Journal des débats 1986-janv-30 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Morin: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I wish to recognize Stephanie Duern, who is sitting in the members' gallery. Stephanie is a young resident of Gloucester who is visiting the House today as part of her prize for having won an essay contest on why anyone would want to be a member of Parliament. No doubt this is a question we have all asked ourselves.

Mr. Grossman: I had a chance to meet Stephanie this morning. I thought I would be late for question period while I tried to think of an answer to her question. I posed her the even more difficult question of why someone would want to be Leader of the Opposition.

MEMBER'S ANNIVERSARY

Mr. Grossman: Just before we begin statements and routine proceedings this afternoon, I want to acknowledge what is, not only for those of us in this party but for all members of the House, a special day for one of our most loved and liked colleagues, the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil). Today marks our colleague's 28th anniversary as a member of the assembly.

He was first elected to the House in a by-election in the riding of Elgin in 1958. I was in public school at the time. He was subsequently re-elected in the elections of 1959, 1963, 1967, 1971, 1975, 1977, 1981 and 1985. Some were easier than others.

I would also like to remind the House that our colleague is a graduate of the Ontario Agricultural College. He was warden of Elgin county in 1952. Before being elected here, he was very active in municipal politics.

As leader of a party, I can tell members of the House that the most mail a leader of the Conservative Party must sign is that which the member for Elgin sends out to his constituents. I have reflected during the past couple of weeks that every constituent of the honourable member seems to celebrate a 50th anniversary every year. It is remarkable.

I also want to say that newer members of the House -- people such as the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and myself, who have been here for only 10 years, after all -- have learned many of the stories of the good old days in the assembly, as it were, the way things were here in the 1950s and 1960s, from the member for Elgin. I heard some stories from the member which my father neglected to tell me and which I will neglect to tell my children.

He is one of the real grass-roots Ontarians in this assembly, and if Ontario and Canada ever had a Will Rogers of their own, I would want to nominate the member for Elgin as our Will Rogers.

I ask all members to join me in commemorating this 28th anniversary of the member.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Before we allow the honourable member to rise in his place and answer the question posed by this young lady some time ago as to why anyone would want to be a member of Parliament, particularly for 28 years, let me join with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) in paying tribute to one of our esteemed colleagues.

The Leader of the Opposition pointed out some of his background, but not all the stories we have heard by way of rumour about him and some of his cohort over the years. I assure him it is not my intention to give away any of those stories today. I will not tell his children if he does not tell mine. Some of the rumours would cast serious discredit on the business we are all engaged in.

There is a rumour that in his youth the member opposite was president of the Ontario Young Liberals in Elgin county. Some would say his conversion 28 years ago is a sign of maturation; others would say it is a sign of senility. I do not have the answer to that question today.

The member has the affection of each one of us. He has taught us all that partisanship must be kept in its place in this House and that it should never get in the way of friendship, congeniality and mutual respect.

He has also learned the art of survival in politics. It is no secret the member has recently taken a bride. We are all delighted for his new-found happiness, but he has shown us that the only way to survive in this business and in marriage is to hold back in the weeds a little bit and hear these things out before one gets too committed. If the member could put up with the likes of us for 28 years, he should be pretty easy to get along with by now, for him and his new bride.

He has added a great deal, he has kept his sanity and sense of humour and he has always been contributing along the way. It will be interesting to hear his reflections on 28 years in politics. It is like breaking into television with Lawrence Welk and surviving right through to Miami Vice. He has seen a great number of changes, leaders, opposition leaders and members of this House, but his perspective on those issues that he brings to the legislative chamber and to his friendships is always one filled with decency, compassion and giving.

On behalf of my colleagues, I join with the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party to pay tribute to one of our own, a great friend of all of us and a great public servant. Congratulations for surviving 28 years.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Rae: As one of the relatively new arrivals in this assembly, I join in this spirit of camaraderie. It does not come every day of the week and it is nice to be able to see it happening. We in our party join him in celebrating the halfway point in his political career in this House.

We look forward to the next 28 years for the same kind of spirit of enthusiasm that I am sure was the case in 1958 when his career started here. I join everyone here in wishing you well, Ronnie -- if I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, this brief shift away from the rules of the House -- and in saying how much I have enjoyed working with you. We all appreciate the work you have done and look forward to your having another three decades of achievement in the Ontario Legislature.

Mr. McNeil: First, Mr. Speaker, I guess I should tell you I am standing.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all honourable members for their kindness today on the occasion of my 28th anniversary as a member of the Ontario Legislature.

I suppose today is a day of bad news and good news. The bad news is that I have been around here for 28 years. I might say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that I do not intend to be around for another 28. I do not expect to last that long.

I have had the opportunity of serving under five Premiers, four Conservative and one Liberal. I have also had the opportunity of serving with the fathers of three present members: the House leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon); the leader of the Conservative opposition, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), and the member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon). Their fathers were here when I arrived in 1958.

That was a very interesting session. About the second or third day, I was sitting in my seat in the House. Having been an active farmer, I was used to eating a heavy meal at noon. I found the debate rather dull. I received a note that said, "If you are going to sleep, you may be doing your sleeping at home after the next election." It was signed "A voter." I woke up in an awful hurry. I found out two days later that the author of the note was none other than Allan Grossman.

Members might be interested to know that we had a by-election on January 30, the session started on February 2, there was a federal election on March 31 and we were out of here, with the business completed, 10 days before the federal election. I can well recall the Leader of the Opposition of the day accusing the Premier, Mr. Frost, of ramming things through the Legislature. Mr. Frost's answer was always: "I am in no hurry to get out of here. I will be here anyway. You fellows will be able to leave when we are finished, but I will be here."

We sat some very long hours. All the estimates were discussed in the House and no committees sat while the House was sitting. We used to sit from three o'clock in the afternoon until six, and from eight until midnight or after.

I remember one time when the father of the present Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) was speaking. He was talking about the liquor laws of this province. The members might be interested in knowing that during the course of his speech the fire alarm system went off and we had to evacuate the building. I well remember Mr. Nixon saying it was one of the hottest speeches he ever made.

I am proud to be a member of the Ontario Legislature for the riding of Elgin. The riding came about in 1934 when there was a redistribution that lowered the number of seats in the Ontario Legislature. Our first member in 1934 was Mitchell Frederick Hepburn, who was Premier of this province for a number of years and was the member for Elgin from 1934 to 1945. He was succeeded by Fletcher Thomas, who was the member from 1945 to 1957 and who served as Minister of Public Works and Minister of Agriculture.

I well recall the first debate in the House. We had just concluded the 1957 election and Farquhar Oliver, who was the member for Grey, gave John Root, my friend's predecessor, a real raking over the coals for some of the activities in which he had been involved during the federal election. I thought: "Isn't this something? I don't know whether I am going to enjoy this place very much." I then decided I would leave for a break and there were Farquhar and John having a great discussion outside and laughing about it. I thought, "I guess that is the type of comradeship there is around this place."

I have enjoyed my years here. I have enjoyed my association with various members and with constituents. I thank the members for their friendship and look forward to continuing to work with them. I thank the members for their kind words; they are very much appreciated. It is unfortunate my wife is not here to hear them but I will be sure she gets a copy of Hansard.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I rise in response to a question asked in the House on Tuesday by the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) and directed to my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio). The question dealt partly with my involvement in Hearst Forest Management Inc., and I believe it appropriate that I respond.

Some time ago my legal counsel checked with Blenus Wright and he confirmed I had complied with the spirit and intent of the guidelines of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) respecting conflict of interest. I wish to further advise the House as follows:

1. Hearst Forest Management is a company that was formed as an equal partnership between United Sawmill Ltd. and Lacourt Lumber.

2. United Sawmill Ltd. is owned jointly by me and my wife, my sister and a third party. On December 23, 1985, I transferred all my shares of United Sawmill Ltd. into a frozen blind trust in accordance with the Premier's guidelines. My wife did the same on December 30, 1985. Our trustee is Canada Trust. Under the terms of the trust agreement, our family shares of United Sawmill Ltd. are now controlled entirely by Canada Trust and can be voted and managed without reference to me or my wife.

3. Other than the initial capital investment provided by United Sawmill and Lacourt Lumber, Hearst Forest Management has no assets. It has never issued any shares to either United Sawmill Ltd. or Lacourt Lumber. It is operated as a partnership at the direction of the principals of United Sawmill Ltd. and Lacourt Lumber.

When Hearst Forest Management was organized, I, as a representative and principal of United Sawmill Ltd., was asked to serve on the board of directors of Hearst Forest Management. Since May 2, 1985, I have had no involvement in either United Sawmill or Hearst Forest Management. I have attended no meetings of the board of directors. I have not participated in any discussions regarding the business of Hearst Forest Management. In short, I have had no involvement in the company. As I have already stated, my only interest in Hearst Forest Management was through United Sawmill Ltd. and my shares of United Sawmill have already been placed in a frozen blind trust.

2:20 p.m.

My legal and accounting advisers in Hearst did not advise me of the need to resign from the boards of directors of Hearst Forest Management and United Sawmill. It was thought sufficient to meet the guidelines that I had placed all my financial interest in United Sawmill in a blind frozen trust and that I would not participate further in the business of United Sawmill or Hearst Forest Management.

I apologize for any confusion that may have been created on Tuesday. To make sure everything is completely in order, I have today executed my resignations from the boards of directors of Hearst Forest Management and United Sawmill, and my solicitors have forwarded these resignations to the respective companies. I expect that the companies' filings with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations will be amended shortly to reflect that fact.

ST. CLAIR RIVER

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am pleased today to release the most recent report on the status of the St. Clair River pollution investigation.

The report was prepared by a joint task force of my ministry and Environment Canada. It gives information on the most recent puddles found in the cleaned area in front of the Dow complex. It further documents the pollution problems along the St. Clair and makes recommendations for additional remedial action.

After the discovery of small puddles of the tarry substance in the cleaned St. Clair River bed off the foot of Dow Chemical's First Street sewer, tests revealed that the material contained 60 per cent perchloroethylene and 30 per cent carbon tetrachloride, as well as trace amounts of a number of other chlorinated organics.

Earlier tests of the original tarry substance in September and December revealed an average of 35 parts per billion dioxin and 101 parts per billion furans. The most toxic form of dioxin, 2,3,7,8 TCDD, was not detected.

The test results on the latest samples taken in January will be released as soon as they are completed.

Dow is investigating the source of the current puddles. It suspects the source may be the gravel directly under the First Street sewer. The joint ministries task force will continue to monitor this area, located within Dow's property, as well as searching out other possible sources.

Several chlorinated organics at levels exceeding aquatic life objectives were found in river water samples. For example, levels up to 370 times the standard for hexachlorobenzene were found in the vicinity of the township ditch and the Dow First Street sewer.

Elevated levels of the same contaminants have been found in young fish in some spots in the St. Clair River. Levels of hexachlorobenzene and octachlorostyrene have been found at 230 and 560 parts per billion respectively. Perchloroethylene has been found at levels up to 600 parts per billion. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons have been found in young fish at levels as high as 4.6 parts per billion. Nearly half of the PAHs found are known or suspected cancer-causing agents.

Furans were found at levels reaching 1,300 parts per trillion in young St. Clair River fish. My ministry officials also found similarly high levels of furans in fish at the river headwaters, suggesting sources other than the Chemical Valley companies. High levels of lead ranging up to four parts per million were found in young fish in the St. Clair River.

The young fish do not migrate as mature fish do. Living and feeding within a relatively small area, they are a good bio-indicator of contamination in a specific place and they sometimes suggest point sources. The findings confirm that my ministry, along with Environment Canada and the industries along the St. Clair River, must pursue the aggressive abatement policy I outlined in my statement to this House on December 12 last.

The levels of contaminants are lower in the larger fish consumed by people. Levels of hexachlorobenzene and octachlorostyrene in channel catfish and carp ranged from 10 parts per billion to 90 parts per billion in Lake St. Clair. Minute levels of dioxin 2,3,7,8 TCDD were found in two species of fish collected in 1982. The mean levels were 0.6 parts per trillion for carp and 0.89 parts per trillion for channel catfish. These levels are below the Department of National Health and Welfare guidelines of 20 parts per trillion.

I have asked my ministry officials to analyse additional fish samples for the presence of this most toxic form of dioxin. I am not pleased with its presence at any level in Great Lakes fish and will take the appropriate action to determine its source and curtail it.

There have been no cracks found in the river bed leaking contaminated materials from underground sources. However, my ministry and Environment Canada did discover some leakage into the Canadian National tunnel from ground water.

Approximately 4,000 gallons per day of contaminated ground water is leaking into the tunnel in a 160-metre section on the Canadian side of the river. Detectable levels of phenols and polyaromatic hydrocarbons were found. The results suggest that industrial wastes may be contaminating the ground water around the CN tunnel on the Canadian side. Possible sources, including deep well disposal, continue to be investigated.

This report indicates that no dioxins were found in treated drinking water. The members will be aware from Tuesday's announcement that this information has been superseded by the most recent results showing that trace amounts of the much less toxic octadioxin were found in treated drinking water at Sarnia, Windsor, Wallaceburg and Mitchell's Bay.

Octadioxin, about 10,000 times less toxic than the 2,3,7,8-TCDD dioxin, is a common dioxin produced from the combustion of ordinary materials such as coal and wood.

The Department of National Health and Welfare toxicologists and the Ontario chief medical officer of health have both indicated that drinking water with these levels of octadioxins and octafurans meet our health-related guidelines. However, I plan to continue to monitor closely those drinking water supplies.

Environment Canada, in co-operation with my ministry, sampled industrial intakes and discharge pipes between Sarnia and the Suncor refinery to measure net pollution loadings. Samples were analysed for a wide range of contaminants, including volatile hydrocarbons, dioxins and chlorinated organics. The report indicates that the Dow Chemical sewers, the Sarnia township ditch and Polysar are the major sources of volatile hydrocarbon contaminants. Dow and Polysar were also found to be major sources of benzene.

Appreciable concentrations of chlorinated organics were found in bottom and surface water samples and sediment samples collected from the study area. The survey showed aquatic life on the river bottom has been impaired in the immediate vicinity of the petrochemical industries. However, the report says long-term study indicates water quality conditions in the river have improved during the past eight years.

The findings of this report have led to a number of recommendations that are being addressed by my ministry. Generally, the report recommends that investigations be conducted to identify sources of the various contaminants and that action be taken to eliminate or reduce them.

A comprehensive regulation to do just that is being developed by my ministry. Federal officials have offered important technical data, as well as help in ensuring consistency with federal law. Our continuing co-operation has been formalized by the establishment of six joint work groups. My ministry intends to follow up with our federal colleagues the report's recommendations on water quality of the river and sources of contamination.

It also recommends that drinking water and ambient water criteria and objectives be developed for those contaminants for which none now exist. Again, I intend to pursue this development of standards with the federal government.

While I am assured by provincial and federal health officials that the levels of octadioxin found in treated drinking water samples are safe, I feel the presence of a number of other hazardous chemicals in our raw, untreated drinking water warrants an intensified examination of advanced water treatment techniques. Therefore, I am announcing today that I have ordered an accelerated reporting program from the bench-scale activated carbon filtration testing program at Niagara Falls.

With this information in hand, we will establish a full-scale demonstration carbon bed at an Ontario water treatment plant. This will give us the kind of hands-on operating experience that will allow us to evaluate carefully the virtues and limitations of this technology.

2:30 p.m.

My ministry has already initiated several measures to deal with issues the survey singled out. Other related initiatives have been under way since last summer.

The ministry's reorganized and enlarged Sarnia office is monitoring discharges, spills, drains and runoff in Lambton county. My ministry is closely examining past industrial disposal practices in the Chemical Valley. The Detroit-St. Clair-St. Mary's rivers project team is assessing water quality, identifying potential contamination sources, including deep wells and caverns, and is studying measures to reduce chemical contamination.

My ministry is acting to ensure that chemical loadings decrease, spills and discharges are prevented and that the public is promptly informed of all developments.

