
The Chair:
You have 20 seconds.
Hon Mr
Newman: You've raised a very important issue. Well over
50% of the smog-causing pollutants that come into Ontario
originate in the United States. In fact, there are parts of the
province where over 90% of those smog-causing pollutants
originate in the United States. That's a point that you raise. I
wish I had some more time to expand on that.
Mr Galt:
Obviously previous governments didn't do anything about this up
until 1995.
Hon Mr
Newman: They didn't. We are taking strong action on air
quality.
The Chair:
Mr Minister, by consent we could have you stay longer, if you
wish. OK.
We now turn to the
opposition party. Each party will have approximately four
minutes. We let you run a little bit longer. Each party had about
21 minutes before. Approximately four minutes, and we'll start
with Mr Peters.
Mr Steve Peters
(Elgin-Middlesex-London): Let's just talk about
transboundary pollution. Could you explain to me why you have cut
and closed 16 provincially funded acid rain monitoring stations?
You talk about trying to deal with the air, but you have
authorized the closure of those 16 stations. Could you explain
that?
Interjection: He did that?
Mr Peters:
He did that. This government did that. And they're so concerned
about the environment.
Hon Mr
Newman: Certainly, I will be pleased to have Tony
Rockingham fill you in on that answer.
Mr Tony
Rockingham: My name is Tony Rockingham. I'm the director
of air policy and climate change in the environmental planning
integration division.
On acid rain, the Ministry
of the Environment has substantial efforts that include increases
in the number of monitoring stations that provide us with
high-technology monitoring equipment which increases our
knowledge of a number of pollutants, including nitric oxide-
Mr Peters:
The question was why the 16 were closed.
Mr
Mazzilli: Give him a chance.
Mr Peters:
No. I was specific. I asked why close-
The Chair:
Mr Peters, we will give him a reasonable chance to answer on
behalf of the minister. Please continue, Mr Rockingham.
Mr
Rockingham: The ministry has upgraded a number of its
air pollution monitoring stations. The ministry is working in conjunction with a
number of universities to ensure that we take advantage as
technologies change, to ensure that we take advantage of the
increased knowledge we have about acid rain and the importance of
biological monitoring.
We have partnerships with
universities where we are able to measure changes in the
acidifying emissions and the deposition that occurs in various
areas, including wetlands, which turn out to be very good
monitoring systems since the amount of deposition that falls in
the wetlands is accumulated across large areas. That provides
much better monitoring data than some of the old technologies
that were used in the mid-1970s.
So we have increased our
efforts on monitoring a range of pollutants and, as it turns out,
we are able to affect economies here by ensuring that we can look
at not only SO2 emissions, not only NO2 and
NO emissions, but also we can collect information on
particulates, we can collect information on a range of ambient
air quality conditions.
Mr Peters:
Minister, how many dollars are being allocated from the OSTAR
program for water? How much money is being allocated for
2000-01?
Hon Mr
Newman: That's $240 million.
Mr Peters:
In 2000-01?
Hon Mr
Newman: No-
Mr Peters:
How much for fiscal year 2000-01 from OSTAR?
Hon Mr
Newman: That hasn't been determined yet.
Mr Peters:
Thanks, Mr Chair.
Mr
Bradley: My question, going back to the drinking water
surveillance program is, why on earth did it take you until
September 1990 to reveal the 1998 and 1999 drinking water
surveillance program results?
Hon Mr
Newman: You said 1990.
Mr
Bradley: It's now September 2000. Sorry. I'm asking why
we did not have that report revealed to the people of this
province publicly, as it has been in the past, for 1998 and 1999
until September of 2000.
Hon Mr
Newman: We do have the results for 1998 and 1999, and
Jim MacLean can fill you in on those results. I can tell you that
it is posted on the ministry Web site, as are the previous
results.
Mr
Bradley: I guess my question is this: every year it used
to be published and be public knowledge for everybody. Now you
either have to use freedom of information or you have to pry any
piece of information out of this government. Why did you not put
out your drinking water surveillance program in 1998 and
1999?
Hon Mr
Newman: It is there on the ministry Web site today.
People can see it. But more importantly, and I think you've got
to acknowledge the new regulation as well that every major
waterworks in this province must provide a quarterly report to
the people who use that water system.
Mr
Bradley: What took you so long in revealing it?
Hon Mr
Newman: Jim MacLean can update you on our program.
Mr
MacLean: The reports have never been issued from the
drinking water surveillance program on an annual basis. The
reports have always been bundled in groups of two or three years,
so the first report covered the 1993-94-95 component of the
program, the second report the 1996-97, the third report 1998-99.
There was also a summary report done of the first five years of
the program in 1997. That was issued in January of this year. So
there has never been annual documentation of the results of the
program. The results have always been provided immediately to the
operations staff and to the waterworks owner. It has always been
public information.
1700
The Chair:
Third party. Ms Churley.
Ms
Churley: I'd like to thank the minister and the staff
for being here with us today. It can be rather gruelling at
times. I suggest to the minister that he should be really pleased
that there's such an emphasis on the environment now, because we
know that there's a lot of stress within your ministry. Morale is
very low, and I believe you need all the help you can get from
the opposition and from the public to give you more clout around
the cabinet table, not only to stop the cuts within your ministry
because, as you know, in the last budget, when the deficit was
completely eliminated, there was still a cut to your ministry-and
I know, Minister, if you had been there at that time, you would
have fought against that. But I'm looking forward to the future
when you can get the cabinet and all these people sitting on this
committee to support you in your efforts to get more money so you
can staff up the ministry.
