Ontario Hansard — 29 May 2000 (37th Parliament, 1st Session)

2000-05-29

Ontario — Debates (Hansard)

role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

May 29, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-May-29 vol. A (PDF)

L062A - Mon 29 May 2000 / Lun 29 mai 2000

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

MOTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

HOUSE SITTINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER QUALITY

ONTARIO RESEARCH AND INNOVATION OPTICAL NETWORK

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

MUNICIPAL REFERENDA

WATER AND SEWAGE INFRASTRUCTURE

WATER QUALITY

COMMUNITY SAFETY

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

NORTHERN HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

VISITOR

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am seeking unanimous consent that the House business for this afternoon proceed as follows:

That pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall sit this evening from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm and that the motion of the member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke be deferred until orders of the day this evening;

That the House now proceed immediately to routine motions, followed by oral questions;

That after oral questions the House immediately move to orders of the day for an emergency debate on the tragedy of the events at Walkerton, and specifically to consider the following motion:

This House expresses sincere regret and concern over the tragic events faced by the residents, families and friends of the citizens of Walkerton;

That this House sends its condolences to those who have lost loved ones and its prayers for those who continue to struggle with the ravages of this tragedy;

That, out of respect for the victims of this tragedy and as a sign that the entire province joins with the people of Walkerton in mourning, staff of the Legislative Assembly be directed to fly flags at half-mast for the remainder of the week;

That this House pledge, as Premier Harris has, to do whatever it takes to get to the bottom of this tragedy, and, to that end,

That the standing committee on general government be directed to review the circumstances leading to the tragedy in Walkerton, and to report its findings and recommendations back to this House;

That for purposes of its review of this matter, the committee is authorized to travel from place to place in Ontario and to meet and receive evidence from witnesses when the House is not in session;

That the committee commence its review by considering, as they become available, the results and any recommendations that emerge from the Ontario Provincial Police investigation, the pending coroner's inquest, and the investigation by the Ministry of the Environment;

That if legal proceedings arise from these investigations, the committee suspend its review of any specific issues that are the subject of those proceedings, but may continue to review and recommend government action to ensure the reliability and safety of Ontario's water supply;

That at 5:50 this afternoon the Speaker will put all necessary questions to decide on the emergency debate motion, and that any division bells on that motion shall be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mr Newman has moved unanimous consent that we move to motions. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

MOTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mr Newman moves that the House now proceed immediately to routine motions, followed by oral questions, and that after oral questions the House immediately move to orders of the day for an emergency debate on the tragedy of events at Walkerton, and specifically to consider the following motion:

This House expresses sincere-dispense? We didn't hear "dispense." I will read it if the members would like to-

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have not been provided with a written copy of this motion. I've asked the minister and I've asked the government House leader for a copy of the motion.

Based on what I have heard, it sounds to me like there are clauses that will effectively restrict the ability of the committee to sit until such time as any legal matters would be dealt with. It would be the view of the official opposition-and I note that government members are shaking their heads.

The fact remains that we have not been given a copy to read or review. We have been calling the government House leader's office all morning to get a copy of this to find out what it is they want. Until such time as we can at least have a chance to read this resolution, it's very difficult for us to comment on it.

The Speaker: The member knows I would be reading it. The minister would have an opportunity to read it again before we would then proceed, just so he's clear on that, if he wasn't. I don't know whether, to help with this in any way, it would be possible to get any available copies. If not, I can read it.

I see the Minister of the Environment trying to get copies as soon as possible.

I would read it once. We'd then go to the Minister of the Environment and he would then read it again, if you would like. That would be twice, in total three times, if you'd like.

Mr Duncan: So that I understand-and perhaps maybe now we could get a copy of it-we will have the opportunity to debate and vote on this motion at 5:50. Is that what is in this? Right now we are only granting unanimous consent to move the motion, to debate it and then we will have a chance this afternoon to debate and vote on it. Is my understanding correct, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: Yes, that's what the government is saying. I hate to say it because I just got it as well, but that is what both the Minister of the Environment and the House leader are saying is the case, and I see the Minister of Labour is saying it as well.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just want to express our concern again that we don't have the written motion. It's our desire-and I've had chats with the House leader for the Liberal Party-obviously, to accommodate such an emergency debate. In fact, we all want it desperately.

But in order to ensure that we aren't rushing ahead into something and find out afterwards that there are little hooks in here-it is a relatively complex motion; it's not that straightforward-we ask, in the interest of trying to find unanimity here, that we recess the House for maybe 10 or 15 minutes to just give us a chance to look at the motion, discuss it and come back in here, and then hopefully in very short order we could be into the emergency debate that we want.

The Speaker: Just so you know, the House has already given consent. If you're not giving consent after we read this, it will then turn over to the Minister of the Environment, where we will proceed. All we have given consent to is to now go to motions, at which time the Minister of the Environment will read the motion. That's just where we're at. I'm in the government's hands. If they want to facilitate-the government House leader.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I had understood that the House had now given unanimous consent for us to next move to motions, then move to oral questions and then move to a motion which contains the Minister of the Environment's statement asking for unanimous consent. At that point in time, at 5:50, we agreed as well that there would be a five-minute bell and all members of the Legislature would have the opportunity to vote on it.

At approximately 3 o'clock today all members of the Legislature will have the opportunity to debate that motion for approximately three hours in order to then come to a resolution to deal with the wording as contained by the statement of the Minister of the Environment.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Premier indicated that these are the rules around emergency debate.

(1) The Premier ought to be advised that there are no references to emergency debate in our standing orders.

(2) We support the call for a recess so that we can look at this. Quite frankly, it sounds to us, just based on what we've heard, because the government has not provided us with a copy of their motion, that it's a restrictive motion, that nothing could happen until after such time as all criminal and civil proceedings are done.

We would like to have an opportunity for a 10- or 15-minute recess to review the motion. It may be possible that we can bring forward amendments, in co-operation with the third party and with the government, that will make the debate this afternoon a little bit more unanimous. So I would seek again a 15-minute recess to allow the opposition parties to review the motion that's before us.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Hon Mr Sterling: No, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The government House leader and-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just so we know what would transpire now, it would go back to the Minister of the Environment to read the motion. We have now said we are going to go to the motions. We have not agreed to the motion. I will turn to the minister if we proceed. He will then read the motion and then there will be the opportunity for both sides to say yea or nay and to vote on this motion. That's where we would be at. There isn't unanimous consent for us to adjourn, so that is the situation of where we would be at.

Just very quickly, if the member could take his seat, what we have agreed to is to go to the routine motions. Motions could now be read by the Minister of the Environment, but his reading it out doesn't mean that we've agreed to anything. At that particular point in time, after he finishes, I say, "Is there agreement?" and then we have the regular process and both sides at that point can decide what to do.

Mr Duncan: Mr Speaker, I seek your ruling. Let us assume that we agree to have the motion read. Will the opposition have an opportunity to amend the motion in that debate later today?

The Speaker: Just so we know where we are, we'll be moving to motions. That was, as you know, to allow Mr Newman to move that motion. At that time, if he moves the motion, during the regular course of the debate there will be opportunities, as there always are, to introduce any type of amendments. So yes, during the debate there will be opportunities by all sides to introduce some as well. All we've agreed to do by unanimous consent is to allow the Minister of the Environment to move a motion. He will do that now and all sides will have another opportunity to hear it. I will then read it after it has been moved.

The Minister of the Environment.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I move that this House expresses sincere regret and concern over the tragic events faced by the residents-

Mr Christopherson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: While the minister was conferring with officers of the table, I have to point out that we still don't have a copy of the motion. While they may have it over there, it's not over here yet. Quite frankly, I just want to express disappointment-I'm going to take just a very brief second-that there isn't the opportunity for the three House leaders to quickly meet during a fast recess to make this go smoothly.

The Speaker: That is not a point of order. We asked for unanimous consent. We did not get it.

Mr Christopherson: I seek again unanimous consent that you allow the House leaders an opportunity to talk about how this afternoon will unfold, and hope that we could do it by unanimous consent.