The report I am tabling provides much valuable information. It also points the way for my ministry's efforts to protect the people and the environment along the St. Clair River.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The revelation has been made that for the very first time dioxins have been found in the treated drinking water of some Ontario communities. Given that dioxins are among the most, if not the most, deadly substances known, will the minister commit today to test immediately the drinking water of any community that asks that testing be done or of communities in whose water it is suspected dioxins are present?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the Leader of the Opposition would no doubt be aware, there is in the ministry an ongoing drinking water surveillance program that tests at several sites. Since 1983, if memory serves me correctly, some 1,000 tests have been conducted of both the raw water supplies and the drinking water supplies at various sites around Ontario.

Recognizing, as the previous minister used to indicate, that we are now dealing with parts per quadrillion, this is the first time we have detected any form of dioxin in treated drinking water.

The honourable member asks whether we are prepared to do testing where there is a request. The answer to that is yes.

Mr. Grossman: Will the minister also commit that wherever dioxins are found in treated drinking water in this province he will immediately provide alternative water supplies?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I do not know whether that is possible. It would depend upon the quantity and the kind of dioxin we found. For instance, in this specific case we found octadioxin in what has been referred to as minute quantities. That did not trigger a reaction which would provide alternative water supplies; however, if we were to find the most toxic form of dioxin, 2,3,7,8-TCDD as it is known, in quantities above what are considered to be the acceptable guidelines, we would certainly in that case have to provide an alternative water supply to a community.

Mrs. Grier: When dioxin was found in untreated water, we were reassured there was no problem. Now that it has been found in treated water we are again being told that the nature of the dioxin and the levels are no problem. Will the Minister of the Environment tell us the point at which dioxin in the drinking water, in his estimation, does become a problem?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It becomes a problem in the drinking water when the medical and scientific experts indicate very clearly that the guidelines which have been developed have been exceeded.

Mr. Rae: Are they the same people who set the level for uranium? Are the asbestos experts those same people?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I realize this is an excellent opportunity for the leader of the third party to indicate his very strong concern. In this case, we checked with the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare. We asked for the best scientific opinion within the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and for the assistance of Environment Canada. They have indicated clearly that the circumstances we found would not warrant not drinking the water at the present time. If we were to find results which were different -- different kinds of dioxin or in greater quantities -- that would be a different story.

Mr. Grossman: What I am about to say is in quotation marks; it is not my question. I want to refer the minister to his statement of November 6, 1984: "These chemicals should not be there in any quantity. Who is to say what quantity is safe and what is not?"

In this House a year later, November 25, 1985, the current minister said, as reported in Hansard, "I am a minister who says that wherever we find a problem that is going to affect adversely the drinking water in this province I am prepared to take whatever action is necessary to ensure we have safe drinking water in every part of the province."

Mr. Mancini: That is exactly what he just said.

Mr. Grossman: He did not. He is saying forget it.

Is he going to guarantee he will provide alternative water supplies for those communities; or is he saying he withdraws the words he spoke in November 1984 and November 1985?

Mr. Mancini: That is stretching it a bit.

Mr. Grossman: He should worry about the people. Why does he now tell them the dioxin is safe?

Mr. Mancini: He is going to do something about it. We saw how the party opposite reacted.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) contain himself?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am pleased to see the concern of the Leader of the Opposition, who was a member of the previous government, which was judged in many cases not to have taken the kind of action he is advocating today.

Mr. Grossman: The minister should answer the question. What is he going to do?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Will the member listen carefully to the answer? As a Minister of the Environment of Ontario and a member of this House, I remain convinced that nowhere in our water, not only our drinking water but also our recreational water or the water we use in the province in various ways, should we have toxic substances, and I do not just mean dioxin. The reality is it exists, and that is what we have revealed to the House.

It is our intention to attack the sources of these substances on an ongoing basis. As the member will know, approximately five per cent of the ingestion of dioxin, for instance, comes from drinking water and 95 per cent from food and inhalation. It seems then, that while we cannot ignore the drinking water, since that is exceedingly important, we have to look at all the sources available, attack those and invoke in Ontario the kind of regulations the opposition members did not have the guts to invoke.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Runciman: My question is to the Premier. The Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) indicated in his statement today that he placed his Hearst Forest Management holdings in a blind trust last December 23. Considering that forest management agreement negotiations were under way prior to that date, does the Premier feel the minister acted in an appropriate manner by waiting until the 11th hour to place his holdings in a blind trust?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member will be aware that discussions with respect to the FMAs started a year or two ago -- in fact, long before he and the minister were members of this House. They started under a previous minister, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), who used to come here on occasion. I am satisfied there is no impropriety whatsoever. Having looked into the situation, I am absolutely persuaded of that.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Runciman: That is an astounding answer. We all know negotiations were under way some time before the new government took office. The pertinent point is that they were under way while the member was a member of cabinet.

Can the Premier explain how he can accept the continuance of the member in the executive council without putting his holdings into a blind trust, an obvious conflict that has been allowed to drag on for six months? Can he explain how he allowed that to occur?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: All the interests were in a blind trust. He made absolutely no representations at any point on the question. If the member wants to stand in this House or outside it and make an allegation of conflict of interest or abuse of position, he should feel free to do so. However, I can tell my friend he is absolutely wrong. I am satisfied there is none of that here.

Mr. Runciman: A few weeks ago in British Columbia a cabinet minister resigned. The reason was that his company was involved in negotiating a forestry agreement with the government of that province. Is the Premier telling us today that Premier Bennett has a higher standard of conduct for elected officials than he does?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In my respectful opinion, they have nothing to do with each other. The designated hit man over there is fishing in the wrong pond. He is looking for something and he is judging us by his standards. They are not there. If the member can find any suggestion of a conflict of interest, he can stand up and say so, but there is none.

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Rae: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The minister was one of those who, while in opposition, expressed consistent concern about the presence of dioxin anywhere, whether in gull eggs or anywhere else. When he became the minister he always assured us it was okay because none of it was ever found in treated drinking water, the same reassurances we got from the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) when he was Minister of the Environment. Now the minister has changed his story. He says yes, it has been found in the treated drinking water, but only a little bit.

Can the minister tell us what specific steps he plans to take today, apart from this so-called accelerated reporting program? What is that? A guy has to pick up the phone twice a week rather than once a week? Instead of that, what specific measures is he going to take to assure those millions of Ontarians who rely on the Great Lakes for their drinking water that there will be no dioxin in the water they drink? What guarantee can the minister give us that this will be the case?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First of all, let me indicate to the honourable member -- and I have done so clearly on all occasions, whether as a member of the opposition or as the Minister of the Environment with the responsibility -- that whenever we find dioxin of any kind or any of the other substances in our waterways, in the soil or in the air that are considered by scientists and people in the medical field to be potentially dangerous to human health, it is a matter of concern and we have to address that concern.

Speaking specifically to the problem that originates here, I believe we have to attack the source of any of these substances, including dioxin, that get into the air, the soil or the waterways. That is why we as a government and we as a ministry are in the process of developing what will probably be the toughest regulations anywhere in Canada dealing with the St. Clair River area and ultimately Ontario.

The member will also be aware that we are in the process of changing the air regulation; I think it is regulation 308. We are in the process of consultation with environmental groups, people from industry, technical experts and others in order that we may reduce the potential contaminants that come from the atmosphere into the water, the soil and the food chain. We feel that by attacking the sources of all these substances --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mrs. Grier: I agree with the minister that what needs to be done is to attack the sources, but one of the most shocking elements in this very shocking report is the fact that so many of the discharges that have caused this contamination are legal today. For example, Dow is legally discharging 242 kilograms a day of volatile hydrocarbons into the St. Clair River. The minister has said he is producing new regulations.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary question, please.

Mrs. Grier: If the minister is so concerned about getting at the sources, why does he not immediately apply interim control orders to prevent this effluent discharge into the St. Clair River?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the honourable member is likely aware, a certificate of approval is probably the weakest form of control. A control order can be tougher, but a control order is also an appealable vehicle. The strongest way to control the sources that are going into that area or other areas remains the regulation, which is not appealable. That is why we are applying a regulation.

Ms. Fish: Dioxin is currently found in the treated drinking water. The ministry has a program of supplying alternative drinking water supplies when something that has a half-life of 60 days and pales by comparison to dioxin, namely, alachlor, is found in drinking water. In these circumstances, why is the minister refusing to ensure that safe drinking water is provided to the people of this province?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is the view of the health and scientific authorities I marshalled together in this case to get their best expert opinion that, in the communities which I have indicated have had these minute quantities of the least toxic form of dioxin -- albeit that has to be a matter of concern -- the drinking water meets the requirement of safe drinking water. If that were to change, if the amounts found were to increase in another sample and we were to find the tetra form of dioxin, particularly 2,3,7,8-TCDD, that would be a call for immediate action because, as the honourable member will agree, scientific and health experts would indicate at that time that an alternative water supply would be necessary.

Mr. Hayes: We have been pressing the minister to increase the maximum fines since he took office. He has not given Dow or others any incentive to clean up and stop dumping toxic chemicals in our lakes and rivers. When is he going to stop levying token fines on corporate polluters and raise the maximum fines to discourage those who continue to dump in and pollute our lakes and rivers?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I would hardly characterize as anything other than an aggressive stance against Dow Chemical the activity this ministry has undertaken in recent months through its investigations and enforcement branch and through the charges laid against Dow with respect to the perchloroethylene spill and those we have placed before it having to do with the caverns. As the honourable member knows, we as a ministry have come under considerable criticism, and the activity undertaken has been characterized as being unfair to those emitters.

With respect to the fines that are available, I have indicated to the House that my ministry is putting together a full package of penalties to apply to polluters. They include increased fines, the potential for a judge to impose a jail sentence and mechanisms whereby profits that can be directly ascribed to violating the pollution and environment laws of Ontario can be stripped from the polluters who have undertaken those activities.

2:50 p.m.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Rae: My question is to the Minister of Labour. It concerns another group of workers who were reassured by experts and by governments that there was no problem in their working conditions. We now learn that 274 uranium miners in northern Ontario have died of lung cancer as of October 1984, an increase of 57 per cent since 1981, and it is anticipated that the rate will shoot literally through the roof by the year 2000.

Given this tragedy of historic proportions affecting a group of people working in this province, and recognizing the federal government has a role to play with respect to setting certain limits, what steps does the Minister of Labour intend to take to reduce the limits of exposure and to ensure that people working underground in this province will not suffer intolerable kinds of conditions when they retire or have to leave work and will not be dying of lung cancer? What does the minister intend to do to stop this from happening in the province?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: First, while we have a deep concern about the numbers, which are unacceptably high, other mines have been added between one reporting period and the other; so the increase, while intolerably high, is not 57 per cent.

That being said, I met earlier this week with officials of the Canadian Institute for Radiation Safety who came to my office and expressed some concerns about their continued level of support. They shared with me some of the work they have been doing, and I am quite willing to share it with my friends.

The institute is doing a great deal of important work. It has asked for continued support from this government, which has been giving it support -- I and my colleagues the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine). We intend to continue and enhance that support.

As well, I indicated to them on Monday of this week, when they were in to see me, that concerns they had expressed about continued support from the federal government would be passed on to my federal colleague, Mr. McKnight. We have a shared responsibility, and I intend to play my role as the Minister of Labour in Ontario in sharing that concern with my federal colleague and attempting to reduce the exposure level.

Mr. Rae: Rates of lung cancer among uranium miners are almost twice as high as in the general population and at least 30 or 35 per cent higher among gold miners. Those are the facts in the province. I do not know how the minister can give us this bureaucratic gobbledegook when he is faced with those kinds of realities.

What does he intend to do for those survivors of lung cancer victims who have not been given any kind of compensation from the Workers' Compensation Board? More than half the survivors of victims of lung cancer are not receiving any compensation from the board. Also, what does he intend to do for survivors of stomach cancer victims, since the rate of stomach cancer among uranium miners is running 30 per cent higher than the rate among the general population? What does he intend to do to ensure those survivors will at least be recognized by the government?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I do not have exact figures for the second category in front of me. Of the 274 or 275 cases identified, entitlement to dependency benefits has been established in 124 cases, almost half --

Mr. Wildman: What about the rest?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Hold on. Active investigation is under way in 76 other cases; in other words, no decision has been made. In 32 cases, entitlement was denied, and in 43 cases, the claim was not pursued. Those are the numbers I have. If my friend wishes to dispute them, he may share that with me.

There have been reviews of all these claims over the years and other entitlements added. There will be another review at the appropriate time. The corporate board is well advised to take a look at that.

Mr. Wildman: When is this government going to recognize that workers in this province should not have to make a choice between their livelihood and their lives? Is the minister prepared to do something for the workers in Elliot Lake and assure the United Steelworkers he will establish a health centre that will enable them to identify at-risk workers and ones who are exposed prior to death?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: As I said, when the Canadian Institute for Radiation Safety was in to see me earlier this week, we discussed that matter in great detail. I intend to continue having those discussions. I have had the opportunity of meeting with the new director-elect for District 6, and he put that opinion to me very forcefully.

We are actively pursuing new initiatives we can take. The honourable member is right. All of us have an obligation to ensure that workers, whether they are down in the mines or in an office, leave their work as safely and in as healthy a condition as they entered it. That is the objective of this minister and of this government. We are not going to be satisfied in this specific case until we have made some much more impressive progress.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Timbrell: Today, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) indicated that on December 23 and 30, 1985, he and his wife respectively established a frozen blind trust. Outside the House on Tuesday, following this question first being raised by my colleague the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman), the minister indicated to the media that on an earlier occasion he had informed the Premier (Mr. Peterson) of his involvement in this company and the possibility of its obtaining a forest management agreement from the government.

I want to ask the Premier, what did he do about it at the time he was told, and why did it take six months after this minister became a member of the executive council for this matter to be placed in a blind trust? Why did the Premier not insist that the minister divest himself of all interests in this potential conflict immediately on becoming a member of the executive council?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I would think the honourable member would want to be fair and read the entire statement. I refer him to page 4, where the minister said:

"Since May 2, I have had no involvement in either United Sawmill or Hearst Forest Management. I have attended no meetings of the board of directors. I have not participated in any discussions regarding the business of a forest management agreement."

Last May, we asked the various potential cabinet ministers to submit their particular situations, which they did; they were all checked by lawyers. As the member knows, it takes some time to tie all these things up legally. However, it is absolutely in conformity with the conflict-of-interest guidelines, which are handled by Mr. Wright.

Very frankly, I know the member is looking for something, but he will not find anything. There is nothing there. I am completely satisfied.

Mr. Grossman: It is right there.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Timbrell: With respect, what we are looking for is right in front of the Premier. He has not answered the question as to when he was told and what he did about it. Is he saying in effect that when it is a closely held family company, as this is, which stands to benefit substantially in a financial way if it is granted an FMA by his government, a blind trust or any other instrument is irrelevant and they can do whatever they want?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not quite sure what the member is telling me. Is he telling me the blind trust is not valid or that we should not have one? What I am saying is that it is set up in a blind trust. The minister absolutely did not participate in it. On legal advice from Mr. Wright, who is the repository of all these things, this was the relationship established. I am sure the member personally conducted himself under the same guidelines. Let me tell him --

Mr. Timbrell: When was the Premier told?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I was aware --

Mr. Timbrell: What did you do?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Exactly what we did do. I was aware last -- after the election; I was aware last May that there was a problem.

Mr. Timbrell: So the Premier condoned it for six months.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Of course I acted. Immediately, everything was put into a blind trust. He conformed to all the legal niceties. He has had nothing to do with the company. We did exactly what he said he would do. Frankly, I cannot understand the thrust of the member's questioning. It has all been done.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3 p.m.

CONTRACT WORKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. What does the minister intend to do about the 250 cleaners in the Exchange Tower at First Canadian Place who are in danger of losing their jobs? Most of them are women of Portuguese origin, and their take-home pay is about $150 a week.

The workers could be thrown out of work because of a loophole, the existence of which is known to the minister, through changing the contract by putting it out for tender. This is the first time this has happened since the buildings opened. It comes, strangely enough, at a time when they are starting their negotiations.

Can the minister tell us what he is going to do about the possible job loss for these workers? Will he change the law so that successor rights will be guaranteed when work is contracted out or when contracts are tendered?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We are taking a careful look at that, and I am sympathetic to the concerns the honourable member raises. In the specific instance, I believe on Tuesday last, officials in the Premier's office got in contact with members of the union as soon as the letter was received. We have offered to go ahead with a meeting including both the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and myself at their earliest convenience. I have not been told when that meeting has been scheduled.