We know from a report that
came out today, Missing Values, that there are environmental
disasters waiting to happen. We know from a document that was
released in 1998, a summary document for the delivery strategies,
that ministry staff were told to not even concern themselves with
certain violations of the law.
Then we have this, on top
of many, many other documents, the draft cabinet document which
was leaked to the NDP and we released-
Mr
Bradley: Who was that released to, Marilyn?
Ms
Churley: It was released to me, actually.
Mr
Bradley: I just want to know if it was released to the
NDP. I don't know about that.
Ms
Churley: No, it was actually leaked to me, and I would
say that this document is a cry for help. Although initially it
actually recommended 500 new staff, at the end of the day it
said-my view, reading between the lines. We know they're not
going to do that. They've let go almost 1,000, so let's get real
here and talk about a SWAT team of 136, was it?
Mr
Bradley: It was 138.
Ms
Churley: It was 138. We were at least expecting that and
what did we get but 65 people who are going to do their best, but
they're going to be dressed up in little uniforms and sent around
in fancy cars with the press in tow and slapping tickets here and
there to make it look like something is happening.
For heaven's sake, with all of those reports that
we have had before us over the last several years since your
government took office, this is not an adequate response to the
problems that you have been warned about time and time again. I
find it really offensive when we sit at these committee meetings
that it's all about spin, and you sit there and brag about the
hiring on 18-month contracts of 65 people who are actually going
to go out and do the job of at least 500 people who should be
rehired.
We have document after
document. For instance, this particular document tells us very
clearly that less than 10% of sources that can contribute to
pollution and poor health in Ontario are now being investigated.
Are you sitting there and telling us and the public out there
today that 65 people based in Toronto, a SWAT team dressed up in
uniforms, flying around here and there, are actually going to
make a dent when less than 10% of pollution sources are actually
being investigated?
We had a crisis in
Walkerton. We were warned about that, that these kinds of things
could happen. I believe the document that came forward today is
another wake-up call to the government and your ministry to start
reinvesting in the Ministry of the Environment to hire back
adequate staff across the province: scientists, technicians, not
just a half-baked SWAT team who can't possibly do the job.
I wanted to come back to
the-
The Chair:
Ms Churley, your time has just about expired. There is only
45-
Ms
Churley: OK. The EA was a rigged EA for the Adams mine
project. Robert Power, when he was working for Gordon McGuinty,
the proponent of the Kirkland Lake project, was also, behind
closed doors, advising Mike Harris and your government about how
to change the Environmental Assessment Act. That was going on at
the same time. I consider that scandalous. That new EA, which
didn't look at alternatives to the site, alternatives to the
undertaking or any of these things, no intervener funding for the
citizens, was actually rigged behind closed doors.
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms Churley. Your time has expired. I now turn to the
government caucus. We'll make it five minutes.
Hon Mr
Newman: Don't I get a chance?
The Chair:
I'm sorry. As you know, Mr Minister, each caucus can spend their
time any way they wish. You may, with the courtesy of your
colleagues in the government caucus-
Hon Mr
Newman: No, I equally want-
The Chair:
But the question is from Mr Galt.
Mr Galt: I
was just thinking in terms of some of the things our government
has accomplished in improving our air. There's a great list here:
the anti-smog action plan; the Drive Clean program; addressing
climate change; emissions performance standards for the
electricity sector; the US EPA court case intervention; the smog
patrol; updating air standards; a $4-million-plus investment in
the air monitoring network, Partners in Air; smog alert; resource
materials; reducing the gasoline volatility regulations-a very
impressive list indeed.
We heard a little earlier
in the Legislature about how previous governments would waive
environmental assessments. I know when the Minister, Brenda
Elliott, and I went into the Ministry of the Environment, lo and
behold, on the minister's floor we found about 40 workstations
for political staff, which I understand were filled by political
staff when Minister Bud Wildman was there. Both Brenda Elliott
and Norm Sterling, the two ministers we had in the previous
government, had less than 10 political staff. Bud Wildman and, I
suppose, Ruth Grier had four times as many. Therefore I would
think they would have accomplished four times as much.
From 1985 to 1995, have you
any idea what was accomplished in the Ministry of the Environment
by the unholy alliance that was in government at that time?
Hon Mr
Newman: Which years?
Mr Galt:
From 1985 to 1995. Have you any idea of what was accomplished? I
don't have any idea that anything successful was accomplished
then.
Ms
Churley: I'll give you a list, Doug.
Mr Galt:
It would be a short one.
Ms
Churley: Oh, no. It's a long one.
Mr Galt:
Seeing you don't have any-and I'm not surprised at all-maybe we
could talk about cross-boundary smog. I think you totally
answered the whole question there, that absolutely nothing was
done for 10 years. Maybe you could tell us what you're
negotiating with smog and ozone coming across the US border.
Interjections.
Mr Galt:
It was a failure.
The Chair:
You have a few minutes remaining. I'll ask for your forbearance.
Mr Galt, I guess that was a question. Mr Minister.
Hon Mr
Newman: I've just got to answer a question here from Ms
Churley.