The Speaker: That is a little bit different. Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Just so I'm clear about the amount of time we would be looking at, we will adjourn for five minutes.

Interjection: Fifteen.

The Speaker: Sorry. Just to make sure, rather than coming back, we'll make it 15. This House stands adjourned for 15 minutes.

The House recessed from 1345 to 1401.

The Speaker: I thank the members for the indulgence of the House.

The Minister of the Environment.

Hon Mr Newman: I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall sit this evening from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm and that the motion of the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke be deferred until orders of the day this evening;

That the House now proceed immediately to routine motions, followed by oral questions;

That after oral questions the House immediately move to orders of the day for an emergency debate on the tragedy of the events at Walkerton, and specifically to consider the following motion:

This House expresses sincere regret and concern over the tragic events faced by the residents, families and friends of the citizens of Walkerton;

That this House sends its condolences to those who have lost loved ones and its prayers for those who continue to struggle with the ravages of this tragedy;

That this House pledge, as Premier Harris has, to do whatever it takes to get to the bottom of this tragedy, and, to that end,

That the standing committee on general government be directed to review the circumstances leading to the tragedy in Walkerton, and to report its findings and recommendations back to this House;

That for purposes of its review of this matter, the committee is authorized to travel from place to place in Ontario and to meet and receive evidence from witnesses when the House is not in session;

That at 5:50 pm this afternoon the Speaker will put all questions necessary to decide on the emergency debate motion; and

That any division bells on that motion shall be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker: Mr Newman has moved that the House now proceed immediately to routine motions, followed by oral questions;

That after oral questions the House immediately move to orders of the day for an emergency debate on the tragedy of the events at Walkerton, and specifically to consider the following motion:

This House expresses sincere regret and concern over the tragic events faced by the residents, families and friends of the citizens of Walkerton;

That this House sends its condolences to those who have lost loved ones and its prayers for those who continue to struggle with the ravages of this tragedy;

That this House pledge, as Premier Harris has, to do whatever it takes to get to the bottom of this tragedy, and, to that end,

That the standing committee on general government be directed to review the circumstances leading to the tragedy in Walkerton, and to report its findings and recommendations back to this House;

That for purposes of its review of this matter, the committee is authorized to travel from place to place in Ontario and to meet and receive evidence from witnesses when the House is not in session;

That the committee commence its review by considering, as they become available, the results and any recommendations that emerge from the Ontario Provincial Police investigation, the pending coroner's inquest and the investigation by the Ministry of the Environment;

That at 5:50 pm this afternoon the Speaker will put all questions necessary to decide on the emergency debate motion; and

That any division bells on that motion shall be limited to five minutes.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the-the member for Windsor-St Clair on a point of order?

Mr Duncan: Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to divide out the motion, if I might. The first seven paragraphs relate, effectively, to the Legislature extending their condolences and apologies to the people of Walkerton. The balance of the resolution deals with the government's attempt to cover up what has happened in Walkerton and to effectively delay any kind of inquiry by the Legislature-

The Speaker: So you're asking for unanimous consent to break it up?

Mr Duncan: I seek unanimous consent to deal with paragraphs one through seven in the motion and to break it up.

The Speaker: Member for Broadview-Greenwood on the same point of order?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): If I may, I ask for unanimous consent to divide up the motion. We can support-

The Speaker: We're going to move to it very quickly. We can't continue on this. Is there unanimous consent? I heard some noes.

Just so that everybody knows, I read out the motion. I am now going to call the question for the motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, May 29, Tuesday, May 30, and Wednesday, May 31, 2000, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. The motion is carried.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Would the government House leader like to explain how we can discuss government business at 6:45 this evening with the motion we've just approved, when at 6:45 we are to return back to the Conway motion, which was not government business.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order.

Hon Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Speaker: We moved two motions today. Part of the first motion was that we'll sit this evening from 6:45 to 9:30 pm, dealing with the motion of the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, and that is the intention of the government. The other motion also allows for night sittings on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, as permitted by the first motion, that the House now proceed immediately to routine motions. I put forward that routine motion.

The Speaker: That is my understanding. At 6:45 tonight we will be dealing with Mr Conway's motion. As a matter of fact, I'll be in the chair then.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER QUALITY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. The people of Walkerton have our sympathy and they deserve our respect, for they have shouldered this tragedy with dignity, grace and courage. But I also believe that they deserve answers from the people in charge, and I believe that the final responsibility for ensuring that the stuff that comes out of our taps in this province is safe to drink rests with you and your government and with no other person. It's your government's solemn duty to protect our health and to make sure our drinking water is safe and clean.

This morning, your government admitted it found E coli in Walkerton two years ago. When that happened, your only action was to send the town a letter. You didn't send in inspectors. You didn't send in experts to provide help to the people on the ground at Walkerton. Premier, why did you fail the people of Walkerton?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think all members of the Legislature would agree that what has occurred in Walkerton is a tragedy. If there are any details of what happened when, the Minister of the Environment would be the best one to respond to those. But the member has asked me specifically about obligations, and we take these obligations very, very seriously.

While our thoughts rest with the families of this community and with everyone who is struggling to cope with these tragic events, last Friday-and I repeat it today-I pledged to the people of Walkerton that all necessary resources of the Ontario government would be made available to provide immediate help. I think that's the first order of business, and that is being done. I also pledged, and pledge to the Legislature, that we'll do whatever it takes to get to the bottom of the tragedy, and that too is being done.

Mr McGuinty: What the people of Walkerton are looking for and what the people of Ontario are looking for is your pledge that you will begin to accept responsibility for what has happened at Walkerton. That's what they're looking for. It appears that some mistakes were made at several levels, but the final responsibility for making sure our water is safe rests with you and with your government. You decide which people, which policies, which procedures, which programs are in place.

Your job to is to make sure that nothing goes wrong at the local level, and if something should by chance go wrong, your job is to make sure that your people are in there immediately to make sure it is cleaned up. That didn't happen in this case. You failed the people of Walkerton, and now the people of Walkerton want to know, why did you do so little when you knew two years ago that there were serious problems with the water in Walkerton? Why did you fail the people of Walkerton?

Hon Mr Harris: I think it is clear that this government accepts its responsibility and takes its responsibility very seriously. I apologize to the people of Walkerton, quite frankly, on behalf of all of us. I'm not aware of any test results of two years ago or a year ago. I've only just recently become aware of test results.

But what the people of Walkerton said very directly to me, the mayor said very directly to me, a number I talked to when I was there and when I visited the community centre and chatted with a number of people, is that they want answers. They want to get reassurances that the problems are being corrected immediately, and then they want answers as to who knew what, who was responsible, how much did ministry officials know, how much did health officials know, how much did municipal officials know, how much did politicians know.

I pledged to them that we would get to the bottom of that, just as we make a further pledge to the people of Walkerton and of Ontario that we'll do everything we can to ensure this kind of tragedy never happens again.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, we can't begin to move forward on this matter, we can't begin to draw whatever positive lessons might be there for all of us, until you and your government begin by accepting some element of responsibility. That's where it all begins.

This morning, your environment minister held a briefing which was nothing more than an admission of failure. When you gutted water protection in Ontario, you failed to do three very important things: You failed to ensure that testing labs are accredited; you failed to legally require that labs report to the ministry and to local health officials; finally, you failed to put in place regular and frequent inspections so that local officials were backed up by ministry experts. You failed on all three counts, Premier. Why did you fail the people of Walkerton?

Hon Mr Harris: I think I have accepted responsibility, and I accept accountability, as we all do as members of the Legislature and I do particularly as the head of this government. The facts are starting to come out about what happened and when it happened, that actions were taken. I think you've heard from the Minister of the Environment. We have made no changes in any of the reporting procedures since we took office. Clearly, in hindsight, we wish that we had, I would say, made changes.

To suggest that now is not the time, that we don't have enough information to take corrective measures-I would point out the number of corrective measures that were announced today by the Minister of the Environment. I don't think we can wait a day or a week or a month, however long some of these investigations make take. As soon as information is available, we, the minister and this government, will respond, as you would expect us to. As the legislative committee finds any other actions we should take, we should act on that right away, not await the finality of this investigation.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question. The leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: My second question is for the Premier. Premier, the problem is that you've waited four and, in some cases, five years before acting. You had ample warning about this on a number of fronts.