I am also willing to indicate to the member that we will try to solve with the company the problem of continuing that group of workers through the tendering process as a condition of the tender. However, I understand the government cannot act to put out individual fires as they begin to flare up. We are looking for a long-term solution to the problem and we will have one at the appropriate time.

Mr. Rae: This is not an individual fire. It happened at the Toronto-Dominion Centre, it happened at Conestoga College and it has happened in many cases throughout the province. It happens wherever a contractor has a collective agreement and loses his contract. The workers, who have built up years of seniority and years of salary increases, lose all those overnight when that contract is retendered.

Will the minister take the legal steps, which the previous government and the previous minister refused to take, to ensure that the collective agreement stays intact and that those workers maintain their seniority, their protection, their salaries and their benefits and do not have them taken away every time a company decides to contract out?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I said we are taking a sympathetic look at the overall problem. I want to share with my friend the concern and the frustration I have at the fact that when we took over the reins of government on June 26 -- and since then -- there was in my ministry, to be quite frank, an unfinished agenda that I do not have to tell my friends was of astounding proportions. We are trying to deal with it as quickly as possible and this is just one more issue.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Grossman: I want to come back to the Premier on the issue of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine).

I want to make this point: the purpose of a blind trust is that the true owner not know what shares or what companies he or she has an interest in. It is thus, so that when matters come to cabinet there is no way this person will know whether he or she has any interest whatsoever, as the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) will tell the members.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is wrong.

Mr. Grossman: That is why it is called blind; that is the point of a blind trust.

With respect, when his minister, after dealing with the government for six months, then places his affairs in a blind trust, the potential conflict continues simply because the government knows the minister owns the shares. The minister, when he sits in cabinet, knows he still owns the shares. The minister, who in this case sits on the policy and priorities board of cabinet, still knows he owns the shares.

Given all of that, will the Premier agree that the minister continues in a conflict so long as he owns shares in a company that continues to deal with the government? Will he ask the minister to divest himself of them or leave cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I would say to the honourable member, with great respect, that his legal interpretation of a blind trust is wrong.

Let me tell him what it is. When someone enters cabinet and puts shares into a blind trust, all those shares or assets are put at arm's length. The so-called original owner transfers the control to someone else and is not in a position to exercise any legal control whatever on any disposition. That is what a blind trust is all about.

These are the rules that were followed by the previous administration and Mr. Wright is the one who is administering these situations. When we assumed office some time ago, or when it appeared we were going to, we checked into all these matters very carefully to avoid any kind of conflict-of-interest situation. The appropriate steps were taken to do that.

If the member will ask the former Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), he will find the former minister was in the lumber business and had a situation in which a forest management agreement was negotiated a couple of years ago. He is very much aware of that.

It is very clear the Minister of Northern Development and Mines withdrew completely last May from all involvement in that company. I believe he pointed that out to the members. It was all done legally. I can assure the House there has been no undue influence anywhere; he has not been involved in the awarding of any FMAs and will not be. That is the situation. I am completely satisfied there is no conflict of interest.

Mr. Grossman: I want to make a point to the Premier. Whether we are right or he is right -- and he is not -- about the legal interpretation of a blind trust, the fact is that the knowledge continued.

The ministry knew before the member was elected that it was negotiating with his firm. The ministry knew after he was elected that it was negotiating with his firm. The Premier himself admits that he, as the head of government, knew the government was negotiating with the minister's firm, of which the minister owned a major part.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: The minister sits on the policy and priorities board of cabinet and presumably was part of the board that would decide whether an FMA would be entered into with his own company.

Whether or not the legalities are as he interpreted them, the Premier allowed that entire situation to continue for six months.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: Given that history, which is undeniable because it is the Premier's evidence, would he not agree it is improper for a government to deal on an FMA with a company owned largely by one of its own members?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is no. Let me read the conflict-of-interest guidelines for the member's edification.

"No private company in which a minister or his or her family have an interest may become contractually involved with the government of Ontario unless the interest of the minister or family has been placed in a blind trust set up in accordance with these guidelines."

That is what the conflict-of-interest guidelines of the member's own party say. He implies there was some discussion at the policy and priorities board about an FMA with the minister's former company. That has not happened.

Mr. Timbrell: Does the Premier mean to say there were no discussions?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There were absolutely no discussions. I was scrupulous about this. Last May I said all these things were going to be tied up so tightly there would be absolutely no suggestion of conflict of interest. One would have to have a very devious mind in order even to imply anything.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier did nothing for six months.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am completely satisfied there has been no conflict of interest and there has been no influence of any type.

Mr. Grossman: They were there to spell out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The members are wasting the time of other members.

3:10 p.m.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the Minister of Labour. The minister and several other senior members of cabinet have been explaining the delay in the introduction of legislation on equal pay for work of equal value for the public sector by telling everyone who wanted to find out where the legislation was that the government was going through detailed consultations with the people affected.

It turns out that the people affected, namely the public sector unions, have not had a chance to consult with the government for two months. Can the minister explain the delay?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: With respect, I think the member is wrong. We had very extensive consultations with officials of the trade unions affected regarding the public sector legislation, which I believe ended in mid-November. The consultation was an ongoing process in our development of the legislation. Following release of the green paper and as we began to identify the public sector paper, we asked the unions involved to comment specifically on every aspect, every option we laid out. They did so.

In the first or second week of December, my officials met for a long time, three or four hours, with the unions involved. I was there for a short part of that meeting. Every one of those issues was canvassed. At the end of the meeting we had a comfort level with where the trade unions involved stood on those issues. We were comfortable with their points of view. We have not met with them since.

Three or four weeks ago, the assistant deputy minister of labour policy and programs, Dr. Wolfson, spoke with an official from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. I understand he expressed a willingness to have a meeting and no such meeting was requested.

Ms. Gigantes: The meeting occurred November 25 and since then there has been no consultation. With whom has the minister been consulting? Has he been consulting with the business groups over this legislation? Why is all this new to the public sector unions on the eve of the announcement of legislation?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am not sure what the problem is. I understand and share the member's views on this issue. Frankly, the government has been anxious that this public sector legislation be the best in North America, as I think the member would want it to be.

Because of the work that has been ongoing with my colleague the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) particularly, my colleague the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Ms. Caplan) and all of the cabinet, when the legislation is tabled in this House in the next short while I will make one commitment: it will be the best legislation in North America.

Ms. Fish: Will the minister give us a public commitment of a deadline by which the pay equity program will be in place, recognizing this party gave a public commitment of March 1, 1986, for pay equity in the public service to be in place?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I choked on the question. I remember in its throne speech that party made a commitment to first-contract arbitration and then on Tuesday of this week said it was not going to vote in favour of the principle. It was simple last June, in the dying days of the member's regime, to give all sorts of commitments. They did not believe in it then; they do not believe in it now.

Would the member make a commitment to support our bill?

Ms. Gigantes: What bill?

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Grossman: Would the Premier now agree that for six months the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) was in this position: first, negotiations were going on between this government and his company; second, his company was not in a blind trust; third, there was no public disclosure? Would he agree those were the circumstances, in effect, for six months?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I told the House, after May 2 the minister had absolutely no involvement in the company. It was all being worked on by the lawyers and it is all there for the member to see. There was no influence exerted during that period, he had nothing to do with the company and that is very clear in the statement today.

In the interest of fairness, perhaps the member would like to read the whole statement.

Mr. Grossman: I want to reinforce this point to the Premier. The minister had everything to do with the company. It was his company. The Premier wants to take the position that he was not negotiating for the company with the government. I served eight years in the government, and every member of the government is deemed to be dealing with the forest management company because all of them collectively make one decision. The Premier is therefore saying the member owned the company but, as a member of the executive council, he was dealing with that company on the other side.

Given those circumstances, surely the Premier would agree that for six months the minister, as part of cabinet, was collectively dealing with a company he owned. The result of that negotiation could be, and would be, that he would directly benefit financially from those discussions.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is no substantiation. The member is stretching it again. The minister was not negotiating. To the best of my knowledge, nothing was signed in that period. To this date nothing has been signed, and he was not aware of what was going on. That was very clear. He was not sitting there in negotiations, and he told the member that. He said he washed his hands of the thing on May 2 and did not do anything subsequent to that, and now it is all tied up legally.

If the member wants to stand in his place and put the same question again, he is quite welcome to do so, but he is going to get the same answer. He can search as far and as long as he wants, but he will not find one scintilla of evidence that the minister in any way subverted the public policy process to his own benefit. He is here working for the people.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: On about six occasions today, the Premier has indicated that the minister has had absolutely nothing to do with the forest management agreement since May 2. He would want to know that the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine), in the only communication he had with the Minister of Natural Resources while I was minister in June, inquired about the progress of the forest management agreement in the Hearst area.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs. Grier: I want to address a question to the Minister of the Environment that comes back to the announcements he made on Tuesday about dioxin in the drinking water. The minister is relying very heavily on the advice he has received from scientific and health experts that 150,000 parts per quadrillion of dioxin is the maximum acceptable concentration. As far as I am concerned, there is no acceptable concentration of dioxin.

Can the minister tell us of any other jurisdiction in the world where an acceptable level of dioxin has been legislated?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I cannot speak for other jurisdictions. However, the honourable member may be familiar with this document, produced about September 1985, called Scientific Criteria Document for Standard Development. It is on polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans. It was a matter of rather extensive work, as she would know, and I know she has read it from cover to cover, as she indicates to me.

Representatives from the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Labour and the Department of National Health and Welfare met on September 30 to decide on what they considered to be an interim guideline level for dioxins in drinking water.

It was decided as a result of that to set an interim maximum acceptable concentration based on the acceptable daily intake suggested in this Ministry of the Environment report. The report, as I have indicated, is a survey of selected drinking water supplies in Ontario for those products, with an apportioning of five per cent of the picograms per litre -- that is parts per quadrillion -- equivalency to 2,3,7,8-T₄CDD.

On November 26, 1985, the ministry released this report, and in the document, the acceptable daily intake suggested in the previous 1984 report was adopted and recommended. l could go on, but I know the Speaker does not want me to.

Mr. Speaker: Right.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: They went through a very extensive procedure to develop this guideline.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The minister's promise today and on Tuesday to do more monitoring of the drinking water along the St. Clair and Detroit rivers is exactly the same commitment the then Minister of the Environment, Mr. Norton, made back in the early 1980s and other ministers made before.

The technology exists to remove these chemicals from our drinking water. Why will the minister not make a commitment to put in place the granular activated charcoal filters that the beer companies use in the Lake Ontario area to take the chemicals out of beer?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The beer companies do not use them specifically to take chemicals out of beer. Beer companies are primarily interested in taste and odour when they put in these things. In various jurisdictions, this technology is in place for those reasons as opposed to the reasons the member suggested. While some have advanced the theory that activated carbon filtration beds can remove dioxin, a large body of opinion indicates that is not necessarily so.

That is why before we proceed -- the previous administration set up a project in Niagara Falls -- I want to have in effect a full plant demonstration project, as opposed to a testing project, to determine its effectiveness. If it is genuinely effective, it will be the kind of thing we will implement.

Mr. Brandt: With respect to the safety of the drinking water, will the minister indicate whether the soluble nature of the dioxin detected in the Sarnia area can be filtered out with activated carbon filtration beds? If that is the case and that technology is available and effective, will he consider the Sarnia area as an application for the speeded-up technology they are now developing with the experimentations going on in Niagara Falls?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The first indication is that that is not necessarily so. Even though octadioxin is what we would refer to as the most soluble kind, dioxin of any kind is not easily soluble. If one matched the most difficult kind of tetradioxins against octadioxin, which was detected in this case, octadioxin would be considered comparably more soluble.

By and large, dioxins are not soluble and tend to adhere to the particulates found in the ordinary process of water treatment plants. It is not only dioxins we are talking about; in my statement this afternoon, I indicated we were interested in looking at the effectiveness of a number of other substances.

If that were the case, we would introduce it in those specific areas.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Harris: My question is to the Premier. From what I have heard from the Premier today, he finds it acceptable that henceforth a member of the cabinet can own a company which is negotiating with the provincial government, the provincial cabinet, without putting that company into a blind trust. Is that my understanding of what the Premier thinks?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is no.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Premier want to reply?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I answered his question; I said no.

Mr. Harris: If the Premier is saying no, does he not think something is wrong when, after the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) informed him of the situation, he allowed that very situation to go on for six months?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect, in my view the honourable member is wrong. The minister gave instructions to his lawyers in Hearst and Toronto as well as to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to deal with the situation and he tied it all up. As he told the member --

Mr. Grossman: He owned it for six months. He still owns it today.

Hon. Mr. Scott: He will always own it. It is in a blind trust.

Ms. Fish: Does he chat with his sister? Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Are they interested in an answer or are they going to shout? He told them what to do and they did it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do the members want to hear the response? Does the Premier have anything further?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have gone over this. We will go over it again. I accept what the minister said in his statement because I believe it to be frank. He completely turned over his companies to a blind trust. He instructed his lawyers and it was done. It takes some time to do these things. He had absolutely nothing to do with those companies during that period of time. Since he has been a minister of the crown, there has been no conflict of interest.

Let me read the conflict of interest guidelines for the benefit of the member so he will better understand.

Mr. Runciman: Why does he not read them? None of his members complied with them.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have read them on several occasions.

They go on to say, "It should be the responsibility of the trustee to ensure that, if any matter affecting that interest comes before the ministry for which the minister is responsible, officials in the Premier's office are advised so that a colleague of the minister can be appointed to act for the ministry concerned for purposes of dealing with the matter."

Nothing has come to the policy and priorities board of cabinet, nothing has come to cabinet and nothing has been signed with respect to any forest management agreements of any type. I want the member to know that. As the minister said, and I accept it, there have been no discussions with anybody involved in the ministry. I am persuaded there is no conflict of interest. It is a blind trust and it has been done exactly as it should have been done.

VISIBLE MINORITIES

Mr. Grande: My question is for the Attorney General. The Coalition of Visible Minority Women said at a press conference yesterday that they were very frustrated and angry at the callous treatment they received from the Attorney General during a meeting on January 17. The minister did not show much interest in the issues raised by the coalition, which is angry at again being treated like second-class citizens.

Will the Attorney General apologize for the pitiful attitude he displayed? Will he assure this House that he will take strong and immediate action to ensure justice and fairness for visible minority women?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am grateful to my friend for the question. When I saw the press reports this morning I was alarmed, particularly because I know of the interest the honourable member and the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes), who is on the justice committee that has dealt with family law matters, feel for the real concerns of the members of this group. I share those concerns.

I regret the members of the coalition who met with me found me to be discouraging or unpleasant. Perhaps I was tired and not at my best. However, I want to emphasize that I feel strongly about the interests of this group.

They met with me on January 17. I think we met for something in excess of an hour with the representatives of the Ontario women's directorate. They put forward some of their concerns, which were principally that they have never had a response from any government to the resolutions made at their meeting in the summer of 1983. No government had ever responded to that. I indicated we proposed to do so.

At the end of the meeting, an arrangement was made that the women's directorate staff would meet with them. That meeting took place between a member of the directorate staff and the council last Monday, January 27. I was not present. Before I could get a report of what happened at that meeting, I received a letter on Tuesday night, late in the evening, saying my attitude had been unsatisfactory and a press conference would be held the following day. I should say that on Monday they undertook to forward a further brief to me on February 3. I am anxious to deal with their concerns and I propose --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Grande: The minister is correct. The issues raised by the coalition were identified back in 1983. The former government waited a year and a half to do nothing. The coalition expected that because this was a new government with a new attitude, there would be new initiatives. Obviously, it has found the government really lacking.

Will the Attorney General move now to target the needs of visible minority women with affirmative action and employment equity programs that combat the racism and sexism that prevent these women from being equal partners in our society?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Following the meeting on January 17, we agreed to meet again. We met last Monday with the staff of the women's directorate, went over the concerns and got a lot of useful information. The members of the coalition agreed as a follow-up to that meeting to provide a further brief, which they told us would be in our hands on February 3. When this information was accumulated, we hoped to be able to respond in a formal way to their positions, which had been unanswered for more than two years by any government.