Ms
Churley: I didn't ask the question.
Hon Mr
Newman: Well, I'm not going to give you the answer,
then. I had a really good answer for you, but if you don't want
to know that-with respect, you're talking about the Ozone Annex
and air quality, obviously.
Mr Galt:
Unless you want to tell us about the 40 people who were in Bud
Wildman's office, the political staff.
Hon Mr
Newman: I'm not going to talk about the 40 political
staff there. But the Ozone Annex negotiations are one of the
initiatives Ontario is engaged in to improve air quality in the
province. Ozone is formed by the reaction in the atmosphere of
nitrogen oxide and chemicals known as volatile organic compounds.
The annex provides an opportunity to press the United States for
greater reductions in these two smog-causing pollutants. As you
know, more than 50% of the air pollution in Ontario is due to
emissions in the United States. In communities such as Windsor,
the percentage is even higher. I think I highlighted that earlier
this afternoon. The annex would be an agreement between the two
countries to take
specific steps to reduce emissions and to exchange information
and data to foster a greater understanding of the impacts of
smog. Ontario has supported the negotiations. We have committed
to meet or exceed-
The Chair:
We're in the last minute.
Hon Mr
Newman: OK. We have committed to meet or exceed the
emissions reductions from the electricity sector that the United
States government requires states to make. In June of this year,
we even went further by offering to accelerate reductions in
smog-causing pollutants here in Ontario if the United States
accelerates its efforts. Currently, we have committed to a 45%
reduction across all sectors in emissions by 2015. The
negotiations have been underway for several months and hopefully
will be completed later this year. I am pressing the federal
government to ensure that the US commits to going beyond their
current efforts and that all parties understand the importance of
actions to reduce smog-causing emissions.
I don't know if I have
enough time left to ask Dr Tony Rockingham to expand upon
that.
1710
The Chair:
I'm afraid we don't, Mr Minister. Unfortunately, I understand
that in the hall we have another ministry all congregated, ready
to attend at their appointed time. I'd like to conclude on behalf
of the committee by thanking all the participants and yourself,
Minister, and your staff for assisting us today.
Hon Mr
Newman: It's our pleasure, Chair.
The Chair:
I will call the committee's attention to our vote. I will ask of
the committee, shall we combine votes 1101 through 1104? Is there
agreement or not? I heard a no.
Shall vote 1101 carry?
Ms
Churley: Recorded vote.
AYES
Barrett, DeFaria, Galt,
Mazzilli.
NAYS
Churley, Curling,
Peters.
The Chair:
Shall vote 1102 carry? All those in favour, please raise your
hands.
AYES
Barrett, DeFaria, Galt,
Mazzilli.
NAYS
Churley, Curling,
Peters.
The Chair:
Shall vote 1103 carry?
AYES
Barrett, DeFaria, Galt,
Mazzilli.
NAYS
Churley, Curling,
Peters.
The Chair:
Shall vote 1104 carry?
AYES
Barrett, DeFaria, Galt,
Mazzilli.
NAYS
Churley, Curling,
Peters.
The Chair:
Shall the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment carry?
AYES
Barrett, DeFaria, Galt,
Mazzilli.
NAYS
Churley, Curling,
Peters.
The Chair:
Shall I report the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment
to the House? All those in favour, please indicate.
AYES
Barrett, DeFaria, Galt,
Mazzilli.
The Chair:
Any opposed, please indicate. OK. Thank you very much. We are not
adjourned; we will simply allow time for the Ministry of the
Environment, and I will turn over the chair to the very capable
Mr Alvin Curling, the Vice-Chair.
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
The Vice-Chair (Mr
Alvin Curling): Minister, welcome to the estimates. As
you know, there are seven hours and 30 minutes in time for
estimates. We'll do the rotation of 30 minutes for your
presentation and then we'll rotate for 30 minutes afterwards. It
seems to me the time here will not allow us to do all the
rotation, but we could start.
Hon Janet Ecker
(Minister of Education): Thank you very much, Mr Chair,
and to committee members, I very much welcome the opportunity to
be here before the standing committee on estimates again.
Last year in my opening
remarks, I provided committee members with an overview of the
government's education reforms and some of the plans we had for
this mandate. Today I'd like to provide a bit of an update on
what we've accomplished
over the past year in our efforts to improve our publicly funded
education system.
First let me state very
clearly that our goal for education reform is the same today as
when we were elected in 1995 and then re-elected last year, and
that's to give our students the best education possible and to
focus on higher student achievement. We want to improve quality,
to improve classroom funding, and to improve accountability not
only to students but also to parents and taxpayers.
We fully recognize that we
have a very detailed and a very comprehensive agenda for change.
We also recognize that bringing change to a very large, complex
system like education is certainly never easy and is almost
always controversial. We also recognize that the job isn't done
yet, although we like to point out that we have made, and would
be very pleased to discuss where we have made, significant
progress.
We're responding to demands
by parents and taxpayers for fair and equitable funding, for more
up-to-date and rigorous curricula and for regular assessment of
our students' basic skills.
This is the third year of
student-focused funding and we're continuing to follow our plan
as laid out. Where possible, we are continuing to find
administrative savings and to direct more of that money to the
classroom. When required, we are investing new money in the
classroom, as we did significantly this school year.