Everybody from the Provincial Auditor to the Environmental Commissioner to environmentalists to members sitting on this side of the House warned you about the drawbacks of proceeding at such a reckless pace to close down government labs and to assign responsibility for water treatment and water safety to our municipal partners, who don't have the financial wherewithal, don't have the expertise and need ongoing assistance, at a minimum, from the provincial government when it comes to ensuring that we have safe and clean drinking water inside each and every Ontario community.

That's what you should have done, and you failed to do that.

Now he stands up this morning and says he's going to change some regulations. Where was he and where were you four and five years ago, Premier, when you were made full aware of the dangers of proceeding to devolve responsibility for water safety, water cleanliness, to our municipal partners? They, in many cases, don't have the expertise, they don't have the time, they don't have the money, and they need this government, they need you there to assist. Why didn't you act four and five years ago, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: Certainly the three investigations that we have set up to date, including a legislative committee that we are requesting by way of motion today, will want to take a look at what could have been done to prevent this very serious tragedy. To suggest, though, that Walkerton, which has run its water supply for many, many years-when you were in government, when the NDP were in government, when we were in government-doesn't have the capability, or to suggest that that is the problem, I think is very premature.

To suggest that municipalities can't afford to do the tests, which they were asked to take over and do in 1994, as I indicated very clearly in Walkerton, I haven't heard any complaints previous to this to suggest that that was a problem for municipalities to afford.

As to providing expertise, of course the Ministry of the Environment is there to provide its expertise whenever these types of occasions arise. Of course we're doing that right now.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, the only real surprise here in Ontario is that something like this hasn't happened before. You shut down government labs in Ontario. Municipalities were then left in the position-and they had to take on this new responsibility because you just shoved it down on them; they didn't ask for it-where they had to find out which private labs were out there. You didn't provide for any accreditation or certification program. You didn't provide for more frequent inspections of the local operators.

You didn't make sure that we did everything that we possibly could to make sure that the people of Walkerton, and everybody right across the province of Ontario, could continue to make the assumption that when they went to the kitchen tap, when they went to the bathtub, and they turned on the water, the stuff that was coming out of there wasn't going to kill them, Premier. You didn't take the necessary steps to ensure that here in Ontario-and we're not talking about a Third World country; we're talking about Ontario, Canada, in North America. Five people have died, including a two-and-a-half-year-old child.

There are 12 on the critical list. This is unprecedented, and you have failed to take the necessary steps to ensure that all Ontario municipalities can rely on safe and clean drinking water. Premier, why have you failed us?

Hon Mr Harris: I might add that in addition to the legislative committee and the Ministry of the Environment investigation into what went wrong, and the OPP investigation, I think it's very premature to be assessing blame to any ministry, to any official, to any government, to any municipality. As you know, when I went to Walkerton, I made it very clear that now is not the time to assess blame. Now is the time to have sympathy and pay our respects to the people of Walkerton.

Of course, people want facts. It's time to get actual facts out. I haven't heard a lot of factual information but I hear empathy and sympathy from the member, and I think that's appropriate, but I think facts are important to get out. Then we will leave the OPP, we will leave the coroner, we will leave the investigations to see where the fault lay, what broke down and why. At the same time, we want to put procedures in place to assure the people of Ontario that this type of situation doesn't happen again.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, the facts are painful and they are these: You shut down government labs; you cut back on ministry funding by 40%; you let go one third of the staff; you ignored the Environmental Commissioner's recommendations; you ignored the Provincial Auditor's recommendations; your own ministry ignored important information regarding contamination in the water that it had received.

Those are the facts, Premier, as painful as they may be. There is a police investigation underway; it will be confidential and it may or may not result in charges. The Minister of the Environment now is presuming to investigate itself. I have no confidence in that whatsoever. There's going to be a coroner's inquest held and that will look into the circumstances relating specifically to what happened at Walkerton.

What we need here, Premier, in Ontario is a full, independent, public inquiry so that we can provide reassurance not only to the people of Walkerton but to the people in Wawa and Sarnia and Kingston and Ottawa and London and Toronto and all points in between, that we are doing everything we can to draw whatever lessons we might from this terrible tragedy to ensure that it never, ever happens again. Premier, will you agree to a full, independent public inquiry?

Hon Mr Harris: First of all, let me say that I think it is very presumptuous to assume that private labs are not as effective as government labs. Certainly since 1994, when the government of the day allowed private labs to take over the testing, there has been no evidence yet that I have seen that indicates they're not equally competent and equally capable.

As well, to get to the bottom of this, if the members opposite would like to hear the answer, the coroner's inquest of course will be full and public and have power to call witnesses; the police have substantive investigative powers; and I can think of nothing more public and more substantive than an all-party committee of the Legislature with full power to subpoena.

The Speaker: New Question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. I was in Walkerton earlier today and I had the opportunity to talk to a number of residents of that community who are all clearly of the view that this tragedy could have been avoided. But this tragedy happened because your government over the last five years has placed cut after cut after cut to the Ministry of the Environment.

It was your government that closed the four labs that were dedicated to doing this kind of water testing. It was your government that then cut the budget of the Ministry of the Environment by over $100 million. Your government laid off 900 of the staff: the scientists, the inspectors, the enforcement officers.

After doing all that, do you accept responsibility here for what has happened? There's a clear link between the Ministry of the Environment's inability to do its job and the tragedy that has happened here. Do you accept that responsibility?

Hon Mr Harris: As I said, as the head of the government of the province of Ontario, I accept all responsibility. I apologized on behalf of the government of the people of Ontario. While I am not involved in every decision that is made in the day-to-day, the responsibility stops here. That is why, while there have been many allegations, I think I heard very clearly from the people of this province, including those from Walkerton, that it's a little premature, before those investigations, to be assessing blame or saying who is responsible.

What I found was needed when I was in Walkerton, from the residents I chatted to, particularly at the community centre, was that a process be put in place to (

a) clean up the water as soon as possible and (

b) make sure it never happens again, and (

c) that there be a full and open investigation to get to the bottom of this. I have committed to do that. I think it is very premature to suggest that your move to allow private labs had anything to do with it; I said very clearly I don't think that had anything to do with it. To say that municipalities should be responsible for the tests that you did in 1994, I said I don't think that had anything to do with it. I hadn't heard that. I think it's very premature for you to judge as well. But I think what we want to do is make sure there's a process to get to the bottom of this.

Mr Hampton: Premier, what we need to acknowledge is that what happened in Walkerton isn't some isolated event. It didn't just happen, unrelated to other events. Your government has systematically gone after the Ministry of the Environment. You have systematically laid off the scientists, systematically laid off the inspectors and the enforcement officers, systematically taken the budget that is necessary to do this kind of inspection and enforcement work.

Just another example I want you to acknowledge: We have learned that you cut the staff assigned to drinking water quality and water quality generally by 42%-113 staff assigned in 1995 to water quality, now down to 48. You cut the staff assigned to groundwater and hydrology by 53%, from 28 in 1995 when you took office to 15 now. Premier, how do you expect to protect the water supply of the citizens of Ontario when your government is busy wiping out the very inspectors who are there to do that?

Hon Mr Harris: It is true we have downsized government in a number of ways to get it to operate more effectively and more efficiently. We campaigned that we would do that. We made it very clear to the public that we had too many people and were not delivering a high-enough quality of product. We had an $11-billion deficit. Had we carried on that way, we would not have had any resources left for anything.

But I tell you this: The recommendations that we accepted for the Ministry of the Environment were to provide better service, and at no time was any single individual downsized in the Ministry of the Environment, at no time was any person downsized in a way that should have affected the delivery of any services of the Ministry of the Environment. That includes one of the most important services, and one of the ones that we consider the most important, and that's the delivery of quality, clean, safe water.

Mr Hampton: I think what we got was an acknowledgement from the Premier that he has in fact gutted the Ministry of the Environment in terms of its capacity to do the very work that was at stake here. Not only that, but the Environmental Commissioner came forward in the 1995 annual report and said that your government had to bring forward a groundwater protection strategy or there would be this disaster.