In the course of that, last Wednesday morning they held a press conference in which they said my attitude was -- I forget the words -- unhelpful, no doubt arrogant, unsympathetic or something such as that. If that was their impression, it was not an impression I intended to give nor an attitude I have. We were meeting with them before that and have arranged to meet with them since; but they held a press conference and that is what was said. I will meet with them again as we had planned to do.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION

Mr. Sheppard: I have a petition signed by 2,000 people, which says:

"We, the undersigned, protest the move of the Treasurer of Ontario to merge the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and the University of Toronto. We demand that he rescind his ill-advised budget items. We also demand that he reaffirm OISE's mandate to serve public education in Ontario."

Mr. Pope: I have two petitions on different subjects.

Mr. Speaker: I thought you were going to make a speech.

Mr. Pope: No, I would not put you through that again.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Pope: The first petition is signed by 24 constituents. It reads as follows:

"Ontario is a multiracial, multicultural and multifaith society that is well served by a strong public school system. Your government's proposal to extend public funding to Roman Catholic separate secondary schools is a backward step since it will grant special status to one specific denominational group. We urge you and your government not to proceed with this divisive proposal."

ABORTION CLINICS

Mr. Pope: The second petition is signed by more than 700 people, mainly from the city of Timmins. It was circulated in the city of Timmins by John Lemire, whom I think the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has met. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned residents of Timmins, believe that all innocent human lives must be protected. The illegal abortuary in Toronto must be closed down immediately and the abortion law enforced. We object to the establishment anywhere in Ontario of abortion clinics, whether privately operated or government operated."

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. McCague from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

University support program, $1,063,115,000; college support program, $381,171,400; student affairs program, $138,969,300;

That supply in the following supplementary amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

College support program, $20,000,000; ministry administration program, $544,400.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Harris from the standing committee on public accounts reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following supplementary amounts and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Provincial Auditor be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Administration of the Audit Act and statutory audits program, $146,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr. McNeil from the standing committee on the Ombudsman presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs leave to report on the ways in which the assembly may act to make its voice heard against political killings, imprisonment, terror and torture.

On motion by Mr. McNeil, the debate was adjourned.

MOTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that in the standing committee on resources development the estimates for francophone affairs be considered before the estimates of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am tabling the answer to question 165 and the interim answer to question 191 in Orders and Notices, and a petition presented to the Legislature, sessional paper 315 [see Hansard for Friday, January 31].

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mrs. Grier moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, that pursuant to standing order 34(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the announcement by the Ministry of the Environment that treated drinking water in the communities of Windsor, Sarnia, Wallaceburg and Mitchell's Bay contains trace levels of dioxin and the acknowledgement by the ministry that there are at the moment no effective programs in place to remove these compounds from drinking water.

Mr. Speaker: The notice of motion was received in my office on January 29 at 11:15 a.m.; therefore it complies with the standing order regarding the notice requirement. I will listen to the member for up to five minutes and representatives from the other parties as well.

Mrs. Grier: It is somewhat difficult to define the word "emergency." We all have emergencies from time to time in our lives and we define them differently. In this case, there is a strong argument to be made that the discovery for the very first time in this province of the presence of dioxin in treated drinking water must be cause for concern by all members of this House and justifies a discussion in public and in this House of the dimensions of that discovery.

In addition to discovering for the first time these toxins in our drinking water, we have found them not just from the area we suspected to be most contaminated, the St. Clair River, but also from Lake Huron in the water supply of Sarnia. Therefore, I think it is fair to say this discovery affects all those people in this province, and they number many millions, who take their drinking water from any of the Great Lakes.

Over the years, we have had reassurance about the quality of our drinking water that has developed, if I may say so, a credibility gap between what the people in this province hear from their civil servants and, in many cases, from some of their politicians and what they believe to be the truth.

That is another reason I think it is important today, when we have had this announcement and when we have been told there is no need to worry, for us to air the facts and the opposing sides of that debate, so that people who are concerned and who are questioning the assurance they have been given can have an opportunity to hear both sides of the argument.

3:40 p.m.

I am very glad the minister released the information. I think it is important that be done. As I say, it is important that people in this province be able to make their own decisions, based on hearing all the facts of the matter and all the arguments about whether the drinking water is safe, whether they as individuals want to drink the water from the intake pipes that are now serving them, or whether they want to seek an alternative source for themselves.

Only if we in this House discuss the matter openly, and with our differences there for all to see and make their own decisions, can we be assured that the people have enough information on which to base their own personal decisions. For that reason, I think this debate is justified.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I commend the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier), the New Democratic Party critic, for raising this issue in this particular forum and in this particular form. It is exceedingly important that we as a Legislature deal with environmental issues on an even more extensive basis.

As the honourable member indicated in her remarks in support of this debate, it is essential that we have an airing of views on the results of the very exhaustive and extensive monitoring of drinking water that is going on at present in the St. Clair River area and in those communities that ultimately receive their water from that area.

If we were to make a guess, we would probably guess that in years gone by, if we had had the instruments and the technology to do it, we might have found some forms of dioxin in drinking water. What is fortunate for us, although it raises new concerns, is that we now have instrumentation that will measure in parts per quadrillion. That is going to bring us into a new era of environmental sensitivity and environmental concern, a concern that I think is justified.

I know that a number of the people who are in the House to take part in the debate are directly affected through their own communities. Others have had a specific interest in environmental matters, such as the former Ministers of the Environment who sit in the House today, and the member for Lakeshore, both before and during her time in this House.

If we do not have this kind of public discussion, if we do not have the challenging of the opinions that are provided by medical and scientific experts as well as the specific activities that governments are undertaking to address these problems, then we are not following the concerns of the people of this province.

It seems to me that on a number of environmental issues it would be ideal to have what we call a debate. We are calling it an emergency debate today. We have the joint release of the St. Clair River report today by the federal and provincial ministers. This report focuses yet more attention on an area of the province, although, as the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) would tell us, it is not the only area of the province that has environmental problems. However, it has some problems that have been accentuated in recent months and weeks. Therefore, these problems must be discussed in a very thorough fashion.

I suppose there are some easy reactions to this, and I do not belittle in any way those in the opposition who make comments. I have sat as an opposition member. As former ministers will recall, I expressed concerns, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) did today, about any dioxin or, for that matter, any of the toxic substances we find in our waterways.

What is equally alarming and what is causing this debate to be of considerable importance is the fact that it is estimated that only five per cent of the dioxin we get in our bodies even comes from the drinking water. That is still an important source, even though it is five per cent. However, it addresses the problem we have. People say it is ubiquitous, it is all around us and so on. Sometimes it is, and sometimes there are specific concentrations that should cause us some problems.

I look forward to hearing from the member who moved this resolution this afternoon. I also look forward to hearing from the other members who I know, in all sincerity, have a point of view they wish to advance and who are going to ensure that whatever action this Legislature and this government take is appropriate action.

As I indicated early on, there are a lot of quick fixes that are very attractive and appear to do something to address the problem. I wish I could wave a magic wand to remove all the substances that exist in our society today from the food chain, the waterways and so on. There is not, but our government is proposing a number of activities that we think will be beneficial in dealing with the sources.

Today, I feel this is a most appropriate debate and a most appropriate way to use the time of the Legislature. I want to hear the suggestions and opinions of the members opposite on this matter as well as those of the members who sit on the government benches. Our party and our government support this resolution by the member for Lakeshore.

Ms. Fish: We support this resolution and look forward to this emergency debate today.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully and it appears from all those who have spoken that there is a consensus the debate should continue. However, according to the standing orders, I must place the question. Shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs. Grier: The revelations we had on Tuesday and again today are a testimonial to the long years of inaction and neglect of our environment. It is a sad day when we have to have an emergency debate on the quality of our drinking water in a province that is the source of drinking water for much of the northern half of this continent and that has perhaps the greatest supply of fresh water anywhere in the world.

As the minister said, it is timely that we discuss it and that we recognize we can no longer afford to neglect our fresh water supplies and our drinking water. The continual reassurances we have had that our drinking water is quite safe, despite evidence to the contrary, has led the people of this province to have a somewhat false sense of security. Not only have we been lulled into feeling that we do not have to worry and that our treatment plants are taking out any contaminants, but we have also been lulled into neglecting the development of new technology that might take out the contaminants now found in our water.

We have not developed ozone treatment, which is used in other jurisdictions to protect drinking water. We have not put in place the granular activated carbon filter beds that have been called for so often and were mentioned so much today in question period. We can reasonably assure the people of this province that they are not going to get diptheria and typhus by drinking the water we provide for them, but we can no longer reasonably assure them that there are not perhaps more long-term effects on our children and our children's children as a result of the carcinogens in the untreated water in so many instances.

Now we have found dioxin in the treated drinking water, and that surely is cause for concern. It is also cause for concern that the threshold of acceptance keeps changing. First, we are told not to worry; it is only in the untreated water. Now it is in the treated water and we are told not to worry; it is very small parts per quadrillion, and it is a form of dioxin that is less lethal than other forms of dioxin.

There is no acceptable form and no acceptable level of dioxin. My fear is that if we accept the assurances we are being given this week, it will be easy the next time to accept the next level of reassurance when some more lethal form is found and acknowledged to be there. The dioxin found this week is a result of much more stringent and frequent testing. It begs the question, if that same stringent and frequent testing were done in places other than the St. Clair River, where else might we find dioxin?

It is not good enough to say we are going to step up testing and monitoring. We ought to start immediately, in every jurisdiction that requests it, the same level of testing we have been doing in the St. Clair River since the discovery of the blob. I was glad the minister responded in the affirmative today to the question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman). He did not expand on what he meant when he said he would provide testing for any community that wanted it. I hope he meant he would provide it to the same degree as his officials have been doing in the St. Clair River in the past couple of months.

3:50 p.m.

I am very concerned about this acceptance of a maximum acceptable level of 150,000 parts per quadrillion. When I questioned the minister and his advisers as to how that standard had been arrived at, it became obvious, as the minister acknowledged in his answers today, that it is a standard that is purely Ontarian. The standard has not been subjected to scrutiny by people in other jurisdictions, by the World Health Organization or by people in other countries, because nowhere else has dioxin been found in treated drinking water. Therefore, who is to say the standard is any better than any other figure that one of us could pull out of the air? There has been no public input and no consultation in arriving at that standard.

Last November, when I moved in this House that we ought to have a safe drinking water act in this province, one of the key elements of that act was the opportunity for public involvement. As I said in my remarks in favour of having this emergency debate, all of us who drink the water have a right to have some say in what the acceptable standards are, just as we have a right to be fully informed about what has been found in drinking water.

There is no mechanism now for public involvement in the setting of those standards. It is important that it become a regular practice and that it be legislated.

The St. Clair River report shows there are a large number of organic substances in the untreated water, all of them lethal. In many instances, the substances that have been found in the untreated water match those that have been found in the tests done on the blob.

It is no longer good enough to say we are going to have pilot projects and more experiments with more sophisticated drinking-water techniques. The pilot project in Niagara, which we have heard about so frequently, is only beginning, if it has even begun. Who knows how long it will be before we get the results of that pilot project. Instead of borrowing from the experiences of other jurisdictions and putting in place granular activated carbon beds, we were told today there will be another demonstration project on the Great Lakes.

The people of this province are ready for some action. They do not want any more demonstrations. They have had a demonstration that shows there are substances in the water that they should not be ingesting. It has been said that only five per cent of our body fat comes from water. That is very misleading because our food presumably also has water in it and contributes to the amount of toxins we are taking in.

The cost of putting in granular activated carbon beds in Metropolitan Toronto was estimated by Pollution Probe in 1983 to be $19 per family per year. The people of this province have clearly indicated they are willing to pay the cost of improving the preventive measures in our environment. It is time we put in place more sophisticated drinking-water treatment systems and stop the discharges now, on an interim basis, from those industries that have been shown to exceed acceptable guidelines.

If the minister has control orders and new regulations coming some months from now, so be it; but let us not waste any more time. Let us stop Dow Chemical from discharging what we know it has been discharging and what these very serious reports say it has been discharging. It is time we got down to action. I hope the minister will not delay any longer.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In rising to speak to this motion, I will say it is my policy that matters of this kind be given full public scrutiny and that the information generated by the Ministry of the Environment be made available to the public as quickly as possible. Frequently, that information has a bearing on public health and on the public's confidence in drinking water, in air quality and in their own safety.

I welcome the opportunity to have this matter discussed by the members. In doing so, I hope we can all establish a better understanding of the need for a balanced view of environmental and public health problems raised by substances such as dioxin in our drinking water. It is my hope we can establish a new environmental protection momentum to rid ourselves of these substances at source, so we may ultimately achieve the most complete protection for the health of our citizens.

For the first time in Ontario, trace levels of dioxin, albeit in its least toxic form, have been found in treated drinking water at Mitchell's Bay, Sarnia, Wallaceburg and Windsor. No dioxins or furans were found in treated drinking water at the other points we tested, which were Stoney Point, Amherstburg and Walpole Island.

The dioxins and furans found were in the octachlorol group and are the least toxic forms of these compounds. The most toxic form of dioxin, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, has not been found in any raw or treated drinking-water supplies to date. Drinking-water supplies for all these communities meet health-related objectives.

I have the assurance of medical and toxicological experts that the levels do not pose a threat to human health. While that is the case, I am resolved to trace the sources of these materials, and where the dioxin polluters can be identified, to impose much tougher abatement controls.

Two days ago, I reported that the levels found of octadioxins and octafurans range from 10 to 22 parts per quadrillion. The levels are several thousand times below the interim health-base guideline of 150,000 parts per quadrillion or, put in other terms, 150 parts per trillion. This interim guideline was derived by an expert group of toxicologists and scientists drawn from the Department of National Health and Welfare and the provincial ministries of Health, the Environment and Labour. It is based on a thorough, two-year review of the available worldwide evidence on dioxins, published in September 1985. That evidence indicates octadioxin is 10,000 times less toxic than 2,3,7,8-TCDD.

Details of the development of scientific criteria for 2,3,7,8-TCDD are available in the ministry report entitled Scientific Criteria Document for Standard Development. The criteria have been reviewed by an independent expert group. This document is of sufficiently high standard to be used by the federal government as Canada's contribution to international discussions on dioxins in the environment.

Ontario has provided the lead in the federal-provincial process to set specific national guidelines for each form of dioxin in all environmental sources. That will be part of an expanded joint effort to set standards for dioxin in air, water and soil. Its multisource approach will ensure that the accumulative effects of exposure to dioxins and furans do not exceed the allowable daily intake developed by Ontario's expert panel.

I do not want to minimize these latest findings. However, the instances of octadioxin and octafuran detection in this survey were sporadic and are detectable only with recently developed technology that has achieved parts-per-quadrillion sensitivity.

In this study, octadioxins were found at trace levels in treated drinking water on two occasions at Mitchell's Bay, on one occasion at Sarnia and on two occasions at Wallaceburg and Windsor. Octafurans were found in one sample from Windsor.

These latest results are from sampling conducted jointly by my ministry, the Department of National Health and Welfare and Carleton University. Members will appreciate that this has required extensive co-operation and has resulted in an unprecedented flow of information on drinking-water quality. It also required the careful development of complementary laboratory protocols, which unavoidably stretch the delivery schedules. The lead time should shorten as the new joint procedures become routine.

Subsequent samples, taken earlier this month, are being analysed on a priority basis. As soon as the results are known, I will release them to the public. My ministry will continue to monitor for the entire range of dioxins and furans at these locations. As laboratory capacity becomes avail- able, we will expand testing for these compounds at other locations in the province.

The sources of dioxins are not yet known. The octa form is created from a number of sources such as incinerators and combustion of coal, wood and other fossil fuels. Octadioxins are very widely dispersed throughout the environment. Experts call it a ubiquitous contaminant, unlike its more toxic relative 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which is produced by only a few complex chemical manufacturing processes.

Analysis by the Department of National Health and Welfare of fatty tissue from both deceased and living persons in Ontario and New York state indicate there is substantial contamination of the general population by various dioxins and furans. The levels average 500 parts per trillion for octadioxins.

In a report from Vancouver in today's press, researchers have found dioxin in human beings who resided from one end of Canada to the other. According to that report, average dioxin levels were as high as 1,300 parts per trillion in British Columbia and as low as 525 parts per trillion here in Ontario; so we are not alone.