We've also listened
carefully to our education partners, to suggestions about
improvements in how we financially support the system. I'd like
to just briefly outline some of the key priority areas.
First, of course, is
special education. One of my first conclusions in this job was
that special education needed significant help. The system was
not meeting the students' and the parents' needs as well as it
should, and we certainly needed to invest more resources.
In January, I announced a
three-year plan that brings in province-wide standards for
special education, that improves accountability to parents, and
that also increases funding significantly. I should also note
that this is the third year in a row that we've increased funding
for special needs to boards across the province.
This year's increase was
12%; it amounts to about $140 million in classrooms this school
year. To break that out, $43 million of that was in the special
education intensive support amount, which supports our very
high-needs students. As well, the special $30 million top-up that
had been put in last year will actually be maintained as regular
funding this year and in future years.
1720
In the May budget we
announced an additional $70 million, that is in classrooms this
year, to support early interventions for students from junior
kindergarten to grade 3, to expand early learners' programs for
students with speech and language disorders or for learning
disabilities and also to increase the number of specialist
teachers and professional support staff.
With all of these
enhancements, the 12% increase, we're now spending more than $1.3
billion a year on special education, which is certainly more than
has ever been spent before. But the other point that is important
to note is that boards cannot use these funds for anything other
than special education.
We know that although
certainly funding for special education is important, how we're
using that funding is equally important. We've taken as part of
our plan steps to make sure we have a continuous improvement
process and also that we're giving school boards the stability
they need to plan effectively. For example, in January of this
year, many months before school boards are used to receiving this
information, we gave them a guarantee that they would receive at
least as much money as they'd had the previous year for
high-needs students.
We're also looking at ways
to work with teachers and boards to improve the process for
allocating money for high-needs students to make it less
bureaucratic. We had certainly heard there were some serious
problems this year that clearly showed that some boards or some
staff in some boards were having great difficulty meeting the
needs. For example, one of the things that concerned me was when
parents would be told their child couldn't receive service
somehow because some form, application process or whatever hadn't
been followed through on, which is absolutely incorrect. It's
certainly not what the policy or any of the decisions should be
putting in place. We need to be and are continuing to work with
our partners to have a better process.
We're also setting
standards for individual education plans for special-needs
students, also for school boards' overall special education
programs. Those standards will start to take effect in the
2001-02 school year. The reason we think it's important to set
those standards, other than that that certainly reflects the
recommendations we had from our education partners, is that we
think it will clearly set out the responsibilities of the
ministry and the boards; it will clearly acknowledge the best
practices and make sure that all boards are following best
practices; and it will also provide parents with a stronger voice
in the education of their children. The emphasis on better and
clearer standards will give parents a better picture of the
services they can expect the school boards to be providing for
their children.
As I mentioned, we have
individual education plans which are required to be developed for
every student who's been formally identified as having special
needs. Starting this school year, we're going to be monitoring
samples of those plans from selected boards because we want to
make sure they're accurately describing the special education
programs that are being provided, the services that each
individual student should be receiving, and we want to make sure
that if there are improvements that can be made, we can do
so.
I mentioned our
student-focused funding. This is our third year in this
student-focused funding approach. Parents and taxpayers want to
know that education spending is focused on the classroom, where
it can do the most
good, and that's certainly the goal. We've introduced several
measures to continue to cut costs of administration and
bureaucracy and to reinvest those savings in teaching and
learning.
Of course, as the members
will probably recall, that school board administration since 1995
has declined by approximately $150 million. For example, we have
2,000 fewer school board trustees. There are fewer school boards;
there used to be 129 and now there are 72. There used to be 777
senior administrators working for those boards; there are now
512. We're starting to see that that money is shifting from
administration into classrooms.
Members last year had
raised several questions about that, so I'll just give a few
numbers and I'm sure we'll have an opportunity with the staff
here to go into it in more detail for the members.
If you look at the big
picture, last year we spent approximately $13.2 billion on
elementary and secondary education. In the current school year,
estimated overall spending will increase by $300 million,
bringing the total to about $13.5 billion. Last year, classroom
funding was $575 million more than it had been in 1997, the year
before we introduced our new funding model. This year we expect
classroom spending to be $700 million more than in 1997.
It's important to note that
the provincial funding for education is also supporting
approximately $2 billion worth of new school construction and new
spaces for approximately 170,000 students. Again, from 1995 to
the year 2000, we've built 198 new schools, and there have been
150 additions to schools or major school renovations that have
been completed because of the improvements in the way we fund
school construction.
Last March we announced the
details of funding for this school year and we outlined a number
of priority areas in addition to what I've talked about. For
example, we recognized the need to assist students who are facing
challenges in meeting the new, province-wide standards for
literacy and numeracy skills. We committed an additional $25
million in new money to help students in grades 7 to 10 improve
their literacy and math skills, certainly something that both
parents and teachers said was an important priority.
To ensure that small rural
and northern school boards in Ontario have sufficient resources
to operate effectively, we increased funding specifically
dedicated to the rural and northern schools by $4.5 million. One
of the other priorities had to do with improving English-language
competency for both immigrant and Canadian-born children whose
first language is not English. Accordingly, we have adjusted the
criteria for the English-as-a-second-language grant. That means
that boards will be able to increase their spending by $20
million this school year.