When your government was warned, your Ministry of the Environment was warned about the serious problems in lab tests in January, February and March of this year, you did nothing until April. Then you simply made a phone call. When your Ministry of the Environment staff finally went up to Walkerton on May 20, you failed to even talk to the medical officer of health who has blown the whistle on this whole thing.

Premier, you can't stand here and say that your government isn't responsible for this, and you can't tell us that the meagre things that were announced today by the Minister of the Environment are enough to ensure that this won't happen again. Are you prepared to put the staff back into the Ministry of the Environment, to give them the budget they need to do the inspections and the enforcement, and are you prepared to start listening to the Environmental Commissioner, who in 1995 warned you that this disaster could happen unless you brought forward a comprehensive groundwater strategy?

Hon Mr Harris: I think it's very important to understand I didn't say we were responsible; I didn't say we weren't responsible. I can tell you that there have been no changes to the ministry budget that we approved that was to do anything other than deliver higher-quality service at a better price, as you did. You asked municipalities to take over some responsibilities; so did we. We asked the ministry to-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat, please. Today we are obviously going to have some controversial issues, but we can't proceed when I can't hear through yelling and screaming. I will remind members that this afternoon we'll be debating this, and if I have to name people, they won't be around for that. I can't have a situation where I cannot hear the answer coming forward from the Premier. Sorry for the interruption.

Hon Mr Harris: For example, I am told there has been no reduction in the number of enforcement officers, those who go out and actually lay the charges and do those inspections. As in other areas, we've asked for duplication to be avoided; we've asked for technological improvements. But to suggest that this has been responsible for fewer inspections-it's not true. We've had as many tests as we've always had; we've had the same procedures in place.

The challenge here is to find out what went wrong, are there procedures that need to be tightened up, where there was human error, where there were warnings that were ignored. We want to get to the bottom of this and we have acknowledged and put into place three investigations and, if this motion carries today, a legislative committee, with all the powers to subpoena and to get to the bottom of this.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: If the Premier wants to show true compassion for the people of Walkerton, there are a number of things he and his government can do right now. The first is to release the most recent water quality test results for all municipal drinking water systems, something you haven't done. The second is to tell the public which water treatment plants have outstanding orders against them from the Ministry of the Environment, something you haven't done.

The third is to release the most recent audit reports on the status of all Ontario water treatment plants, and if those audits have not been done, they must be done immediately. If you want to show true compassion, Premier, and start to indicate that this won't happen again, you and your Minister of the Environment will do these things now. Are you prepared to do that?

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate the advice and I will ask the ministry if we can legally do this.

Mr Hampton: Finally, Premier-this has to do with the motion that you put forward today, because there are real problems with it. One part of the motion is that if there's any kind of legal proceeding, it means that the committee work has to stop. That's clearly in the motion. So if there's a civil proceeding out there, all of the work has to stop. Premier, that's unacceptable. In fact, that looks an awful lot like Ipperwash. Your government refuses to have an inquiry around Ipperwash, you refuse to talk to the family and you refuse to address the outstanding issues because you say, "There's a civil proceeding."

Premier, the only thing that will do here is a public inquiry-a public inquiry which will not be beholden to your backbenchers and a public inquiry which will not be beholden to some legal proceeding that might happen somewhere. If you really want to show compassion and you really want to get to the bottom of this and ensure that it doesn't happen again, we will have a full and independent public inquiry. Are you prepared to do that, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: Certainly the coroner's inquest will be very public and will have the power to subpoena witnesses and will be there. Certainly the OPP investigation will have the powers it needs and will be exhaustive. The Ministry of the Environment-as you know, it's an ongoing review. They've already released recommendations. We're suggesting the committee begin right away. We think there are a number of things the committee can do. The suggestion here is so we don't get into a situation like the Patti Starr affair or some of the others, where there are courts that say, "You will have to stop," or, "You're prejudicing or jeopardizing any actual legal proceedings."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Premier, take a seat, please.

The member for Hamilton East has been yelling out, and he's not sitting in his seat. You can sit there, but you can't continue to yell out. Sorry for the interruption, Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Contrary to what you allege, I think the committee ought to be able to get started right away and be able to deal with information right away. Even if there are criminal charges or other court actions, there's no reason for the committee not to be able to travel the province and take a look, as you suggest, at other water facilities. The motion says that, and the motion covers that. If you would like to propose amendments to the motion to make it even better, then that's what this debate is to be for this afternoon.

The Speaker: New question. The leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, this is the largest outbreak of E coli infection, as we know it, in the history of North America. Some 1,000 people were crippled over it, with terrible cramps, experienced bloody diarrhea. Hundreds went to the hospital. Five people died, and 12 people are in critical condition as we speak.

Do you not think, Premier, that in these circumstances a full, independent public inquiry is warranted? Given the huge public interest in this matter, given the overwhelming public concern in every corner of this province, is not the appropriate thing to do in the circumstances, in the interests of all Ontarians, to have a full, independent public inquiry that begins its hearings immediately, that takes a look at this matter in the most open and transparent way possible, so that we can draw whatever lessons we might and put into place whatever changes we have to put in? Why would you not agree to a full, independent public inquiry?

Hon Mr Harris: We have three inquiries underway right now, and I think there's nothing more public and thorough than a coroner's inquest, which the coroner has indicated will take place. I suggest to you there ought to be nothing more thorough than a legislative inquiry by all members of the Legislature. If, after all of this, you think a fifth, a sixth or a seventh inquiry is warranted, you can bring that forward. My experience with public inquiries is that they are very expensive, they take months to set up and get going, and we just think we need a legislative committee to get started right now.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Kingston and the Islands, this is his last warning. If he continues, I'll have to name him, and he will not be here, I'll remind him, this afternoon for this entire debate. I have no order. You can't be shouting and banging at the desk when the Premier is trying to answer the question. This is your last warning.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, what is it that you have to fear from a full, independent public inquiry? You know that the legislative committee proposal that you put forward has a couple of serious shortcomings. First of all, it is run by the government. You're in charge. You get to decide what you want to hear, when you want to hear it, and you get to decide ultimately what kind of recommendations are going to be put forward.

Second, it is severely limited by a clause you've got in here that says this committee can't begin its work in earnest until such time as all other investigations and findings have been made. This is an urgent matter. Five people have died. We've got to find out exactly what we can do in every part of the province to make sure this doesn't happen again.

Why is it that you would have us embark on this committee process, dominated by government members, that will not begin its work in earnest for perhaps eight to 12 months to two years, for all we know? Surely you would agree that in the circumstances, the most important thing we could do would be to launch, effective immediately, a full, independent public inquiry so that we can do the very best for the people of Ontario because, to date, you have failed to live up to your responsibility to protect them?

Hon Mr Harris: We certainly expect the coroner to proceed immediately with a full, independent coroner's public inquiry. We expect the legislative committee to be able to get set up as soon as possible if you will approve today of a full-blown public inquiry done by the legislative committee, with all the powers of the legislative committee. I'm surprised actually that you are opposed to that, but perhaps in debate today I'll find out why. You asked me to accept responsibility. I have accepted responsibility. This party accepts responsibility. Now it's time for this Legislature to accept responsibility for what went wrong and how we make sure it never happens again.

ONTARIO RESEARCH AND INNOVATION OPTICAL NETWORK

Mr Brian Coburn (Carleton-Gloucester): My question is for the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. As always, it's a pleasure to have you visit the nation's capital. Last week you were in Ottawa and made an announcement that puts us on the leading edge of technology. You announced the Ontario Research and Innovation Optical Network, more commonly known as ORION. Could you tell the members of the House what this initiative means for the region of Ottawa-Carleton?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): The Ontario Research and Innovation Optical Network, or ORION, is a five-year, $57-million investment by the province of Ontario that, with our partners, should yield over a $150-million investment. What it is is the next generation optical Internet. It will connect our universities, and eventually our colleges, and our major research institutions so that they can use the best computing resources available around the province.