4 p.m.

We are working with the ministries of Health and Labour, the Department of National Health and Welfare, Environment Canada and medical officers of health in the St. Clair region to ensure that drinking water meets all health-related guidelines.

The question has been raised about effective treatment of dioxin in drinking water.

First, before any technology can be accurately judged, information must be gathered on the performance variation of each water treatment plant. For the starting point in this process, there must be systematic monitoring of the raw and treated drinking water for a variety of substances. My ministry has already moved decisively to provide this first step in the St. Clair River and Detroit River communities.

My ministry is intensifying its examination of treatment technologies. This evaluation of alternative water treatment technologies is a complex process. We intend to establish a fully operational, demonstration water treatment plant to conduct experiments and examine the merits and limitations of carbon filtration beds. We are also examining other technology, such as mobile, advanced water treatment facilities for short-term water quality control problems in small communities.

In the case of the St. Clair and Detroit rivers, however, we have to be concerned with two things. First, the conventional treatment did not remove all octadioxin at Sarnia, Windsor and Amherstburg. Second, the powdered activated carbon did not eliminate octadioxin at Wallaceburg.

I do not wish to hold out any promise of a miracle cure. There are clearly limits to carbon filtration. I firmly believe we must evaluate carefully any technology's effectiveness before committing ourselves to general application. This is the only way to ensure that the best technology is employed to protect the public's health.

While this is an emergency debate, what I am describing is not truly an emergency. Rather, I consider it to be a signal, a signal to search out the sources of toxic contaminants and to clean them up, and a signal to employ the best water treatment techniques, test them and refine them. This is what our government intends to do, in addition to the other measures I have indicated in the past and specific to the report that was released jointly today by Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

It is obvious that in the past, we as a society have not treated the problem of toxic contamination with the degree of seriousness with which it should be treated. We can point fingers at others, we can look at past records, but that does not really deal with the problem as it exists today and as it will exist tomorrow as we go on to develop new substances.

It was brought to my attention, for instance, that motor vehicles are going to be made of more plastic and less metal. When we produce plastics, we produce effluents that society considers not to be very good for human health and not very good for the environment. As we develop each of these substances we are confronted with these challenges. It seems to me that the primary thrust of all activity we undertake in the environmental field must truly be in the field of addressing the sources, the point sources which in some cases over the years have been allowed to pollute our atmosphere, our soil and our water.

If we begin immediately and do so in a very strong fashion and against very great pressure from those who feel we are going too far, with the support of this entire Legislature we will begin to address one of the paramount problems that confronts mankind today.

Ms. Fish: I join this debate with some pleasure in seeing discussed in this House concerns about specific levels of pollutants in our drinking water, but also with considerable concern.

My concern derives from the position the minister is taking today and has taken over the past few days with respect to these findings. The minister continually uses phrases that suggest the dioxin found is the least toxic. He engages in a discussion of numerical degrees of toxicity and suggests to us the levels found here are really quite safe. My concern with that approach goes to the core of the question; that being, what are we dealing with in this treated drinking water? We may be dealing with something not quite as deadly as it could be, but it is pretty deadly.

I have never been one of those people seized with the alphabet soup in which Ministry of the Environment officials drown members of the public and their respective ministers. The reason I have never been very taken with that discussion is that on no occasion could any officials, laboratory scientists, doctors, medical personnel, researchers in other agencies, levels of government or universities provide any assurance whatsoever on two critical points.

The first is, what is the safe level? The answer is that they do not know. They do not know because we do not yet know what happens over time and we do not know how these chemicals combine with others. We are not entirely sure where they all come from.

The second concern I alluded to is the ubiquitous cocktail effect. We as a society do not know what the cocktail effect is, nor do the incredibly brilliant, dedicated research scientists who have spent years at it. The previous government, of which I happen to have been part, took a number of steps; for example, extending the laboratory system and providing for special testing at Lakehead University on cocktail effects, commencing the kind of testing of raw, recreational and drinking water that ultimately produced the findings we are dealing with in part today. The point is that we do not now know what the effects are.

When he was not on the government benches, the minister indicated a query as to who was to say what quantity was safe and what was not, or who was to say what the effect would be of a combination or cocktail of these chemicals. He instinctively alluded to it by indicating again to this House and to the public that the established standards are interim only, and he readily admits the chemicals in question are lethal.

For the minister to extend himself that next critical step and to answer his question of November 1984 by saying then that he did not believe any who might have suggested there was a safe level, and then today, because he hears the advice in a ministerial briefing, to say he is prepared to accept it, I think is rather sad.

It is sad because those same officials would not be prepared to stand up and say that dioxin in drinking water consumed by humans is just fine and they are not worried. The fact is, they are deeply worried about that, the amounts to be ingested, and the cocktail effect.

4:10 p.m.

There is no question in my mind that steps must continue to be taken, as they have been over time, and as have also been indicated in the various studies that have come forward concerning, for example, the steadily improving conditions in the St. Clair River or how to deal with the source of the pollution and effluents occurring there. That is notable and worthy. However, let me offer a small caution in the course of reviewing the possible sources of this form of dioxin in the water, which is really deadly, but not quite as deadly as some others that might be there; before this we were glad the others were not there, but this not-so-deadly one is there, even though it is deadly. The sources of that one include burning wood.

I hope we are not going to see a variation on the Reagan theme. Members will remember him, the President of the United States. He thought acid rain was caused by killer trees. I hope the new Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) does not believe this form of dioxin in the atmosphere and drinking water is caused by killer yule logs.

Let me go to the other point, the question of alternative water supply and safe drinking water. The minister suggests he is unprepared to move on the activated carbon filtration because we do not quite know whether it works. I put it to the minister that we know it works. The staff knows it works. They told me it works. Why are they not telling the minister it works?

I think the real reason we are not moving on an extended program of activated carbon is found on page 3 of today's Toronto Sun. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) suggests the problem with having a widespread program of activated-carbon-filter water treatment plants is that it would cost trillions of dollars. Expert accountant that he is, he has not persuaded me of that dollar cost. I would be interested in understanding what specific analysis has been undertaken of that cost. Is the Premier prepared to do it in a couple of cases if it is cheap enough, but not prepared to engage in an extensive program we already know works when he thinks it might be a bit costly? I put it to this House that this is the bottom line.

Finally, I want to deal with the question of alternative safe water being supplied when dioxins are found in the treated drinking water. I am amazed that the minister has been unprepared to state clearly that he would, right now, today, provide alternative water in those communities where dioxin has been found. I draw to the minister's attention that in the case of something as simple and easily broken down in the environment as alachlor, widely used on his soybean crop by his colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), among others, there is an immediate supply of alternative water whenever there is a trace of alachlor found in the drinking water of the farmers and residents of southwestern Ontario.

The people in southwestern Ontario off the fauns, who live in the cities and are now being asked to drink water that contains dioxin -- deadly dioxin, but not quite as deadly as some other form of dioxin that might be there -- are being denied the same treatment. That belies the minister's clear intention in this matter.

Mr. Hayes: The Minister of the Environment has seen fit to release the water quality study of the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair. I know the minister and his staff have been working very hard trying to deal with the problem of toxic substances in our drinking water, a problem they have inherited from the previous government. However, I must point out to the minister that although his government inherited this problem and many others the previous government failed to deal with, toxic chemicals are still being dumped into the St. Clair River today. Blaming the previous government is no longer acceptable. It is time for the minister to take action.

The St. Clair River report is a shocking testimonial to years of allowing the companies in the Chemical Valley virtually to run free, with a free rein in polluting our waters. The sad thing is that these companies are still being allowed to dump toxic chemicals in our waterways. As long as we have weak legislation and pittance fines, these companies will continue to pollute.

Right now, Dow Chemical legally discharges 242 kilograms of volatile hydrocarbons each day. Six major pollutants account for 84 per cent of this contamination: perchloroethylene, benzene, ethylbenzene, carbon tetrachloride, 1,2-dichloroethane and 1,2-dichloropropane. Benzene and ethylbenzene are being dumped in at a rate of 130 kilograms per day. Most of these chemicals are known or suspected carcinogens.

Dow is legally being allowed to pollute the St. Clair River because this province has no restrictions on these chemicals. It has been ruining the water quality of the Great Lakes for years without any interference from the ministry. When will this ministry act to restrict the chemical flood being poured into the river every day by Dow?

Even the most recent charges against Dow for disposing of waste in its salt caverns point out the absurdity of the present system. If Dow is convicted of failing to comply with conditions of approval and is guilty of four charges, the maximum fine is $2,000 per count under the Environmental Protection Act. There are another two charges with fines of $5,000 per count. That is a lousy $18,000 for years of illegal disposal of waste and a mess that will probably cost -- who knows? -- anywhere from $15 million to maybe $100 million to clean up, if they ever try to clean it up.

I cannot understand why the minister does not accept our nine-point program for clean water. Even if the minister simply agreed to put in the granular activated carbon filtration systems in the affected communities, that would be a great start. I implore the minister to take immediate action to install the granular activated carbon filtration systems, raise the maximum fine for those who continually dump pollutants in our water and accept and implement Bill 62, the Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act, as presented by the New Democratic Party critic for Environment, the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier).

A man can accomplish a lot of things if he does not mind who gets the credit for it. If the minister accepts the request from our Environment critic, we will not mind if he gets the credit.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want to address the problem of developing reliable and effective programs to remove dioxins and furans from our drinking water.

As the minister stated, before any treatment method can be selected for use in situations where toxic contaminants may exist, all methods need to be examined and the best and most effective one chosen. It has been suggested by some that activated carbon filtration or granular activated carbon is the panacea we need.

However, the results of the dioxin testing in the St. Clair River area may cause one to look again. While it is true that the conventional treatment did not remove all the octadioxin at Sarnia, Windsor and Amherstburg, it is also true that the activated carbon treatment did not remove the octadioxin at Wallaceburg.

4:20 p.m.

More study is required before we proceed to spend large amounts of money to install activated carbon treatment at the communities that require it. However, the need for further study does not mean the issue is being placed on the back burner. The government realizes a speedy solution to this problem is required. With this in mind, the Ministry of the Environment is intensifying its research into the available water treatment technologies, such as a demonstration water treatment project to be used as a basis for comparison between different treatment methods. The project will compare the conventional, activated carbon and other innovative treatment processes.

I would like to address a few issues concerning water treatment.

With respect to granular activated carbon or activated carbon filtration, there are no published studies that consistently prove the removal effectiveness of activated filtration for dioxins or furans from water. However, in consideration of the chemical formulae and characteristics of the various dioxin and furan isomers, some estimates of removal efficiency can be made.

It should be noted there is no evidence at present that granular activated carbon offers a superior dioxin-removing capability over conventional water treatment. Granular activated carbon will remove organic contaminants, but when used in the contactor mode will tend to leach contaminants back into the finished water. Thus, in a spill, the granular activated carbon must be removed from the contactor and replaced subsequent to its having absorbed the spill; otherwise, the spill material will be leached back into the water. It requires $30,000 to $35,000 to replace the granular activated carbon after each spill or each occurrence of the contaminant in the raw water, which is removed by granular activated carbon.

Clearly, there are problems with these systems that need to be addressed and this government will and is addressing them.

Conventional treatment consists of particulate removal and disinfection, with particulate removal being accomplished by chemically assisted coagulation, settling and filtration, and disinfection accomplished by chlorination. Conventional treatment removes chemical contaminants of concern -- for example, heavy metals, and organisms responsible for water-borne disease. With few exceptions, water in Ontario is treated by conventional techniques, that is, coagulation-filtration with chlorine as the disinfectant of choice.

Over $2 billion has been spent in Ontario in the last 30 years to provide conventional water treatment for 98 per cent of our population. The few exceptions are where other disinfectants and treatments are applied on a temporary basis to deal with a specific problem.

There is a perception that conventional treatment is inadequate in removing trace contaminants. There is no question the discovery of new contaminants has challenged the conventional treatment method.

Trihalomethanes, or THMs, substances of potential health concern, are produced in the conventional, disinfection treatment process. However, changing the process configuration has proved the continued effectiveness of conventional treatment in producing water with low levels of THMs. Investigations in Ontario also showed conventional treatment is effective in the removal of asbestos from drinking water.

Recent surveys of drinking-water quality indicate conventional treatment removes most contaminants of concern, shown by the very low frequency of occurrence and concentration of contaminants found in treated water.

The ministry's water resources branch, drinking water section, has a technical advisory group continually updating and optimizing conventional processes and providing advice to operating authorities on water treatment processes. As these new contaminants are discovered, the Ministry of the Environment has called for a thorough examination of conventional treatment methodology for the removal of these trace organics and for an assessment of alternative treatment methods such as activated carbon absorption. More needs to be and is being done.

The Niagara Falls water-treatment pilot-plant study is investigating removal of trace organic contaminants from drinking water. The work is being carried out by MacLaren Plansearch and is estimated to require two and half to three years. A steering committee has been set up comprising staff of the Ministry of the Environment, the Department of National Health and Welfare and other internationally recognized experts in the field of toxic organics and the removal of trace organics from drinking water; Environment Canada is participating in an observer role. Objectives of the project are:

1. To assess the effectiveness of optimized conventional drinking-water treatment for the removal of trace organic contaminants;

2. To assess the effectiveness of activated carbon-absorption removal of trace organic contaminants when used in add-on contactor mode; and

3. To determine the process design and operational parameters.

The optimization work will involve the use of new coagulations and flocculents, pH adjustment, mixing energy, etc. In addition, the work will examine the air-stripping process for effectiveness in removing a range of volatile organic contaminants. The cost of the study is going to be about $1 million. Preliminary studies are almost completed. Bench-scale studies will begin next month and the pilot plant is expected to be operational by March.

As well, the ministry is studying a proposal for treating short-term water quality problems in small communities by utilizing mobile treatment facilities. Along the same lines, another proposed method of investigation is the setting up of pilot or demonstration plants at selected locations, preferably mobile, so that operations at different sites can be assessed.

The adequacy of treatment will be assessed in relation to removal of conventional contaminants, removal of trace contaminants of concern, operational parameters and cost. Based on the results of the Niagara pilot-plant study, the ministry will assess the feasibility of using these pilot-scaled units in determining the efficiency of alternative treatment techniques.

As well, the ministry has carried out and funded several other research projects, such as research to investigate water disinfection processes, including treatment-product formulation -- for example, as mentioned before, THMs -- and control in the chlorination process.

Second, the ministry has also directed a study on ozonation as an alternative to chlorination for drinking water. The report indicates good disinfection results and no indication of increased mutagenicity for byproduct production. It emphasizes the need for post-chlorination for distributed water.

The report includes a summary of cost for full-scale installations. A current study of ozonation will identify gaps in technology and indicate immediate needs for further research in the area.

Finally, the ministry, jointly with the Department of National Health and Welfare, has directed a study of a new water treatment method for THM precursors and synthetic organic removal. This study will examine new alternative coagulations for use in optimized conventional treatment systems. It indicated good reductions in overall organic levels.

There have been claims that public interest groups have not been given an opportunity to provide input into water treatment issues. This is not the case. Public input is very important to this open government. The public-interest liaison committee on drinking-water issues, of which several interest groups are members, is currently working to develop a method for obtaining public input into the ministry's standards-setting process.

It should be apparent from the preceding remarks that this government is concerned about protecting our drinking water from contaminants, whatever they may be. The government recognizes the limitations of the existing conventional systems and is taking steps immediately to ensure these systems are adequate. Research on activated carbon systems is under way and new alternative ways of dealing with short-term water quality programs are being examined.

At this point, I believe it should be stressed that the monitoring of the St. Clair River area will continue. If the levels of dioxin change, appropriate action will be taken immediately. At the present time, the levels of dioxins are well below the recommended guidelines. No effective programs to remove the compounds are currently required. Local medical officers of health and medical and toxicological experts agree that the existing levels do not pose a threat to human health and meet all health-related guidelines.

Common sense tells us, however, to prepare for the time, if it ever comes, when the levels of dioxin may pose a threat. The government has undertaken those precautions through research and development and will continue to do so.

Mr. Brandt: I am pleased to participate in this debate. I have to tell my friend the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) that I have heard him speak in this House on a number of occasions. With all due respect, he is much better on the attack than he is on the defence.