We're also improving our
support to the French-language school boards. We added $10
million to those grants to help them face what is a very
significant challenge for their students, who enter their schools
often with less developed skills in their first language than
what you find with anglophone students. Those boards will have
the flexibility to use this funding in the most effective way
that they believe will help their students.
One of the other concerns
we'd heard from teachers and parents was the need for more
principals. We're adding $10 million that is funding the hiring
of 100 more principals this year province-wide. It also is
allowing part-time principals to spend more time undertaking
their responsibilities. Again, this will be of particular
assistance to rural school boards and to French-language school
boards.
We provide school boards
with regular annual funding to purchase textbooks and learning
materials. This school year, for example, there's $67 million
through the regular funding specifically for high school
textbooks, to use one example. But recognizing the needs of the
new curriculum, we have been providing additional funding on top
of that. For example, we have provided an investment of $30
million this year for textbooks and graphing calculators for our
grade 10 students. This is in addition to $30-million investment
we made last year for our grade 9 students for textbooks and
graphing calculators. There's also $40 million in additional
funding that is being used for textbooks and learning resources
for grades 11 and 12 students as that curriculum rolls out over
the next two years. This brings the total provincial funding
commitment on top of the annual funding, as I mentioned before,
to $100 million for secondary school textbooks and learning
materials.
One of the other pressures
we heard about were transportation cost pressures, so this year
there is an additional $23 million to relieve those
transportation cost pressures for boards. Again, we are
continuing to work with our school board partners to improve how
we fund transportation. It's an area where we have certainly said
that we need to improve the way that funding works for
boards.
As you know, most school
boards, although not all, are in the bargaining process for new
collective agreements. Certainly all of us share a desire for
keeping our children in school. We all want to see fair and
reasonable contracts negotiated this year without disruption to
students and to classroom instruction, so part of the grant
regulation announcement in March was $182 million new money for
compensation resources to assist boards in reaching those
agreements.
1730
One of the other issues is
smaller class size, again a very important priority from both
teachers' and parents' perspectives. We've seen and we've
certainly heard from parents and teachers about a disturbing
trend towards larger average class sizes around the province. So
we are taking steps to deal with this.
We took the first step two
years ago and that was to cap the average class size across the
school boards in legislation-something that simply had not
existed before-to try and stop the upward trend and start a
downward trend.
The second step: in May of this year we
announced additional funding. It's a total of $263 million for
more teachers to have smaller classes. It works out to $101
million to lower elementary class sizes. We have reduced the
maximum board-wide average class size to 24 pupils for junior
kindergarten to grade 3, for example. Also, of that $263 million,
$162 million is reducing the board-wide average for high school
classes as well.
Thirdly, another important
step in stopping the upward trend and starting a downward trend:
we're ensuring through the legislation that we passed this spring
that school boards are clearly reporting on their average class
size, both by school and on a board-wide basis, so that we know
if it is working or if it is not working. Under the Education
Accountability Act, I can direct an investigation if we have
concerns that class-size requirements are not being met as they
should be.
Again, one of the other
pressures we recognize is the growing demand for new teachers, so
we're working closely with Ontario's faculties of education and
we've increased funding for new teacher training by $45 million.
Between last year and 2004, this is going to mean 6,000
additional new teachers coming out into our education system. Not
only is it important to meet the demand for new teachers as we
bring down class size and as enrolment grows in the system, but
also one of the positive trends that we are seeing is a
significant increase in the number of young people or people from
other careers who are applying to teachers' colleges across the
province to become teachers. So we want to make sure that the
colleges have the positions to take advantage of the commitment
that is being shown by people to be teachers. I think it's a
wonderful, positive statement on teaching.
One of the other important
initiatives we have deals with the new curriculum. As you know,
as we said we would do, we introduced a new, more rigorous and
comprehensive curriculum from kindergarten straight through to
Grade 12. This is the first comprehensive top-to-bottom overhaul
of the curriculum that has been seen. I don't know if anybody in
our ministry's been around since Egerton Ryerson, but I am told
by those who obviously have better memories than I that this is
the most significant and comprehensive overhaul since Egerton set
up the place.
Again, our overriding
objective here with the new curriculum is to improve student
achievement and to prepare students for success in the future,
not only on the job or in apprenticeships but also in
post-secondary education because we have certainly heard very
clearly, from not only parents and students who'd left high
school but certainly also from post-secondary institutions and
from employers, that our students simply didn't have the skills,
the knowledge, the abilities that they needed in order to
succeed. So the new curriculum has been a lot of very hard work
by a whole range of people-education experts, teachers,
representatives from universities, colleges, employer groups-to
make sure that we are indeed preparing our students for what they
need to be prepared for when they leave high school.
Now that the new
kindergarten and elementary curriculum is in place, we're
continuing to phase in the new high school program over four
years, taking it a step at a time, again, to respond to concerns
that we've heard from teachers and parents about, if you will,
slowing down or phasing in some of the changes. So we are indeed
doing that in the high school curriculum. As I said, grades 11
and 12 are out earlier to give additional time.
I think it's important to
note that throughout the curriculum and the new programs the
emphasis is clearly where it should be: on science, technology,
math, reading, writing, those literacy and numeracy skills that
our students need; technology, as I mentioned, being taught in
earlier grades. All of this is designed to help our students
understand their community and their wider world in a much better
fashion.