We can't, practically, have a supercomputer on every researcher's desk, but we can have an advanced Internet dedicated to research that links the power of those supercomputers so that places like Ottawa-Carleton, the region of Ottawa and other research areas in our province can have the best tools possible to do the most advanced research, which will eventually lead to increased high-tech jobs in the Ottawa area and throughout the province. Ontario indeed will have the most leading-edge research Internet available to any researchers in the world.

Mr Coburn: Because of innovative research and the growing research industry in the Ottawa area, explain to us how ORION will help expand research and development with many of these expanding technologies in Ottawa-Carleton.

Hon Mr Wilson: To my colleague I'd say again that the optical Internet that we're installing will be very much like the original Internet, except a lot faster, carrying a lot more data and giving the power of a supercomputer to the average researcher's PC on his or her desk or in his or her lab. It's a very exciting project. It's one in which a number of partners from the private sector have come together, along with the universities and colleges and research institutions, and it puts Ontario as a lead in the world for the next generation Internet.

We can be proud as members of this assembly that this government is sponsoring the next generation Internet. It will be born in Ontario and it will lead to more high-tech jobs that will come from our universities and colleges, particularly jobs in terms of distance learning, telemedicine and access to large biotechnology databases, which are becoming more and more important in our province.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Premier. While you were on the campaign trail in 1995, you explained to reporters that your common sense manifesto was such that you would be able to find $6 billion in cuts to government spending without cutting the environment. Indeed, Premier, you proceeded to say, "I don't think you'll find a cent there cut out of the environment."

Now that you can see the devastating impact that gutting the Ministry of the Environment has-that is, 40% of the budget gone and a third of the staff gone-now that you can see the effect that it has on the health of your fellow Ontarians, will you stand in your place today and acknowledge that in your all-consuming quest to chop spending and download responsibilities to free up money for your tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this province, you have indeed placed the health and lives of Ontario residents in jeopardy?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I don't believe (

a) that the member expects me to acknowledge that, or (

b) that the member believes that. Certainly any of the efficiencies that we have sought from government have been to avoid duplication or do things more efficiently or more effectively. We've done that throughout a number of ministries.

Clearly there will be an investigation to take a look and see whether any of those actions have had any bearing or any effect on the Walkerton situation. To date, I have not seen any indication that that in fact has been the problem. But we want to leave no stone unturned, and the member, I would hope, would want to participate in a legislative committee because he has expertise in the environment from his former days. He would know that the procedures we're following are the same as when they were passed on to us by the former administration.

If there's anything in the procedures that is a problem, we need to know that. The minister has already identified some; we want to take a look at it all.

Mr Bradley: I won't be interested in participating in a committee that has an Ipperwash clause in it. But I'm going to ask the Premier about a second promise that he made during that election campaign, a promise which was renewed just a few days ago. That was to set up a Red Tape Commission. As you know, the Red Tape Commission has cut out many, many regulations, hundreds of regulations, it says. It has influenced a change in legislation to get the Ministry of the Environment out of people's faces, as I think some people on the commission might say.

Even one of those commission members, a senior Progressive Conservative MPP who headed the Ontario Red Tape Commission, urged the Ministry of the Environment to drop its prosecution of a company that violated a provincial landfill regulation because he believed the regulation was going to be changed, was going to be weakened, was going to be removed.

Premier, would you tell the people of this province how many regulations in this province have been removed or tampered with by you that impact adversely on the environment, and will you now end the Red Tape Commission's role of gutting the environment ministry and gutting environmental regulations in this province?

Hon Mr Harris: Certainly, absolutely none of the regulations that we may have changed or amended, in my view, have affected negatively the environment. They're all designed to affect the environment positively.

When you go to the Rouge Valley commitment, when you go to the Lands for Life and the Living Legacy, the record number of parks that we've created, when you go to the new, tougher standards that we have set for air emissions, for example, when you go to the commitment in the Blueprint for even tougher fines for infractions, we take violations of our environmental regulations and laws very, very seriously, as we take violations of any of our laws very seriously. At the same time, we want to be able to, as expeditiously as possible, investigate these situations and lay charges where we should.

MUNICIPAL REFERENDA

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. This fall, Ontarians across the province will be going to the polls to elect their municipal governments. In the past, municipalities have used municipal elections as a time to put questions on the ballot. These plebiscites have often had wide-ranging topics, from local issues to provincial and even federal ones. Minister, could you tell us what jurisdiction municipalities have to ask questions on the municipal ballot?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the honourable member for the question. Indeed, our government has been and continues to be committed to supporting efforts to promote local and improved participatory democracy in this province.

During this session I was pleased to introduce Bill 62, the Direct Democracy Through Municipal Referendums Act, 2000, which, if passed by this Legislature, allows the municipalities to ask questions on the municipal ballot about local issues. If it's something they can pass in a bylaw, if it's something they can approve by a policy, if it's something they can direct staff to, that is obviously an issue of local jurisdiction, and we provide the citizens an opportunity to indicate directly their views on municipal government and on those local issues.

Through that legislation, should it be passed, we will be providing the framework for municipal questions so that what is being asked in a municipal election is pertinent to local government and is what they can be empowered to legislate, so they can have an effective say on issues that concern them.

Mr Galt: Thank you, Minister, for that response. However, in the past there have been, shall we say, dubious manners in which plebiscites have been held. You may recall that last Friday, May 26, in Bobcaygeon, the wardens of eastern Ontario met. They questioned how this ballot question might be clarified prior to going on the ballot. Minister, could you please tell me and the House how we will ensure that questions asked during municipal elections provide voters with clear options so that they can make informed decisions?

Hon Mr Clement: Indeed, historically, while some municipalities have done well to ask local questions and get local input, there have been cases of questions of dubious repute that have, I think, tinged democracy, tinged local involvement. So the legislation does provide that the municipality shall only ask questions about issues that are within their jurisdiction, that can be passed by bylaw or initiated by policy or that staff can be directed to do. Questions must be clear and precise and in the form of a yes-or-no answer.

It's also required, for the result to be binding, that voter turnout be at least 50% on one side of the question. If it's less than that, the municipality can have regard to the result but it's not required. Once these conditions are met, the results of the municipal question will be binding on that municipality. It shows once again our seriousness in this regard.

Of course, this House, on the direction and on institution by the Mike Harris government, passed the Taxpayer Protection and Balanced Budget Act, and the whole idea again is to provide the government's continuing commitment to participatory democracy.

WATER AND SEWAGE INFRASTRUCTURE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. On May 26, the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Association wrote to David Lindsay of the SuperBuild Corp: "We have seen too many examples of municipalities cutting back on water and sewer capital programs in order to balance their budgets. As I write this letter, I am listening to the tragic events in Walkerton where it appears that a chlorination system had been in disrepair for some time. This is the type of situation the provincial water and sewer protection fund was designed to address."

Minister, you decided to cancel this essential program at the end of this fiscal year. I'm asking you now, will you restore this program, and not only restore it but increase the funding?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I just want to begin by expressing my condolences to the people of Walkerton on this situation.

In the question the member puts forward, she talks about a fund. We had a $200-million provincial water protection fund which was to be over three years. We accelerated that fund so that municipalities could have access to that money on a more timely basis; that's what we did in the last fiscal year. We wanted to ensure that municipalities had access to that money so they could have clean water and clean sewage treatment facilities. The fact of the matter is that we accelerated that money.

The sad reality is that the town of Walkerton never applied for any of that money that was made available. The last time the town of Walkerton applied for money was in 1991, and that money was made available to them. But the town of Walkerton did not take advantage of the money from the $200-million provincial water protection fund.

Ms Churley: I don't think the minister should be blaming the town of Walkerton for this one. Has the minister seen the strict criteria attached to this one-time funding? He should take a look and see for himself how difficult it was made for municipalities to get that money. This is a one-time-only transitional fund, as they call it, because they're completely phasing out money to municipalities for sewer and water projects. They've downloaded the whole thing. They are phasing it out. In 1995-96, $232 million went to mostly sewer and water programs out of the MAP program; in 2000-01 it was $65 million.