He did an admirable job of reading that prepared address, which obviously came from the bowels of the Ministry of the Environment in some fashion or another. I enjoyed listening to the technical dissertation, however, and appreciate that the minister shared that information with us.

4:30 p.m.

One of the problems related to this whole question of water quality is that we are dealing with the issue of emerging technology, technology that has moved us from parts per million, to parts per billion, to parts per trillion and to parts per quadrillion. As the minister well knows, the difficulty in having detection equipment and being able to sample at levels higher than has ever been the case in our history, certainly in this jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction in the world, is that we do not always know what those particular results mean.

This has been raised by a number of speakers. One can come up with a number of 10 to 22 parts per quadrillion with respect to dioxin and the member for Lakeshore can say it is unsafe at any level and therefore should be zero. The minister can say that the health level assured on the part of health officials federally and his own department people -- you are not leaving because of something I said, are you, Mr. Speaker? -- has indicated that 150,000 parts per quadrillion is a safe level. I understand that is over a lifetime of consumption.

This is a very major debate we have entered into here today, raising some of the questions as to whether or not we are dealing with safe levels of toxicity, whether we deal with dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls or whatever the toxic substance may happen to be. I share some of the frustration the minister has. That is what he gets paid extra for.

I want to say to the member for Lakeshore in particular, but also to the others who have spoken on this issue, that I certainly agree with the comments made by various speakers. I want to join the group in favour of zero discharges and an environment that does not have any levels of contamination in it.

However, there is no magic elixir. To use the minister's words, one cannot wave a magic wand and clear up all the problems. I am so impressed with the level of patience the minister now has acquired that he did not have when he was seated only a few seats from where I am now, probably in the same chair I occupy at the moment.

Then he indicated that the immediate installation of activated carbon filtration would cure some of our problems, that no level of contamination should be acceptable and that we should move very rapidly to an absolutely pristine and noncontaminated environment. I want him to know I will hold his hand and walk that path with him, but I will on occasion ask him how come we are not reaching that magic point in the future somewhat quicker than perhaps we are reaching it now.

In all fairness, I want to say something to the member for Lakeshore, who made the point that the chemical industries in Sarnia have abandoned their responsibility, have simply taken advantage of the environment and are criminally corporate -- that is my term, not hers -- in the sense they do not care what they do about impinging any of these environmental contaminants into the St. Clair River.

I want to share this because I know the member is as sincere in what she is saying in her remarks as I am in my remarks. I do not know of another area in the entire province, for that matter or in any other jurisdiction in this entire country, that has spent more capital dollars to control environmental problems and improve on the environment than the industries have in the Chemical Valley or the Sarnia area generally. They have made an extremely responsible thrust towards attempting to cure the problems.

I admit they have not yet cured them all. That report very clearly points out that there are some difficulties, but the report and some of the information the minister gave today as an example does not talk about some of the extremely dramatic breakthroughs those industries have been able to achieve, such as almost zero discharges now in sulphur dioxide, the major contributor towards acid rain. That has not been mentioned.

Suddenly, we have a situation where there is a joint federal-provincial report which is targeted at a particular area, that area being the St. Clair River. The report is entitled Pollution Investigation. I would appeal to the minister, while he is addressing and repairing the problem of environmental difficulties in the St. Clair River, perhaps to cast his glance somewhat further into other areas of the province.

For example, and I was not going to bring this up, the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes), who I see has now left the Legislature after he had an opportunity to speak, failed to mention that the discharges from the Ford Motor Co. in Windsor are double those from Dow Chemical. They are not necessarily the same contaminants, but that is the level of contamination being discharged. Did the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) know this? Did the member know there are polluters in his area?

Does the member know, for example, that the city of Windsor is discharging raw sewage into the St. Clair River? Does the member know the level of polychlorinated biphenyls being discharged from the American side from the Rouge River are probably 15 to 20 times what they are to the north in the Sarnia area?

What is being done about those particular jurisdictions? I think the minister has an obligation. I want to share that with him in the context of this debate today. He should do more than simply say he thinks these levels are safe, that the companies still have problems to be addressed and that his ministry is going to tighten the screws on them to ensure they comply with a new set of regulations and standards which are going to be developed for this province.

I think the minister has to look upon this as not all that different from the situation with Inco in Sudbury, where he has the balancing of jobs versus the environment in that particular situation. Concerning Inco, he said he would go to the industry's assistance and provide it with funds to help clear up the SO₄ problem.

When there was difficulty in Niagara Falls with the sewage treatment plant, it was the former government and this minister that made a commitment in the present minister's area to help construct a new, more effective and larger capacity sewage treatment plant to clear up the problem.

I can recall some comments with respect to the pulp and paper companies and how effective the program was when the federal and provincial governments got together and were able to reduce the discharges of pulp and paper companies in Ontario very substantially.

I have to read for the record that the number-one volume polluter, excluding salt -- which I do not consider to be a major pollutant in the Great Lakes -- happens to be Great Lakes Forest Products in Thunder Bay with a discharge of some 60,000 kilograms per day.

To put it in context, that happens to be about 10 times the discharge of the largest polluter in the Sarnia area. I say to the minister that he not only has an obligation to look at Sarnia, which has some problems that have been spread through the media in a very wide-ranging way during the course of the past few months, but he has an opportunity now, since he is taking this new aggressive direction, to look at our whole series of companies, our whole series of municipalities, and other point sources that are causing the problems he has now identified. He has the responsibility and obligation to do more than just identify the problem, but to help and, in some instances, to make the polluter pay.

I know he is going to say that and I agree with that. In addition to making the polluter pay, there has to be some participation on the part of his government to assist those industries either financially or certainly with the technology that would be necessary to meet these particular levels of achievement.

I see my time has expired, but the bottom line is that we in this province are going to work with the minister and the government to see that the water that we consume is safe, is healthy and is of the highest quality we can develop in a technological sense anywhere in the world.

I share that concern with him. I shared it when I was the minister. I have not changed in that regard; I feel quite the same way now. I only ask him to make the rules of the ball game fair, uniform and applicable across the board to all industries and all areas of the province. That is what I ask.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr. Charlton: Mountain.

The Acting Speaker: Hamilton Mountain.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Charlton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the whole city. I do not want to get into the debate, as the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) did, about whether one area is a little worse than another. I also do not want, as the member for Sarnia did, to get wrapped up in the discussion of volumes of pollutants. We are here to talk about concentrations of toxics and the dangers to human health and other environmental aspects.

On the one hand, I am pleased with some of the apparently new approaches the Minister of the Environment is taking to his role as compared to some of his predecessors in the former administration. On the other hand, I see both him and his colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) falling into a trap that all his predecessors fell into. To see that same trap continuing bothers me no end.

In his statement and earlier comments in this debate, the minister talked about the scientific opinions upon which these supposed safe levels have been developed. A few moments ago the former minister made reference to pristine environments. He should stop and think about one of those pristine environments, the one in which the scientific community works, those scientists and toxicologists to whom he is referring.

The minister knows full well that when scientists work to establish a safe level of any toxic substance, they work with that substance in isolation, under controlled situations and in a pure environment. We have had discussions on many occasions in this House, and on numerous occasions I have heard the minister talk about those things we do not know and science cannot deal with; we have totally neglected those things in the debate here today.

There is a significant body of scientific opinion out there that agrees with my colleague the member for Lakeshore and with me that, whether we are talking about 2,3,7,8-TCDD or about octadioxin, there is no safe level of any carcinogen like those. That body of scientific opinion holds that view for a range of reasons, not because one cannot perhaps somewhere find a safe level of that substance in isolation. However, those substances accumulate when they get into the environment, and in addition to accumulating, they go through processes we call biomagnification as they work their way through the food chain.

The minister is also fully aware, because I have heard him refer to these things in his past comments as an opposition member, that in addition to those processes we also have a huge unknown called the effects of the synergistic mixing of different substances. We do not know the effects of dioxin in combination with the other chemicals obviously present in those water supplies, albeit also in minute quantities, even with substances such as dioxin, which is in a range of substances not very soluble either in water or in other substances. We still do not know in the case of a carcinogen, even if one is consuming safe levels of that carcinogen taken in isolation, what the impact of that carcinogen is if one is also consuming a safe level of one, two, three or four other carcinogens.

To take the approach that because the level of this one substance that has been identified and focused on is somehow safe, when we have not established and answered all those questions about mixing and about double exposure, is to try to provide the people of Ontario an assurance -- I go back again to some comments my colleague the member for Lakeshore made -- that some day, when we see the effects on our children and grandchildren, we will all regret.

The member for Sarnia is correct to the extent that there are no magic wands or instant solutions, but I want to say to the minister that the attitude and approach are extremely important in the level of resolution we can reach.

If we continue, as we have in the past, to take the attitude that this level of this substance is safe, even though it is now getting through the filtration process, then the level of urgency we will feel as policy-makers -- and the minister specifically as the policy implementer -- with respect to how to react and how to approach the problem, is much different from taking the attitude that we should be damned scared because it is getting through at all and we do not know what the effect will be in combination with other things.

It is good the minister has said he is going to try to accelerate the programs around alternative methods of filtration and specifically around the activated carbon bed approach. Again, the attitude with which he views the severity of the problem will ultimately dictate the degree to which the acceleration occurs and the amount of money he can rip out of his colleagues, and specifically the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), to augment that program to reflect the real severity of the problem.

In my view, the minister is falling into a trap that has been perpetrated by those who work in an environment where, even though they are making their recommendations from the scientific and toxicological community in an honest and sincere way, they cannot honestly and sincerely, in a social and real-world way, provide us with a realistic view of the degree and seriousness of the problem we have to deal with.

I urge the minister to extract himself from that trap and to work with his colleagues the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) to see that they extract themselves from it and put a sense of urgency into dealing with these problems that will reflect the potential dangers about which we know nothing. In that way, a generation from now, those who follow us in this assembly will not be standing here in 30 years debating and bemoaning the failures of this Legislature and this government to act quickly enough to preclude in our society what could be one of the biggest disasters that history will ever record.

Mr. D. W. Smith: In speaking to this motion, I wish to address the question that arises every time we deal with dioxins or furans: What are the safe levels of exposure to these chemicals, if any? Also, should we be alarmed at the levels found recently in the communities of Mitchell's Bay, Sarnia, Wallaceburg and Windsor?

It is quite easy to be alarmed about these chemicals. We have all seen and heard in various media reports about the dangers of dioxin. It is 10,000 times as toxic as DDT. Just one quarter of a single ounce of 2,3,7,8-TCDD mixed in water has the ability to kill five million people. Remember there are 20 million people who draw their water from the Great Lakes. I say it is a very toxic material.

4:50 p.m.

There is still a lot we do not know about dioxins and their long-term effects on human beings. Common sense tells us to err on the side of caution until all the facts are in and accounted for. However, conflicting statements are often seen in the scientific literature. The current issue of Scientific American contains an article which states there have been no studies that demonstrate severe chronic human effects due to dioxin.

How are we to respond in the face of incomplete scientific knowledge? Obviously, some standards are needed now, although the question of what level of minimal exposure to the chemical is safe and prevents any adverse health effects remains unanswered.

This government starts from the premise that most dioxins and furans are toxic, but it must be remembered that degree of toxicity depends on many factors: dosage, route and condition of exposure, and toxicity of a particular type of dioxin or furan.

Dioxins refer to a family of 75 related chemical compounds. The most toxic form of dioxin is the product of a chemical manufacturing process used in the manufacture of pesticides. Other forms are less toxic. The octachlorodioxin found in the water samples from the St. Clair River area is estimated to be 10,000 times less toxic than the 2,3,7,8-T₄CDD dioxin. As well, it is one of the most common forms being produced through the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels.

Still, as the minister stated, the detection of any form of dioxin in drinking water is a reason for concern. To answer these concerns, the Ministry of the Environment formed a committee to develop the scientific basis for creating standards for dioxins and furans. The study examined the sources and exposure implications of these chemicals, and on November 26, 1985, produced a 536-page report, which I hold here, entitled the Scientific Criteria Document for Standard Development No. 4-84. The report was reviewed and approved by a special panel of world-renowned experts. It used a multisource approach to the exposure of furans to dioxins. This was to ensure that the total sum of all exposures would never exceed the allowable daily intake.

The recommended maximum allowable daily intake was the result of exhaustive scientific research. Without getting too technical, the maximum allowable daily intake was based on a threshold safety factor approach; this takes the threshold at which further increases in dioxin cause cancer and divides that concentration by a safety factor. The safety factor used was 100, and the recommended maximum allowable daily intake for the most toxic dioxin was 10 picograms per kilogram of body weight per day.

These are not numbers pulled out of the blue, as the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) has suggested. Extensive and reliable data from chronic animal studies and the existing human tissue studies were used.

For other forms of dioxins, the recommended maximum allowable daily intake was calculated by comparing the toxicity of these forms to the most toxic dioxin and changing the intake appropriately.

The federal government has approved of the report and even tabled a draft of the report as part of Canada's contribution to a meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization committee on challenges in modern society held in Germany in September 1985. As well, the report is being used as the basis for developing national guidelines for all forms of dioxins from all possible sources, including drinking water.

Thus, by careful study and use of a safety factor, the Ministry of the Environment has provided a recommended maximum allowable daily intake that has been approved by experts in and outside Canada.

With the development of several severe pollution problems in the St. Clair River last fall, the estimates outlined in the Scientific Criteria Document for Standard Development were used in the formation of interim drinking-water guidelines by the Ministry of the Environment, the provincial ministries of Health and Labour and the Department of National Health and Welfare.

That is the way the situation stood when the trace levels of octachlorodioxins were discovered in the drinking water of several communities in the St. Clair River region. Were those levels of the least toxic dioxin, octachlorodioxin, safe? I believe the answer is yes. Although this government would be the first to admit the appearance of a dioxin is a matter of concern, it is not a reason for undue alarm.

I believe this for several reasons. The levels found were from fewer than 10 parts per quadrillion to 22 parts per quadrillion. The positive results were found in very few -- approximately eight -- of the 200 samples taken. The recorded levels were well below the level of 150,000 parts per quadrillion, which is an interim guideline set for that form of dioxin. The dioxin found was the least toxic form.

Although the recorded level of the octachlorodioxin is several thousand times below the recommended guideline, some would question the adequacy of that interim guideline. Members should know the guidelines are based on an allocation of only five per cent of the total allowable daily intake to drinking water. They are based on the best available scientific information currently existing and include built-in safety factors. The levels are so low that they are detectable only with recently developed technology, and even so are only on the edge of the detection limit.

There is some question whether the guideline, based as it is on a 60-kilogram individual drinking two litres per day, truly takes into account sensitive people such as children, pregnant women and those with immunodeficiencies. The guideline does provide adequate protection. The 60-kilogram, two-litre calculation deliberately overestimates the dose one could get by fulfilling those conditions.

Regarding pregnant women, concern centres on the possible reproductive effects caused by exposure to dioxin. Animal studies have been conducted to establish the dose of 2,3,7,8-TCDD required to elicit an observable reproductive effect. The dose required to show an effect was higher than that required to give rise to cancer in test animals. Therefore, since the value of 15 parts per quadrillion is based on that dose, it gives rise to no observable effect. The effect being sought is cancer formation. This number will provide a wide margin of safety for reproductive effects.

Others suggest there is a proposed standard level of less than one part per quadrillion by the US Environmental Protection Agency. One must keep in mind that the form of dioxin discussed here is the most toxic form, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and not the form seen in the St. Clair River, which is octachlorodioxin and has a toxicity level 10,000 times lower than 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The comparable guideline for the highly toxic dioxin is 15 parts per quadrillion.

With all due respect to the companies of the Chemical Valley as well as other areas on the Great Lakes, I want to say that I am in no way trying to force the closure of their plants by scare tactics. However, we do have an environment and a Great Lakes water system that we have to protect, and we must consider methods of greater controls as costs of production in the future. I should add that the Great Lakes account for about 37 per cent of the world's available fresh water.

In conclusion, this government feels the guidelines are adequate and do represent a reliable level against which to compare the dioxin levels. The results have shown we must exercise concern and caution, but they do not justify alarm.

Mr. Stevenson: I am also pleased to join this debate on a very serious topic which is of considerable concern to the people of Ontario.