It's important also to
recognize that for the first time, and coming at it in such a
comprehensive way, each successive grade builds on what the
students learned the year before, so that it flows much better
than curriculum had many times in the past.
The new curriculum sets out
consistent standards and clear expectations about what should be
taught right across the province. So grade 11 and 12, as I
mentioned, is already out. That's over a year ahead of when it's
required for grade 11; two years for grade 12. This will
certainly provide teachers with the lead time they need to
prepare for the new curriculum.
One of the other messages
we've heard is that teachers have requested that we expand
teacher training in the new curriculum. For example, one of the
great success stories has been the summer institutes that we've
had this past summer. Over 9,000 teachers took part in summer
institutes. These are jointly sponsored by the Ministry of
Education and the Ontario Teachers' Federation. We were
oversubscribed last year and we doubled the number for this year.
We were oversubscribed again so we're going to have to expand
again. They were a wonderful opportunity for teachers this
summer.
Over four years, we are
providing $370 million in training and resources to support the
new curriculum.
The new curriculum sets
higher standards for achievement by Ontario students, but I also
recognize that simply setting higher standards does not meet our
goals of quality education if we're not helping students to reach
these levels of improvement. So, as I mentioned, we've committed
an additional $25 million in new money to help as many as 80,000
students in grades 7 to 10 improve their literacy and math
skills, and also $70 million of new money for literacy and other
related skills for our junior kindergarten to grade 3 students,
those very crucial early years.
In addition, we're
implementing a grade 10 literacy test as part of our commitment
to ensuring that our students have the literacy skills they need
to compete in today's economy. This test is being phased in this
school year. It will become a graduation requirement for the
2001-02 school year.
Also to help students, we have the teacher
adviser program, assigning teachers to a small group of students.
They hold regular meetings with them and with parents to help the
students make good decisions about their education and long-term
goals. This school year we've invested another $64 million in new
money to make this program a success.
Now that all the new
curriculum is out, we are working to ensure better teaching of it
and better learning of it. For example, in one of the steps we've
taken to address the challenges of teaching the new curriculum in
combined grades, we have what we call a curriculum partnership.
It has representatives not only from the ministry but from the
faculties of education and the Ontario Teachers' Federation. They
are working on additional resources for teachers teaching
combined grades in elementary levels. It is interesting to note,
however, that the number of combined grades-and again, this is
because of school construction, smaller class size and other
factors-has decreased in the province. The curriculum partnership
has identified the need for dedicated resources for teacher
training to assist with teaching the new curriculum in the
combined grades, so we are moving forward on doing that.
We are also providing
school boards with $14 million for teachers' professional
development to assist them in implementing the new
curriculum.
All of this, however,
underlines the challenge and the importance of making sure all of
our teachers stay as up-to-date as possible. While we certainly
recognize and know that we have many excellent teachers-we've all
seen the amazing work they do, both in our own lives and also for
our children. The gift they give to students, encouraging
academic excellence, personal discipline, good citizenship, for
example-those are things that can influence us for the rest of
our lives. But knowing that we have excellent teachers doesn't
mean that we also don't need to do more on teacher training and
steps to make sure that they are as up to date as they possibly
can be and to make sure that we are ensuring teaching
excellence.
1740
As promised, we have
introduced the framework for the Ontario teacher testing program
to ensure that all teachers have the best possible skills and
training. We're now working with our education partners to put
this program, as announced, in place.
For example, one of the
steps that comes into effect this month: all new applicants
seeking teacher certification in Ontario who obtained their
training in a language other than English or French are required
to pass an oral and written language proficiency test to ensure
that they can communicate clearly in either English or French
before they teach in Ontario.
Next fall teachers will be
starting the recertification process that will be required every
five years to ensure they are up to date in knowledge, skills and
training. Teachers will be completing successfully a number of
required courses, professional development activities etc. This
is based on a royal commission recommendation which all three
parties supported. By next fall we'll have new province-wide
standards to ensure that principals and school boards are
evaluating and assessing teachers in a consistent manner across
the province. An important improvement that will be made in this
is that parents will also be given an opportunity to be involved
in teacher evaluation, because their feedback is important as
well.
In addition, we'll have a
new certification review process to determine whether teachers
who are unable to meet those standards and who are not able to be
remediated, if you will, are not able to meet with extra help,
should actually have their certification removed. Beginning in
2001-02, all new teachers will be required to pass a qualifying
test, very much like a lawyer's bar exam, as a requirement for
initial certification or licensing by the Ontario College of
Teachers. This will help ensure that they know their curriculum
subjects and have the necessary teaching skills before they enter
the classroom.
Another improvement: we're
working with our partners to design what is called an induction,
or what I would call an internship program, very similar to what
many doctors have gone through as interns, an opportunity for all
new teachers to receive coaching and support from their more
experienced colleagues. This is very much to ensure they get off
to a very strong start at the beginning of their careers.
One of the other
initiatives I'd like to touch on has to do with safe schools and
recognizing that teachers can't teach and students can't learn if
they're in fear for their safety. In too many classrooms that is
still the case across the province. Last June the Legislature
passed the Safe Schools Act, which includes the code of conduct.
Earlier this month, new regulations under that legislation took
effect to help make Ontario's schools safer and encourage an
atmosphere that is more respectful and more conducive to
learning.