You're completely phasing out all the money to help municipalities with their sewer and water systems.

I'm asking you again, in view of what happened in Walkerton and in view of what we now know about the state of disrepair in some of the old infrastructure across this province, will you commit today to increase the funding for this fund? Furthermore, I would ask the minister that he go back to the Premier and demand that the $100 million this government took out of the budget for environmental protection and the protection of the health of the people of Ontario be put back in the budget immediately.

Hon Mr Newman: First off, no one is blaming anyone. I was simply trying to illustrate the point that the province has made money available. Some municipalities chose to access that money and others didn't. Municipalities have always run their water and sewer facilities. In 1997, title was transferred to those municipalities that didn't actually have title of those facilities. That's why one of the recommendations I brought forward today is that all certificates of approval are going to be reviewed in this province for every water facility. On top of that, we're going to ensure that certificates of approval are approved every three years. That's what we're going to do.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. Last week you visited the people of Walkerton. I gather that you would have been thoroughly briefed about this issue going into that community. You would have known that in 1998 E coli had been detected in the water in Walkerton. You would have known that that had not been made public. You would have known that coliform had been detected on several occasions between January and April of this year. You would have known that the water was unsafe as a result. Why is it that when you were in Walkerton just last week, you did not tell the people about these facts?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the minister can refer to the facts better than I can.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): There was a regular inspection done of the water facility in Walkerton in 1998. In fact, it was done in February of that year. I want to go through some of the events with respect to that inspection and what happened as a result of it. There was a detection of E coli in the system.

On May 6, 1998, in the final report, these were the recommendations of the ministry inspector: He recommended the use of chlorine to maintain a satisfactory level of disinfection; he recommended the need for the ongoing training of the operations staff; and he recommended the requirement to adhere to the minimum sampling program as laid out in the Ontario Drinking Water Objectives. This requirement, it's important to note, was conveyed to the public utilities commission in a letter from the ministry in June 1995. This report was sent to the public utilities commission and copied to the town of Walkerton and to the Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound Health Unit.

On July 14, 1998, the commission wrote to the ministry's Owen Sound office and stated that it would implement all of the recommendations of the inspection report-all of the recommendations. On July 30, 1998, the Owen Sound office acknowledged the commission's letter and provided, at the commission's request, an update on the ministry's emergency contact procedures. That's what we did.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, when you were in Walkerton last week and people were desperately searching for answers and they were wondering who was responsible for this tragedy that unfolded before their eyes, why did you not tell them that your own officials had refused to comply with the Ontario Drinking Water Objectives and had failed to pass along information to local health officials? Why did you not stand before them and tell them about that important detail? Why did you overlook that fact? Why did you not come clean with the people of Walkerton and say: "Listen, we screwed up here. We made a terrible mistake.

I had a responsibility to bring this information to the fore and give it to your local health officials. That did not happen on my watch"? Minister, why did you not do that?

Hon Mr Newman: I want to tell you that when I was in Walkerton last week, no one was pointing fingers at anyone. People wanted answers. We all wanted answers. I want answers; the Premier wants answers; the people of Walkerton want answers; indeed the people of Ontario want answers. That is why today the recommendations that I brought forward which will be in the form of regulation are so important that they are given the force of law in this province.

While the members opposite scoff at this idea, they all had an opportunity when they were the government to put these measures into regulation. The Liberals had the opportunity to, the NDP had an opportunity to and, yes, Progressive Conservative governments of the past could have put it into regulation. We're putting in regulations-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Minister, take a seat, please. Sorry for the interruption, Minister.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question is to the Solicitor General. Minister, constituents in my riding have consistently told me that they take the issue of community safety very seriously. At local events, on radio open-line shows and door to door, people I've talked to in my riding of Simcoe North all believe that we should be able to live in our communities free from the fear of crime.

Minister, our government had made commitments to the people of Ontario. Could you tell this House and the people of Simcoe North some of the commitments our government has made to make our communities safer?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Solicitor General): This gives me an opportunity today-thank you to the member for Simcoe North-to indicate to people across Ontario that in 1997 we established the proceeds of crime unit. These particular proceeds allow us to use the assets of criminals in order to fight crime. Clearly, to date almost $1 million has been expended on a number of very good projects, including the helicopter pilots which we have had in six jurisdictions.

I might say to the people of the Toronto that if and when the city decides that they want to support a helicopter project, the province will still be there to support that. I believe it's important for them in terms of safety in the streets.

Second, I'd like to say that I believe the community at large appreciates the efforts being made to support the police. In fact, I believe the community at large supports the police. As well yesterday I was at the People's Church, and Pastor Hull had a special service for the law enforcement community to thank them for their contributions to their communities.

Mr Dunlop: I'd also like to thank you for the grant of $18,000 for extra overtime policing in the RIDE program. Clearly this government believes that when we make a commitment to community safety, we keep it. Some of our commitments to make the community safe deal with providing the police with the tools they need to help them do their jobs.

Minister, the battle against crime takes place from the front-line police officers on the streets to the involvement of community organizations. Could you tell the constituents of my riding, and the people of Ontario, about the initiatives our government has taken to help community organizations fight crime?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: There's a very good organization that we have been supporting for some time called Crime Stoppers. Just this weekend they had their conference to discuss future directions and initiatives with which Crime Stoppers wishes to assist the government and policing community to crack down on crime. This took place in North Bay.

Just two weeks ago I was able to present Crime Stoppers with a cheque in the amount of $190,000, and that's to support their after-hours telephone service, which does have results. I'm proud to tell you that Crime Stoppers, in conjunction with police, has resulted in the arrest of over 50,000 persons, clearing over 79,000 cases and recovering over $429 million worth of stolen property. Clearly, this is the result of our supporting what I believe is a very good organization of volunteers who deserve a lot of credit in terms of assisting us and assisting the policing community in fighting crime.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment about when he knew things were happening. It was reported that there was coliform found in the water of Walkerton in January and April of this year; in other words, in the period of time before May of this year. That is usually a sign that there is a problem, when you find bacteria of that kind in the water. In addition to that, in February 1998, E coli was found in the water. I don't know who the minister was then. It's a revolving door over there. You had about four ministers, some part-time, some half-time.

I want to ask you this question: When did you know that information, Mr Minister, and when did the previous minister know that information about the E coli? And when you found out about that information, what specific action did you take and what action did the other minister take?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): What I can say is that on April 3, 2000, four of the eight samples-that included two from water supply wells and two from the water distribution system itself-showed potential contamination. The GAP laboratory faxed these preliminary findings to the ministry's Owen Sound district office on April 7. On April 10, staff from the ministry's Owen Sound office contacted the Walkerton PUC to address the irregular results. The PUC did not indicate that it was experiencing any significant problems with its system.

At this point, the district office did not notify the medical officer of health. It's very important to note that at this point we have a current operational assessment to this matter and it shows that there's no direct link to the situation that arose in Walkerton a month later. We expect that issue will be fully scrutinized as part of an ongoing investigation.

Mr Bradley: What I was interested in was what the minister knew at the time, what he did and what the previous minister, whoever it was, did in February 1998, because those were very serious problems that would of course have come to the attention of the Minister of the Environment at a management committee meeting of the ministry or by report to the minister.

Speaking of reports, I want to ask why we don't get an annual drinking water surveillance program report; at least if you do, you don't advertise it very much. The Sierra Legal Defence Fund asked the question in the report it released two weeks ago called Who's Watching our Waters? I think I know the answer to that. It's not the Ministry of the Environment or the Harris government. It's somebody else watching, but it's not you people. Every time somebody wants to get a report now of any significance in a timely fashion, they have to file a freedom of information request and either pay for the report or have it long delayed.

Minister, could you tell us why we don't seem to be getting an annual drinking water surveillance program report put out and advertised and made easily available to the public and why it takes so long to get your discharge report?

Hon Mr Newman: On the issue of the discharge report that the member mentioned, it doesn't differentiate, as I indicated two weeks ago, between a 0.001% exceedence of an allowable discharge level or a 300% exceedence.