I want to take a somewhat different approach from those taken by other speakers today and to refer to some recent developments in other areas of environmental research. I want to draw some parallels with the concerns that exist on dioxin and to try to stimulate the minister and his ministry to become somewhat more aggressive in dealing with these issues.

To give some indication, I happened to bring along a small publication entitled Air Pollution Effects on Plants. It is a scientific research review I did in 1972. It was the first research, the first literature review conducted for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food on air pollution effects on plants. It was submitted to the ministry in November 1972.

5 p.m.

To give some idea of the great progress that has been made in areas of environmental research, I want to point out with one example, sulphur dioxide, where the state of the art was at that time and how it affected plants. I mention briefly at the bottom of the section on sulphur dioxide that damage is frequently reported under conditions of fog or in heavy dew, and stated how spots appeared on the leaves of plants and so on.

At that time we were aware, but just barely, of long-range transport and acid precipitation. The idea of the sort of chemical cocktail that existed in the atmosphere and how atmospheric conditions affected that chemical cocktail was just becoming known and was most frequently seen in local conditions and again in conditions of heavy dew and not long-range transport of rain. One can see how the knowledge in that one area has expanded so greatly from 1972 to 1986, yet we still have a long way to go.

Today, we are in somewhat the same position with dioxins. I would like to point out that at the time I left the University of Guelph in 1976, we were conducting research and using mass spectrographs, spectrophotometers and gas chromatographs, the same sorts of instruments they are using today in research. Granted, we were measuring different substances than they are working on today, but at that time if we could measure concentrations of chemicals in soil, water or plant tissue at the level of five parts per million, we were very pleased with our accomplishments.

Today we are measuring at five parts per quadrillion, which is an improvement of one million times in the level of detection. I can say for sure that the level of knowledge as to the effect of those chemicals on our bodies or on our environment most certainly has not improved anywhere near one million times in that relatively brief time.

That gives members some background on what we are dealing with. I am not saying this in any way to try to defend the minister or the ministry. In the research that has been done in all parts of the world, particularly in North America and here in Canada, we have made tremendous strides, but we also very clearly have tremendous challenges ahead of us.

I am somewhat surprised this debate is taking place today, because when the minister first took over he was treated in the Toronto Star like some environmental saint. One would almost have thought the Star was some house organ of the Liberal Party. It seemed concerns like this would never occur again in Ontario. The article had comments in it as if it were some fan magazine. As I say, I am quite surprised this debate is even going on.

I want to refer to a situation with which I am slightly more familiar than the one in the Windsor-Sarnia area. That is the situation on Lake Simcoe. We too have had a study that has been going on for some time on Lake Simcoe water quality. That refers entirely to phosphorus, which is a much less dangerous situation than dioxin. Phosphorus is a basic element of the earth, is present in virtually everything that exists on the surface of the earth and is necessary in our own bodies to carry on basic life. However, we have too much of it in the lake and the report clearly indicated that.

In the four years from 1981 to 1985, the previous government allocated somewhere between $80 million and $100 million to the improvement of the sewage treatment plants on Lake Simcoe to reduce the phosphorus loadings of that lake. I wait with anticipation to see what the current government will do to continue that important work to improve Lake Simcoe.

Their efforts to this point have not been that great. The Ministry of Natural Resources just cancelled the fish culture station on the lake that had been announced more than a year ago. So I stand here and wonder if the level of activity this government will show in the St. Clair River will parallel the activity on Lake Simcoe. There will be a great deal of rhetoric, but basically it will boil down to a big yawn.

Over the next while, I would like the minister to try to define the term "toxic rain." I expect that means toxic precipitation, but I would like to have him more clearly define for me what that term means in southern Ontario. When I look at the situation with dioxin and the fact that it is supposedly ubiquitous -- although I am not sure it is quite as ubiquitous as the minister's rhetoric -- I would like to have a better idea of what the sources are, how it gets into the atmosphere and whether that toxin comes down as dry deposition or as precipitation.

It is quite important to have a better idea of the chemistry in the atmosphere on dioxin, because as we deal with the problem -- and I agree with the minister; we must attack it at the source -- sometimes there are secondary measures that can be taken. Those secondary measures may well be different if we knew it was dry deposition or if we knew it was coming down in the form of precipitation.

I would also urge the minister to take a hard look at the background levels of these chemicals over a great many years. If dioxin is a product of combustion, which it appears to be, is there any way of determining what the native people in this province were exposed to 300 and 400 years ago? Those who lived in longhouses were exposed to very high levels of smoke.

I am wondering if there is any way of determining what sort of content they may have had in their body tissues. Unfortunately, we will have only bone to sample and not liver or fatty tissue. However, if there is any way of allaying the concerns of some people on this issue, I would recommend strongly that the minister look not just at the levels in the water that exist today, but take a long look at the history in this province.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I rise to speak in this debate without a great deal of knowledge on the whole issue of drinking water and the chemical problems we face, not only in the Windsor-Essex area, not only along the St. Clair River, but also, I suspect, in the entire Great Lakes and many other water sources across this province.

I find drinking water to be a very difficult issue to deal with as a politician, because it is not quite as simple as going back to one's home constituency and simply saying the water we are drinking is in bad shape. What is the alternative right now? What am I to tell my constituents they are supposed to drink for the rest of today and tomorrow, and in the future? It is something that we politicians have to try not to scare people about but to deal with in a realistic way.

I do not think it is realistic to diminish the problem either. Over the last number of years, the problem of pollution of our Great Lakes and our drinking-water sources has been diminished by the former government and, I fear, by the authorities who are advising the minister today.

5:10 p.m.

I come from a community that has been confronted with the problems of bad drinking water, or potentially bad drinking water, for quite some time. I believe my constituents are worried; they are frightened. I really do not know what to suggest to them. I do not feel comfortable telling them that because the authorities advising the minister say the drinking water is of adequate quality, they can continue to drink it.

I do not feel comfortable saying that because I have dealt with people who worked at Bendix Corp. in Windsor where workers were exposed to asbestos over the years. For years those workers were told exposure to asbestos was fine and there were no health risks.

I have talked to workers at Valenite-Modco Ltd. who for years were told that exposure to cobalt dust was okay. Now I have a constituent, Larry Girard, whom I know quite well, who is dying of hard metals disease.

I fear very much that five, 10 or 15 years from now, more evidence is going to come out and we, as the political leaders of today and the political leaders of the past, are going to see that the poisoning of our Great Lakes by companies such as Dow Chemical Canada has caused all sorts of health problems that many of us and many of the scientists cannot determine right now.

The current problems in my area and in other areas of Ontario are not new. The debate about the quality of raw water and drinking water in the St. Clair and Detroit rivers goes back many years. I was reviewing some of my files. In the early 1980s, Dr. Cummins, a professor at the University of Western Ontario, gave an interview on a local radio station. He was talking about the potential problems of the poisoning of the St. Clair and Detroit rivers.

I remember suggesting to the minister of the day, Keith Norton, that there had to be a response from the Ministry of the Environment. The minister got up and made a statement in the Legislature. I am going to quote part of page 3 of the statement: "The water supply of the city of Windsor is well within acceptable guidelines for drinking-water quality. A check of test results from the ministry and the Windsor Utilities Commission shows that."

On page 4, he states: "In a letter to the Windsor Utilities Commission, the medical officer of health, Dr. Jones, concludes the following: `There is no proven association between domes tic water supply and health problems. In my opinion, the residents of Windsor-Essex should have no fear from drinking the domestic water supply.'"

On page 6, he states: "Since 1977, my ministry has been engaged in detailed work in monitoring the St. Clair River. The entire purpose of this study is to define any existing and/or potential problems with the water quality that could have impact on human consumption and devise solutions before any problems could become serious."

The suggestion that monitoring has been going on since 1977 is a joke. Many of the problems that are finally coming to light publicly must have been known within the Ministry of the Environment and were never made public.

As I understand it, a report that was available in the early 1980s was suppressed by the previous government. Questions about it have been raised in the Legislature for four or five years. We are finally having a public debate on this issue which I think not only has to be debated but also has to be dealt with. I would hope that is what this government will do.

I think the scientists in the Ministry of the Environment and the political leaders of the past have known about this problem, but they, along with the big corporations in this province, have not been totally honest.

Miss Stephenson: The member has to be crazy.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I suggest that the member for York Mills read the information, especially the St. Clair study. There was a St. Clair study available in the early 1980s which was not released.

The Great Lakes Institute at the University of Windsor first discovered this blob in September 1984. It reported it to the Ministry of the Environment. The information was never released to the public until the new government took office. That is a fact.

I suggest the honourable member check with her colleague the member for Sarnia and ask him point blank why that information was never made public. There has never been an explanation. Many of us in our communities are damned angry that information was withheld.

We have a right to know it. In our society today, when there are environmental problems and people are being exposed to chemicals about which no one knows the long-term effects, they have a right to know that information. We do not have right-to-know legislation in this province. The Conservatives did not bring in that kind of legislation because they were not interested in protecting the public from those large companies; they were interested in protecting the companies' investments.

Miss Stephenson: That is not true.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That is exactly true. The record and their history in government will show it. It is one of the reasons they were thrown out of office on May 2.

I invite the member for York Mills, a medical doctor, to read some of this information on the St. Clair River. It is absolutely appalling. Dow Chemical can discharge 242 kilograms of poison on a daily basis and we are stuck drinking that stuff. In 1986, we are drinking this material and those companies are allowed to discharge it. It is an absolute disgrace. After 42 years with the Conservatives in power, this is what we are left with.

The ministry's last summary of the point-source discharges states, "Dow's discharge quality met the ministry's industrial effluent concentration guidelines." In other words, Dow is legally poisoning the people along the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River. it is legal, in Ontario, to throw these kinds of chemicals into the Great Lakes.

In the past several years, we have consistently been told by government officials and medical officers of health: "Do not worry. Dioxin is in the raw water, but it is not in the drinking water." Now we have dioxin in the drinking water and we are told it is below certain levels so we should not worry. The people in our community and in our region want action. They do not want to simply be told not to worry. They want to know the alternatives.

I have not heard from the minister or anyone else in the ministry, why we cannot install these carbon bed filters to remove some of the chemicals that are now going into the drinking water and are being consumed by human beings. Who knows what the long-term effects are?

In the long term, naturally, we have to clean up the Great Lakes. I read report after report and I am sick and tired of being told not to worry. I do worry and the people in our region of the province have every right to worry. We have to take appropriate action to make sure the Great Lakes are cleaned up. In the short term, there is no need for experimentation. We have to put these carbon bed filters in place so the people of our province are protected.

I would hate to sit as a member of this Legislature -- if I am still here -- in five or 10 years and read reports that say, "In 1986, the politicians knew what was going on but did not take the appropriate action, and people have died as a result of exposure to these chemicals." Now is the time for action.

Mr. Mancini: I will take this opportunity to make some comments on the emergency debate that has been called for today. I will tell the House what action this government is undertaking to ensure that the quality of drinking water is safe for all Ontario citizens. In response to the concerns raised, even before the discovery of dioxins in drinking water, we were:

1. Planning a comprehensive drinking-water program for the protection and assurance of Ontario residents. This program will provide a more comprehensive structure for the development, assessment and control of drinking-water sources and make the Ministry of the Environment and municipalities more accountable to the public for the quality of water supplies. This will include specific programs to improve both monitoring of supplies and enforcement of quality control. Specifically, there will be much more public information available on more extensive monitoring of water quality and more public input to decisions relating to water quality.

2. A program of extensive improvement to some water treatment systems and a number of research and demonstration programs in new treatment technologies.

5:20 p.m.

3. Continuing and improving a number of programs to clean up municipal and industrial point sources and nonpoint sources such as farm runoff, which impairs the drinking and recreational quality of Great Lakes water. Some of these efforts, such as the Canada-Ontario commitment to reduce phosphorus loadings to the Great Lakes, are being conducted in co-operation with the federal government. Also, a program has been undertaken to help solve the problem of beach closures. These have been a specific and significant problem in the last couple of years. Over the past summer and the summer before, many beaches in the Metropolitan Toronto area and in other places across the province have been closed.

I am a member who represents an area, specifically the constituency of Essex South, that is affected by water quality. We get our drinking water from the Detroit River, as does the city of Windsor, contrary to what the member for Sarnia said earlier. He said we deposit raw sewage into the St. Clair River. It is impossible for the city of Windsor to do that. We are closest to the Detroit River, and the flow of water would not allow that to happen.

As a member for the area, l am very concerned over what has transpired in the short time since the blob was discovered. I have to say earnestly I have great confidence in the Minister of the Environment. He has staked not only his personal reputation, but his political future, on the actions he has taken and the actions he will take.

I stand firmly behind the Minister of the Environment when he tells us, as he did, that he will be introducing new measures to ensure that the penalties we find not significant enough will be changed. When he says he is going to introduce a package to ensure the penalties are severe, frankly, I believe him.

I also believe some members of the House believe him as well, particularly the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh). I know the member for Oshawa believes entirely in what the minister is saying. The critic for the New Democratic Party, who sits right next to the member for Oshawa, believes him as well. I look across the floor at my friend the member for York Mills.

Miss Stephenson: I was just looking to see if the member for Oshawa was gullible.

Mr. Mancini: We talk about gullibility, but the gullibility took place prior to May 2, 1985. The gullibility took place when government documents were kept secret.

I am supportive of the minister because of the number of initiatives he has undertaken. Specifically, the most important initiative is to ensure that every document of concern that is received by his office is immediately made public.

When the minister was informed of the situation we are discussing today in regard to finding dioxin in treated water, be they very low levels of dioxin in treated water, he did not do what the former Tory administration had done in the past and would have done; he did not bury the information. He made the information public immediately to the members of the affected region. Then he met immediately with the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the NDP.

I can never recall a Tory Minister of the Environment doing the same thing. We are not sitting here behind a government trying to hide the facts or trying to diminish the seriousness of any particular situation. We are putting things on the table. We are letting the House know as soon as we know and we are trying to elicit support from all members to help the minister clean up the mess he has inherited.

I know the NDP has put forward some suggestions as to what the minister should do. With the information I have been given, we are taking steps in regard to the suggestions made by the NDP. For example, I am informed it was suggested by the NDP that we should install granular activated carbon filter beds in the treatment plant directly in the path of the chemical compounds. The minister has indicated he is willing to accelerate testing of the granular activated carbon filtering systems at the plant at Niagara Falls.

There is also a general misconception that the results of the study will be applicable only to the Niagara River. This is not true because it has been designed for other parts of the province as well. Those and other suggestions that have been made by the New Democratic Party are not being spurned by this government.

Mr. Breaugh: They had better not be or they will not be a government very much longer.

Mr. Mancini: We signed the accord; it is up to them if they feel they cannot live with it. We are ready to go at a moment's notice. We are also willing to work in co-operation with the previous Conservative government.

I want to echo some of the concerns expressed by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) when he said there is some distrust of government in view of things that have happened in the past. It is easy for us to sit here and say we think the drinking waters are safe and we hope the general population will not only believe us but will support us in whatever further endeavours we wish to make. Everyone must understand the problems in Lake St. Clair, the St. Clair River and the Detroit River were not created overnight. This minister and this government, although firmly dedicated to protecting the environment, cannot clear up all the problems overnight. It is physically impossible.

I feel confident I can return to my constituency, particularly my home in Amherstburg, where we have a treatment plant right on the Detroit River from which we draw our water. I believe I can go home and confidently say the drinking water is safe and the Minister of the Environment has my confidence and that of the majority of the Legislature. He will do whatever is humanly possible to ensure that the drinking water used by the citizens of this province is such that ill-health will not be the result.

I want to thank members of the Legislature for listening to my comments.

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate. It is certainly a matter of significant concern, not only to the people in the area immediately affected but to all citizens of the province.

In a way, I am surprised the debate is taking place. It was only a few short weeks ago that I read, I believe in the Toronto Star, that the current Minister of the Environment was an environmentalist saint. It was a glowing article, a testament to the minister, the type of thing one normally finds in a fan magazine, and he was praised by various groups. I might add that even our friend the member for Lakeshore, whom I think is to be commended for bringing this matter before the House today, praised the minister for having displayed good intentions.