The code sets out clear,
consistent standards of behaviour. It sets out mandatory
penalties for things like assaulting teachers, bringing drugs or
weapons to school. It sets out clear consequences for students
who are not meeting these standards. The code, with the other
initiatives in place, will create a learning environment that can
foster respect for others and can promote respect, responsibility
and civility.
I also should point out
that we want to make sure that we have programs for suspended or
expelled students, strict discipline programs for those who
require it and other programs for those who are suspended, so
they can continue with their education and deal with whatever
other problems they may well have.
I wish to conclude my
introductory remarks. We certainly recognize that education today
is not a luxury, it's a necessity, and that's why we've laid out
the plans we have for education reform, which we are continuing
to move forward to. I look forward to discussing these and the
other issues more fully with my caucus colleagues and other
members of the committee.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you,
Madam Minister. The official opposition has 30 minutes in which
to respond. Mr Kennedy?
Mr Gerard Kennedy
(Parkdale-High Park): Minister, I'm willing to forgo
most of my response if you're willing to answer questions. I'm
wondering if you are.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Certainly.
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, I wonder if I can ask you a number of
things in your statement that are contradictory. At least I would
like, by making it interactive, to give you a chance to respond
to that.
You talk about special
education, for example. I know that through October, November and
December of last year, when I asked you in the Legislature if
there were problems in special education, you indicated there
were none. Now you're saying that you're putting a certain amount
of money into special education. You know that the directors of
education, the superintendents, came back to you and said that
you were actually putting less money into special education. You
had an expert panel tell you that the prior expenditure of boards
before your 1997 funding model was between $1.3 billion and $1.5
billion. You now claim to be putting in $1.3 billion.
I want to know if you can
tell us here in the little bit more time that this committee
affords, are you funding special education in every school board
more than it was before the new funding model? Can you make that
assertion today?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: We can certainly walk through school board by
school board if you wish.
Mr
Kennedy: No. I wondered, can you make that assertion or
not?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: With all due respect, Mr Kennedy, you've asked me
the question. First of all-
Mr
Kennedy: But I don't want to waste time.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: I clearly flagged last year that special
education was a problem that needed to be addressed. I spent
considerable time consulting with our partners to see what was
the best way to do that. We had recommendations that included not
only more money but also different standards, so we've been
moving forward on that. The superintendents' report that you were
referring to was dealing with the top-ups that they as boards are
providing to special needs, which they are certainly entitled to
do. Some boards choose to top up. There are other boards that in
the past-I'm not sure if it's the same this year but I know last
year there had been some that had not used all of their resource.
So they were talking about what they were topping up. So $1.3
billion is more than what has been spent on special education
before, and that's a province-wide number.
Mr
Kennedy: Before 1997, though, Minister. Can you say
categorically that what is being spent now on special education
is more than before the new funding formula, and further-and I
wish, if you could, you would attend to the question
directly-more for each board that's out there? Can you give us
that assurance here today?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: First of all, Mr Kennedy, as you know, we fund
school boards based on enrolment, based on many other
factors.
Mr
Kennedy: On a per capita basis, that is.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: So it is not fair or appropriate or accurate to
try and use the figure in terms of school board by school board,
because there are changes in their enrolment which may mean that
their funding can change.
Mr
Kennedy: I appreciate that, but you've made this
assertion a number of times without qualifying it. You've said
time after time, "We're spending more money on special education
than has ever been spent." You had an expert panel tell you, and
you are aware of it, that that's not true. You had an expert
panel tell you that the amount of money spent by prior boards was
more than $1.3 billion. It matters because the trickle-down
effect is that kids out there aren't getting the attention they
used to get before. I can give you hundreds of cases of kids who
aren't getting the attention they used to get before. They want
some kind of answer.
Minister, if you're not
willing to generalize-outside of this forum you have said that.
You say it's not fair to compare and so forth. What are you able
to say about-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No, no. Let's be clear about what I said. I have
been very clear: $1.3 billion is indeed more than has been spent
on special education. If you look at numbers board by board, that
can vary because the number of special needs students or
enrolment can vary. But province-wide, and I always talk about it
as province-wide, $1.3 billion is more than has been spent
before.
Mr
Kennedy: Have you made your additional allocations of
special education money now to all the boards?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Yes.
Mr
Kennedy: In other words, in August or September, I
believe, the boards got the additional information.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: No, as a matter fact, in January boards knew that
they were going to get at least as much money as they had had
before in terms of the high-needs area. Shortly after the March
grant regulation, they received information for the majority of
the funding for special needs. They had their enrolment data. So
they had a great deal of information, which is part of the normal
course.
Mr
Kennedy: Minister, you just announced this new money,
$110 million you claim. That extra $70 million and then a
separate piece of $40 million that you've talked about numerous
times, has that all been distributed now to the boards? Do they
all have that and could we have a list of which boards received
the additional funding?
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Certainly. That's available. They have the
money.
Mr
Kennedy: Thank you.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Just a minute, Mr Kennedy. It's $140 million that
has gone out to school boards.
Mr
Kennedy: I'm speaking specifically to the ISA and not
the $30 million for the other-
Hon Mrs Ecker: Well, that's $43
million. But you can't separate, because special needs money is
not just ISA funding.