The member also raised the issue of freedom of information requests. It's important to note that there is a lot of time and effort on the part of ministry staff that is spent as a result of freedom of information requests. I think the Ministry of the Environment probably gets the most freedom of information requests. I can tell you that it puts a lot of stress on the staff to get that information. It costs a lot of money and a lot of time because of the number of freedom of information requests placed before the ministry.

NORTHERN HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Last week, as part of our Tourism Week celebration, I travelled from Sault Ste Marie to Mattawa and from Thunder Bay to Kenora. Minister, as you know, the people who live, work and particularly vacation in the north have to overcome great distances when going from one community to another. I noticed a lot of construction going on. The harsh climate of northern Ontario requires a solid infrastructure. What steps have you been taking to ensure that northerners have a great highway system that makes it possible to overcome those distances?

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I thank the member for Brampton Centre for the question. I want to, as well, commend the member for his interest in northern issues, both as parliamentary assistant at this ministry and at Tourism. I know the member was travelling around extensively and continued to do so even last week, from Mattawa to Kenora.

As the member and those in northern Ontario know, this Mike Harris government has invested record levels of spending on northern Ontario highways-in our first mandate, up to $730 million-and announced in this budget a four-year program of $850 million into northern Ontario highways alone. I had a chance to drive between Dryden and Fort Frances myself last week, down 502. There is investment in Highway 11 and 502 north to Dryden.

There's no doubt-and I hear this from corner to corner of the north-under the Mike Harris government, there are two seasons: There's winter and there's construction season, because we know the importance of highways to the northern Ontario economy, to tourism, to trade and to commercial development.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The time for oral questions is over. Just before we begin, in the members' west gallery is Mr Bob Huget, who was the member for Sarnia in the 35th Parliament. Would all members join me in welcoming the former member back.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Pursuant to the order of the House passed earlier today, I recognize the Minister of the Environment to move a motion respecting the tragic events at Walkerton.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Very briefly, I would like to, under the circumstances, given the nature of this emergency debate today, ask unanimous consent that we divide the time equally between all three parties.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

I'm afraid I heard some noes.

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I move that:

This House expresses sincere regret and concern over the tragic events faced by the residents, families and friends of the citizens of Walkerton;

That this House sends its condolences to those who have lost loved ones and its prayers for those who continue to struggle with the ravages of this tragedy;

That this House pledge, as Premier Harris has, to do whatever it takes to get to the bottom of this tragedy, and, to that end,

That the standing committee on general government be directed to review the circumstances leading to the tragedy in Walkerton, and to report its findings and recommendations back to this House;

That for purposes of its review of this matter, the committee is authorized to travel from place to place in Ontario and to meet and receive evidence from witnesses when the House is not in session;

The Speaker: Mr Newman has moved that:

This House expresses sincere regret and concern over the tragic events faced by the residents, families and friends of the citizens of Walkerton;

That this House sends its condolences to those who have lost loved ones and its prayers for those who continue to struggle with the ravages of this tragedy;

That this House pledge, as Premier Harris has, to do whatever it takes to get to the bottom of this tragedy, and, to that end,

That the standing committee on general government be directed to review the circumstances leading to the tragedy in Walkerton, and to report its findings and recommendations back to this House;

That for purposes of its review of this matter, the committee is authorized to travel from place to place in Ontario and to meet and receive evidence from witnesses when the House is not in session;

Hon Mr Newman: Can I have unanimous consent for Mr Harris and Mr Galt to share the leadoff time?

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Thank you very much. It is with a great deal of sadness that I rise to discuss the tragic situation in Walkerton. I don't believe there's a single person in this province, indeed a single Canadian, who has not been touched by the events of the past week. As I said on Friday when I visited this grief-stricken community, all Canadians are united with the families of Walkerton. We're united in grief; we're united in prayer; we're united in heart and in mind; we're united in the determination to stand by one another until this situation passes.

Speaking personally, not only as Premier but as a father and as a son, as a fellow citizen, I, like members of this Legislature, have been moved by this tragedy. Like most Canadians, from the moment I first heard about this situation right up until now, two things have continued to weigh heavily on my mind. The first is the realization that this tragedy is rooted not in an activity known to be hazardous, but in something we rightly expect to be clean and we rightly expect to be risk-free. We're not talking about airplane travel or motor racing; we're not talking about a tornado or flood or other natural disaster.

We're talking about drinking water, the most important requirement for human life on this planet and something that we in this country are privileged to be blessed with in abundance. We take for granted, and I think we have a right to take for granted, that when we turn on the tap, what comes out is safe and is clean and is not contaminated. Parents have a right to take for granted that what they give to their children is life-sustaining, not life-threatening.

The fact that the families of Walkerton fell victim to something that each and every one of us takes for granted, something on which each and every one of us relies, the fact that their only mistake was to place their trust in a resource that each of us trusts too, only compounds the horror of this situation.

The second, and related, issue that weighs heavily on each of us is the thought that this tragedy clearly should have been avoided, that loss of life should have been prevented. But if any good is to come out of this horrible tragedy, if we are to learn from what went wrong, then these difficult questions must be asked. The people of Walkerton demand answers, the people of Ontario demand answers and I demand answers.

For example, if there was a delay in alerting residents to the presence of deadly bacteria in their water supply, I want to know why. This I say not simply as an individual, but as Premier on behalf of the province. I will leave no stone unturned and I will not rest until that question is answered. That is precisely why I want a committee of this Legislature to conduct a full, open and public review of the circumstances surrounding this tragedy. The government will co-operate fully with the committee's review. More specifically, all employees of the government will be instructed to furnish the committee with any information or documents that the committee requests.

It is my hope too that a public review will also dispel some of the misinformation and the inaccuracies that have entered into the discussion. Some have focused on the use of private labs to test the water. I caution that we do not yet have all the facts, but based on the information reported in the media, we do know that the testing worked. The testing was accurate. The testing correctly identified the presence of a deadly contaminate in the water. It would seem that the testing itself is not the issue, but rather what happened to the test results and when. I, like everyone else, demand answers.

A tragedy has taken place. Our responsibility is to find out why, to ensure that such a horrible situation can be avoided in the future. That is a weighty responsibility. We demean that responsibility when we use the tragedy as an opportunity to score political points or to seek political advantage. So I urge everyone to address this tragedy with the respect for factual accuracy that the situation deserves. I remind everyone, we don't yet have all the answers. We do not yet know all the facts.

Mr Speaker, protocol dictates that I address my remarks through you, but if I might, I would like to close with a message to the families of Walkerton.

In the midst of grief and of sadness, you are not alone. The rest of the province, the rest of the country, stands with you. Canada is a vast nation, but at times like this it becomes a single community and what touches any one part of our community then touches us all. You're in our thoughts, you're in our prayers, you're in our hearts, and I assure you we will do everything in our power to get to the bottom of this. We'll do everything possible to find out what went wrong, when it went wrong, why it went wrong and how it went wrong. We will do all that we can to avoid such a tragedy in the future, and we will not rest until we do.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise today, and it's certainly a very sad time in the province of Ontario, when several people have died and many more are seriously ill in the community of Walkerton and also in the amalgamated community known as Brockton. Certainly my empathy and sympathy go out to those people, particularly those who have lost loved ones. I can appreciate that it must be extremely difficult at this time, and particularly also for the many who are sick and still wondering what the outcome will be.

Today in question period the Premier answered very capably many of the questions that were put forward. As he has indicated, not only he but the government of Ontario and the Legislature certainly should take responsibility for finding answers to what is going on here, a very serious situation indeed. As he has already mentioned, there will be a coroner's inquest. There's no question that when deaths occur in humans under various circumstances, a coroner's inquest is called, and that's what's going on here. Coroners' inquests, as members of this Legislature and the people of Ontario know, are very extensive.

They can call witnesses and they come forth with recommendations that the province and the courts pay attention to.

An OPP investigation is also going to be carried out on this whole problem, as to who did what and how it happened and what went wrong and why. We have great respect for our people in uniform who carry out these investigations-again, an investigation that's going to be very extensive, an investigation that can call forth witnesses. We'll be examining this in great detail.