The member also said she was not sure she was ready to give him an A all the way through. From this motion under debate, I take it our friend has perhaps changed her assessment of the minister and would be more inclined to give him a D or an F for his performance here today.

Mrs. Grier: I would give him a B-minus today.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Harris: I am not sure a B-minus would rate an emergency debate. His actions indicate an F. Many of my colleagues have said this is the first time these chemicals have been detected in treated water anywhere in Ontario. I think we all find this a little alarming and disturbing.

The minister would have us believe that the actual types of dioxins and furans found do not pose a threat to the health of the residents in the area. His words of reassurance do not convince me, nor do I imagine they do much for the people who must continue to drink this contaminated water every day.

Let us face facts. Dioxins are dangerous chemicals. Their toxicity has been widely reported throughout the scientific and medical communities. All the evidence is not in on these compounds. I question the minister's knowledge and the advice and information he has been given, particularly in the light of some of the statements he has made to this House in the past few months. The minister made repeated assurances that all these toxic chemicals found in the St. Clair River would not make their way into the water supplies of the local communities.

On November 8, 1985, the minister said in a press release: "Conventional water treatment will remove this dioxin" -- meaning octadioxin from the treated water -- "because dioxin has an affinity for clinging to particulate matter, which is easily filtered from the water during the treatment process."

On December 12, 1985, in a statement to this House, the minister said: "Conventional water treatment appears to remove dioxins from raw water due to that chemical's tendency to cling to particles, which are routinely filtered out." On that date, the minister announced there were no dioxins in the treated drinking water of the seven communities that were being tested. It is rather ironic that at the time the minister made the statement, samples had already been collected which would prove to contain dioxins and furans.

Consequently, these repeated reassurances on the part of the minister now appear to ring rather hollow. As well, the minister does not seem to have even believed his own words. While on the one hand he was telling everyone that the treatment facilities in place were sufficient to prevent these chemicals from entering the drinking water, on the other hand he was ordering powdered activated carbon for the facilities at Wallaceburg and Walpole Island.

Unfortunately for the residents of Wallaceburg, this effort does not appear to have worked. Dioxin was found in their drinking water at a level of 11 parts per quadrillion on December 2 and at a level of 16 parts per quadrillion on December 16.

The minister assured us that the treatment facilities in place were adequate. They were not. He assured us that the use of powdered activated carbon would protect the citizens of Wallaceburg from the "dangerous chemicals upstream." That is the minister's quote. It did not protect us.

Now he expects us to believe him when he says the dioxins found in the water do not pose a threat to the health and welfare of the residents in the area. I tend to agree with the remarks of the federal Minister of the Environment: "I think to quibble about one level or another of dioxin is to admit that some quantity of dioxin is acceptable in water from which people derive their drinking water. I say dioxin of the kind in question is unacceptable."

This is what we witnessed this afternoon in this House. We found it a little hard to believe that the Minister of the Environment refused, when asked to provide alternative supplies to these communities and any community in Ontario where dioxins have been or may be found in the drinking water.

He admitted that he is prepared to accept some levels of dioxin in drinking water. He is prepared to gamble with the health and welfare of the citizens of the province. I find this unacceptable, and the people of Ontario also find this unacceptable. We have a minister telling us it is all right to drink water contaminated with dioxin. After all, as best he can tell, it might not do one any harm. The people in the communities in the St. Clair River area have not been suckered in by these platitudes and vague assurances. It is my understanding many of them are already purchasing bottled water. In my mind, this is an expensive undertaking. Many people cannot afford to buy bottled water on a daily basis; yet by denying assistance, the minister has in effect said those who can afford it can rest easy at night while the poor must continue to wonder whether they are being slowly poisoned.

Consequently, I support the resolution put forward by the member for Lakeshore. It is apparent that despite the minister's assurances, there are no effective programs in place to remove these dioxins from drinking water. I am appalled at the attitude of the Minister of the Environment on this issue. His failure to act responsibly and protect citizens from these toxic chemicals demonstrates to me that his concern is not very great. He talks about cleaning up the source of these pollutants. We are all in agreement that this must be accomplished. He has not had much luck in doing this.

Surely the fact that 25,000 people have been told by the minister they must continue to drink dioxins for breakfast must be totally unacceptable to all members of this House and it must be unacceptable to the people of the province.

If I might presume to do so, I would remind the minister that his job is not to fix the blame, but to fix the problem. It is not his job to come up with excuses, but with solutions. As our friend the member for Lakeshore has noted in her motion, this government does not have any programs in place to resolve this problem. From what we have seen in the House today, it also does not have any idea of what to do next.

As a first step, the minister should act on this party's suggestion that the affected communities be provided with an alternative source of drinking water as an interim measure while we pursue more effective and permanent solutions.

Mr. Breaugh: This is a remarkable occasion, because in the 10 years or so I have been here it is the first time I have heard anybody deem drinking water to be an emergency issue, that we ought to set aside the business of the House for the afternoon and debate it. In the decade or so since I have been a member, people have said: "Our drinking water is safe without question. There are problems but the public can rest assured."

Unlike some other jurisdictions where that assumption is not made, of which there are many in the world, the assumption has always been in this part of the world that drinking water is sacrosanct, that we have a supply which is ample, safe and reasonably well monitored. We have had federal and provincial ministries of the environment for some time now. Although that assumption has been there, some things have changed.

There is one notable change. Like everybody else here, I read public opinion polls. The public now has in the back of its mind enough information to say, "Warning signs ought to go out." The public has read a great deal about the quality of drinking water in Ontario. People have seen television documentaries and read newspaper articles. They do not understand it, as I do not, but they have come to accept that there is a major problem.

It would be a great political gamble for the government of the day to continue to bluff, as previous governments did, to say, "There is no problem and nothing for you to worry about." There is an understanding in the public now that this is a lie. It is simply not true.

One might choose to put it in scientific words the world does not understand or measure it in terms the world at large has no ability to comprehend. Only scientists working in the field use that language and only they can understand what is meant by parts per quadrillion and the different kinds of dioxins. That is a particular field, perhaps an imperfect one. lts language is alien to the general population. That is the truth. It talks about things the population cannot understand, because the scientists themselves do not understand them very well.

5:40 p.m.

It is a landmark to have this Legislature say this afternoon that there is an emergency of sorts. I have listened to the debate rage around whether this is a scare tactic, whether people should be allowed to talk about this. What patent nonsense. Most of us have at least a working knowledge of problems in water supply. We know that. Some of it is a little mundane. We are not able to finance separation of storm and sanitary sewers in our urban centres. That is not a very racy topic, but it is a problem of major proportions and we ought to know that.

There is a reason we are closing beaches all along the lake. It is not necessarily that some evil company is polluting the waterfront. Most often it is that a good, well-intentioned, regional or local municipality does not have the funds to do what it knows it needs to do to protect the beaches.

There is a reason we are now finding traces of dioxin in our drinking water. It is something that will take a fundamental shift in government policy. I do not know whether this government has the guts to do it, but let me tell members what it is. We have worked on the assumption, spread by scientists and politicians, that we cannot do anything that will harm a body of water as big as the Great Lakes, just as we can always dump stuff in the ocean and never pay a price for that.

That assumption is wrong. We know it is wrong. We cannot regulate, we cannot monitor, we cannot allow industry to pollute on a regulated basis any more. We have reached that point in the history of the development of mankind, particularly in this part of the world. The concept that it is okay to pollute a little or to a regulated limit, or okay to pollute if we monitor or watch how polluted it is getting, is a notion that is gone.

We are turning the corner now to where we say any industry that decides to discharge some effluent into a water supply system, a landfill site or the air is going to have to discharge a substance that will not harm the population. We are going to have to say to our industries and to our population as a whole, however we might finance this great change in policy, there is no safe limit; there is a zero limit. If they discharge it into the Great Lakes, they must do so with no level. They must discharge it the way they got it: at a pure level.

Some people will say that is impossible. Some people will call it a revolutionary thought. It is just as revolutionary as when we began to say in this part of the country that cities and towns could not discharge raw sewage into the Great Lakes. I remind members that is a revolutionary concept in itself. We said for centuries: "All we have to do is dump this stuff in a big body of water and it will take it somewhere. It will all go away and never come back to haunt us."

I point out to the House that if we went to many American cities and said, "You cannot discharge raw sanitary sewage into a lake," that too would be seen as a revolutionary thought. It is pretty well held in Ontario that we cannot do that, but not all the provinces in Canada accept that concept. It is seen as a wild and wonderful, pie-in-the-sky proposal in jurisdictions not far from here. In fact, they are provinces that are cheek by jowl with our borders.

The next phase of the revolution is to move into the industrial sector and say: "We are sorry. We know it is expensive, we know it is awkward, we know the technology is not quite as convenient or cheap as we would like, but the truth is we cannot afford to let you discharge effluent into our water system any more."

The reason I say we cannot afford to let them do that is simply that there is a little creek in my community that runs through the middle of Oshawa; in the silt at the bottom of it is probably every chemical of which one could think. For centuries, every industry in my town dumped raw sewage into that creek. It is coming back a bit, but we have a problem. In the silt at the bottom of that creek is stuff we know is harmful to everybody. If we move to dredge the harbour, the silt comes up again and the damage is there.

Sooner or later, the taxpayers of Ontario and the people of Oshawa will pay a very expensive price to clean up that problem. Sooner or later, the taxpayers of Ontario are going to pay a very high price to clean up the Great Lakes. That price tag is not getting any cheaper. In my view, it is simply a question of whether we shift gears now or wait until it costs us more money to do that later. We cannot afford to wait any longer to change that substantial part of the policy and part of our society as well. There is a cost and the meter is running now; it will not start when the government decides it has guts enough to do it. The meter is already running. The price tag is there and is getting bigger.

I congratulate this government for doing two things in a limited way. First of all, it has told people there is a problem. However meek, mild and wimpish that might seem as a statement, it is a major statement. I congratulate this government for doing one other thing. It has tried to correct the problem, maybe not as quickly, efficiently and as well as I would like it to, but it is trying to do something, and that is a revolutionary thought in Ontario policy.

The task is before us and the question is relatively straightforward. Do this Legislature and the people of Ontario have guts enough -- because it is not easy -- to take on the quality of water as a significant political problem that must be resolved and whose resolution must start now? All I can say is, I hope so.

Mr. Bossy: I wish to join with my colleagues today in addressing the motion of the member for Lakeshore.

The report published on Tuesday of this week by the Ministry of the Environment concerning dioxins has direct implications for the people of my riding of Chatham-Kent because Wallaceburg and Mitchell's Bay are in my riding.

Over the past few months, since the discovery and subsequent cleanup of the blob in the St. Clair River, I have met on several occasions with the minister and his officials, along with locally elected officials representing Wallaceburg and the surrounding communities, to address the concerns of my constituents over the quality of their drinking water.

Having identified the presence of dioxins in the area, this report requires that we as a government continue to monitor and address this situation without delay. For this reason, l feel it is the task of this government to identify the source of the dioxins. It is well known that any combustion sources, such as municipal, chemical and biological waste incineration or wood or fossil fuel combustion, produce dioxins if incomplete combustion occurs.

The most toxic form of dioxin, however, is produced specifically as a byproduct of various chemical manufacturing processes used in creating herbicides and pesticides. At present, in Ontario there is no chemical manufacturing of any pesticides or herbicides, such as 2,4,5-T or 2,4-D, in which dioxin contamination has been documented. The present government is determined to ensure that there is never any manufacturing of these chemicals in Ontario. Instead, the evidence suggests the current sources of the dioxins and furans in the environment are predominantly from incineration processes or the result of the use of products that contain trace amounts of the chemicals.

The dioxins and furans introduced into the environment by these means are usually a very complex mixture of different forms of the two chemicals. There are 75 different forms of dioxins and 135 types of furans. The amount of the most toxic form of dioxin, the 2,3,7,8-T₄CDD, is usually only a small fraction of the total dioxins and furans present.

5:50 p.m.

While all forms of dioxins give reasons for concern, we are relatively fortunate when compared to the United States. In that country, the most toxic dioxin is much more prevalent because of the history of extensive chemical manufacturing and waste disposal. However, we are slowly realizing that the problem of dioxin is not limited to any one region of Ontario.

At the press conference on Tuesday, January 28, at which the dioxin results were released, Dr. Peter Toft of the Department of National Health and Welfare raised the unsettling possibility that some forms of dioxin may indeed be a "universal contaminant."

The recent analysis carried out by the Department of National Health and Welfare on dioxin residues in the tissues of living and deceased individuals has indicated that the body levels of some dioxins can be found in a majority of the samples and often at low levels. The apparent conclusions from these results suggest that the dioxins are present at low levels in the Ontario environment.

A report in today's Globe and Mail states that trace levels of octachlorodioxin are found in human tissues taken from people all over Canada. The findings indicate that probably most Canadians have been exposed to low levels of the dioxin at some time and store the material in their body fat.

Concern over the safety of our drinking water and the need to identify clearly the sources of exposure to dioxins and furans resulted in an extensive study by the Ministry of the Environment. The results of that study were published last fall in a 536-page report entitled the Scientific Criteria Document for Standard Development No. 4-84. I want to review quickly what that document revealed about the sources of exposure to both dioxins and furans.

The document extensively reviewed the current sources of the chemicals in Ontario and concluded that in order of decreasing contribution to the environment, the sources were: (1) combustion sources, including municipal refuse and sewage sludge incineration; (2) use of chemical products, such as chlorinated phenols; and (3) other sources, such as transboundary water and air contamination, chemical wastes, commercial and domestic wastes, polychlorinated biphenyls, which are PCBs, and sewage.

Based on preliminary exposure assessment, the major routes of exposure in decreasing importance were: (1) the surrounding air in the vicinity of incineration sources; (2) diet, mainly some sport fish from Lake Ontario, and (3) surface water.

It is apparent from this report that the source of the dioxins found in the St. Clair River area may possibly include emissions into the atmosphere as well as the water.

When the minister released the dioxin-testing results in the St. Clair River area, he noted that even the city of Sarnia, which obtains drinking water from Lake Huron, had occurrences of dioxins in its treated drinking water. Although all the conclusions are only speculative at this point, the findings tend to broaden the range of possible sources beyond that of the blob alone.

At present, the actual sources of the octochlorodioxins are not known. However, the Ministry of the Environment is actively working with the federal government and other Ontario ministries to find and treat all sources of toxic pollution.

The Ministry of the Environment is conducting laboratory and field studies to identify specific sources of the toxic pollution. The ministry's new investigations and enforcement branch has expanded its original mandate to include a closer working relationship with both the environmental forensic scientists and the environmental prosecutors.

The ministry is expanding the scope and efforts of its Detroit, St. Clair and St. Marys rivers improvement team and its investigation of possible toxic contaminants in the St. Clair River area.

This government is looking at all possible sources and taking positive actions on them. We feel a balanced approach to the discovery of dioxins in the St. Clair River area is needed. Members of the third party have mentioned the need for safe and reliable methods of treating drinking water.

The minister has indicated the steps in the research and development of such systems that the government is taking. However, this government also feels the supply side needs to be examined. By addressing the emission of toxic contaminants in the lakes, rivers and atmosphere, the government is undertaking a balanced approach to the problem. All aspects are being dealt with.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate? If not, that completes the item of business before the House for the afternoon.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to indicate the business of the House for the remainder of this week and next.

This evening and tomorrow, we will continue second reading of Bill 94 on extra billing.

On Monday, February 3, in the afternoon, we will have second reading of Bill 65 on first contracts, followed by Bill 94, which will continue through Monday evening. There is a possibility of a division on Bill 65.

On Tuesday, February 4, in the afternoon and evening, we will have legislation in the following order as completed and if there is time: second reading of Bill 94 on extra billing; Bill 16 on public commercial vehicles; Bill 3 on transboundary pollution; Bill 70 on provincial offences; Bill 72 on powers of attorney; Bill 98 on foreign arbitral awards; Bill 34 on freedom of information; Bill 66 on business corporations, and Bill 68 on the Securities Act.

On Wednesday, the usual three committees may sit.

On Thursday, February 6, in the afternoon, we will have private members' public business standing in the names of the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) and the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South).

On Thursday evening and Friday, we will continue with the legislation from Tuesday.

The House recessed at 5:57 p.m.

30 janvier 1986