Mr
Kennedy: I'm going to come to that. I'm coming to that,
because what many of the members here may or may not realize is
the process that you've put in place, which has been called
heinously bureaucratic by the teachers who go through it-we have
a shortage of special-needs teachers. They are forced to take, in
many cases, as much as a month away from their kids to meet your
bureaucratic requirements. You require them to chase down
specialists, which in northern and rural areas is very tough to
do, by a certain date, and provide documentation. That
documentation is then sent in to your ministry, where it is
sampled-not rigorously gone through, necessarily, but sampled-by
your staff to come up with an approval rating. Then the families
and the teachers and the schools, who went through all that
running around to fill in those applications, don't necessarily
receive the money back, because you just give an approval rating
back to the board.
1750
Even if that isn't in every
detail-and I think it would be good if, for the purposes of the
committee, some written description of that process were
provided-can you tell us why, if you're not stapling the funding
to the individuals, you waste everybody's time? That's what
they're telling me. Every school I go to, that's what the
parents, the teachers, the principals tell me, that you're
wasting all their time doing these applications-because I guess
fundamentally you don't trust the boards to spend the money
here-when, in the final analysis, it doesn't matter to those
individual kids. You, the ministry, don't guarantee that they get
the money they filled in the application for. It creates a
tremendous amount of frustration. It uses up a lot of
resources.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: First of all, one of the reasons we are working
so hard with the education partners here is to try and stop
implementation that is not required by the ministry. For example,
it is not required that every student have an annual assessment
by a health professional. That is not required, and yet this year
we had schools that were running around doing that and saying
that it had to be done. That was not the case.
Mr
Kennedy: For two years they've been doing that, or
three.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Listen, I can only answer for the time that I
have been part of that. They have not required an annual
assessment for many things.
Secondly, the timing on
this: school boards have known-this is the third year that we've
had it the same time-when this process was. I know some school
boards, for example, are starting to make sure that everything is
ready now so you don't have this absolute silliness of having
teachers taken out of a class for a month at a time. That is not
because of any decision the ministry has made, because the
deadline did not change.
Mr
Kennedy: Just to clarify, Minister: are you saying
something changed? When did that change? That's what happened
this year. That's what happened this spring.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: First of all, it didn't happen in every school
board, and secondly, I would say, as I have when I've met with
school boards on a regular basis, "Look, the deadlines did not
change." I had teachers, for example, who told me they were in an
absolute panic because nobody on the board had bothered to tell
them that they had a floor, that they were guaranteed a certain
amount of funding. This particular board for some reason hadn't
bothered to tell them. The boards knew that in January. There are
a lot of implementation challenges that boards are having here
that are not because the ministry has somehow made a wrong
decision.
The other thing that's
important here is that the recommendation of experts was that
money for boards for special needs-they had to get it in two
ways. They needed general money, and that's what they called a
special grant, but you also needed-
Mr
Kennedy: Yes. Minister, I'm sorry. I want to give you
the opportunity, but-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: -special-needs money, and you needed some
accountability for how that money-
Mr
Kennedy: I understand, but you're getting a little
further afield, although you did address some of my question.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: -was going to be allocated to the board. That's
what was recommended to us.
Mr
Kennedy: But the part that I really wish you would
address is why you require all the individual assessments that
you do. You're saying that maybe it doesn't have to be quite as
rigorous, although you've got a lot of people out there who
believe they are following ministry guidelines and are talking to
ministry people all the time. That expenditure of precious energy
is your ministry's responsibility.
What I'm asking you is-you
are making them validate in a very negative way, often, the
faults and problems of kids. You make them go through a
significant process and then you do not reward that with specific
funding for that child, and in fact you don't even look at all
those documentations.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: That's exactly what school boards asked to have
happen.
Mr
Kennedy: Without interrupting, why don't you either
match the funding, if that's the intent of the program and the
process-because this is one of those things that makes people
bang their head against the wall when it comes to dealing with
government.
The
Vice-Chair: You've got a minute before we wrap up.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: First of all, it was recommended to us by boards
that we not-
Mr
Kennedy: That doesn't make-
Hon Mrs
Ecker: Let me finish the point. You've asked a
question.
Mr
Kennedy: I hope you answer it.
Hon Mrs Ecker: They said, "Do
not Velcro the money to every kid. We need flexibility." So this
year, Mr Kennedy, that flexibility has been given to boards
exactly as boards asked for it.
Mr
Kennedy: They said that, Minister, because there wasn't
enough money.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: If you're now telling me they don't want to do
that, then that's another issue, but we are doing what the school
boards recommended we do.
Mr
Kennedy: If you give them all the money that they
qualify for, then it won't matter.
Hon Mrs
Ecker: They have flexibility.
Secondly, Mr Kennedy, they
also have said to me, "You have to have a process for assessing
high-needs students," because that can be a significant financial
pressure for a board. There has to be a way, an accountable
process. Parents want accountability, boards want accountability,
so that's also what we've responded to with that process.
If there are improvements
that need to be made from this year, we're quite prepared to do
that again and we've already started those discussions with
school boards.
The
Vice-Chair: I was just enjoying this interaction. It's
so informative, you see. But we will adjourn now.
Mr
Kennedy: I still have some more time left.
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Kennedy, the official opposition has
about 16 minutes tomorrow as we resume immediately after orders
of the day. I think that's what it is.
Mr
Marchese: Routine proceedings.
The
Vice-Chair: Routine proceedings. We stand adjourned
until tomorrow.