Over and above these investigations that will be carried out, we'll be having an investigation by a standing committee of the Legislature, the general government committee, made up of all parties. Again, they are unlimited in what they'll be able to do in calling forth witnesses, asking questions and delving very deeply into this whole affair.

I have followed this over the last few days with great concern, having worked in a diagnostic lab and having a little understanding of some of the organisms they're dealing with. I thought it was very unfortunate the way the members of the official opposition and the members of the third party dealt with this. Here we had a situation of people dying and people very ill-we're talking about 500 to 1,000 people severely ill-and these people on the other side of the House trying to win political brownie points.

I was embarrassed as a politician to experience and to see this kind of thing going on with members of the opposition. I held them in high regard, but certainly after what I was observing over the weekend that has dropped significantly, and I'm a bit ashamed-not a bit; I'm very ashamed on their behalf. They do not seem to be ashamed, and I think that's very unfortunate.

This is a very difficult situation, very unfortunate, and I acknowledge that. At the same time as we acknowledge that, I think we can recognize that in the province of Ontario and in Canada we have some of the safest drinking water in the world. Rarely do we run into situations where the water is contaminated and we have this kind of situation. It's not a time, maybe, to be celebrating, but at least it's a time to be thinking about how much of our water is looked after and is properly handled. Yes, what has happened at Walkerton is extremely unfortunate, but at least we can recognize the kind of water that we have available in this country and in this province called Ontario.

I think what's going on in Walkerton is difficult, but what the people of Walkerton, I'm sure, are looking for is clean water in the future. We can walk through all of the things that occurred and have happened over the last few days, over the last few months, and we can point all kinds of fingers-and obviously the opposition indeed has been pointing fingers right, left and centre-but I think it's very unfair that they're doing this at this point. What the people of Walkerton want is to have the problem solved and have clean water in the future.

The Premier repeated many times that what's more important than pointing fingers is to get some facts, get some figures, get some understanding of what went wrong in Walkerton and then once those are sorted out by the three studies or investigations that will occur-the coroner's inquest, the OPP investigation and the standing committee on general government-once we have those reports and as information becomes available during those studies, we can then implement changes and possibly change regulations, possibly change reporting procedures and ensure that this never happens again in any other community, in any other municipality in Ontario.

I'm sure that this incident in Walkerton will have epidemiologists around the world studying it for many years to come, and what we do and how we respond will be part of that report and part of what those epidemiologists will be acknowledging.

I think it was rather interesting to hear the member for St Catharines talking about the importance of public labs and trying to draw a comparison of how public labs do better than private labs, which I really have to question. I also found it kind of ironic in the fact that he has stood here and criticized me, because once upon a time I was a director of a public lab. But I found it rather satisfying today to hear him talk about how wonderful they are. I really don't know just which direction he's coming from on the public labs, whether he supports the people who work in them or whether he's opposed to them.

He comes from both sides. I can understand why, being a Liberal, he might do that kind of thing, but it's unfortunate that he couldn't be consistent.

In spite of that good news that I was hearing from him, how wonderful public labs and the directors of those labs are, what I really want to say is, scientists are scientists. Whether there's a profit at the bottom line or whether it's a public lab that they're responsible for, scientists are scientists and they do not bend, they do not change just because of the person they may or may not be reporting to. Most scientists have that kind of credibility and put it way above that kind of thing the member for St Catharines and many of the other members from the opposition were pointing their fingers at today.

Having worked in a lab and recognizing this organism, I know that they report it often as a coliform, and there are tremendous numbers and varieties of coliforms, well over 600, some serotypes, and only a very few that cause the devastating effects that this organism that they isolated, the 0157 variety, can cause, so much kidney damage. I remember some seven or eight, maybe nine years ago, just prior to Applefest in Brighton, a similar organism was isolated in apple juice that had caused kidney shutdown in a young child. That year it was terrible to try to sell any apple juice at Applefest.

But the following year, of course, that was forgotten. In that case, as I understand, it was picked up from some apples off the ground.

This just points to the fact that you can have some coliform organisms that have no effect, and the large percentage of them have little effect,

whereas in this case, this particular one is very devastating. Often it's looked at as a sentinel organism, whereby you're checking to see if there's a fecal source and whether there may or may not be things like salmonella or campylobacter or some of the other well-known intestinal organisms that might be there and that you're not picking up. But in this case it was a devastating E coli, which was most unfortunate for the people in Walkerton, from what I understand and what I have seen in many of the reports.

There have been a lot of things written in the paper. There's one from Andrew Coyne that just recently was published in the Post that talks about the opportunity for the people who hate our government to try to take advantage of it. "If it is necessary to exploit the suffering of others, to use the dead as pawns, so be it." And on it goes. I think it's most unfortunate that the opposition would take this kind of opportunity.

I've had about 10 minutes, and that was what was recommended that I have, but I'm just wondering if maybe some of the following leadoff time could be split with the Minister of the Environment, if we could have unanimous consent that the Minister of the Environment could continue for another 10 or 15 minutes.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Newman: The tragic situation that is unfolding in Walkerton is indeed uncharted territory for all of us. I'm pleased to see how everyone has come together in support and sympathy for the people of Walkerton. It really is a case of tragedy bringing out the best in people. I'm especially amazed at the way the people hardest hit have held up under the intense glare of national and international attention. Though we've been hearing all manner of claims and counterclaims and allegations, Walkerton residents have shown a resilience and generosity of spirit that are very inspiring.

Last week I had the chance during two visits, including one with Premier Harris, to meet and speak with some of the people who have been sick. I was particularly touched when I met a father and son outside the town hall on Friday afternoon. The son was suffering after consuming some contaminated water. We talked about many things. We talked about his illness. We talked about hockey. You don't have to be a parent to be touched by these heart-rending events. But like so many of my colleagues, I am a parent, so the effect on children is what really drives home the seriousness of the situation for me.

The most unfortunate aspect of severe pollution problems, for example, smog, is that the people who suffer most are the most vulnerable members of society: the young, the elderly and people already coping with some form of illness. For their sake and indeed the sake of all Ontarians, I believe we must make positive changes to ensure that this kind of situation never arises again. I believe that something positive can come from the situation, but only if we act with determination.

I would like to outline for my colleagues in the Legislature some of the proposed actions I outlined this morning with respect to the strengthening of the safeguards for Ontario's drinking water supplies. I will follow the discussion of new measures with some thoughts on this government's commitment to protecting Ontario's environment and water quality. We believe that a healthy, well-protected environment is a cornerstone of a prosperous Ontario and an Ontario that is a great place in which to live, work and do business.

Everyone will be aware that I announced these measures this morning in a press conference, where I was joined by my deputy minister, Stien Lal, who provided an overview of the Ministry of the Environment's role. As I stated this morning, there are three investigations underway or soon to be underway: First, there is one by the Ontario Provincial Police; second, another by the coroner, who has called for an inquest into the deaths of five people that are believed to be linked to the E coli outbreak; and the third one is by my ministry, which will focus on the events that led to the contamination of the municipal water system.

These three investigations are necessary to start getting answers and information out to the people of Walkerton and out to the people of Ontario. You don't have to live in or near the affected areas to feel the need to know exactly what happened, and why. These investigations will be looking into very complex issues, and the Ministry of the Environment will provide whatever assistance we can to help out. As I said this morning, we are acting in a spirit of unprejudiced openness to shed light on the role that was played by the Ministry of the Environment.

In a few moments my parliamentary assistant, Toby Barrett, will clear up some of the issues surrounding the suggestion that the Ministry of the Environment knew about Walkerton's contamination problems for six months and has not taken action. This is not true, as you will hear from my parliamentary assistant.

I have instructed my ministry staff to begin work on a regulation that includes four key mandatory changes.

First, all laboratories or water treatment plant testing facilities which perform tests on drinking water must be accredited by an agency. This accreditation will include certification for all tests to be performed to fulfill the requirements of the Ontario Drinking Water Objectives. As it's now worded, municipalities are strongly encouraged to use accredited labs. I want to say, as the Minister of the Environment for this province, that this is simply not good enough for the people of Ontario.

Second, municipalities must inform the Ministry of the Environment of any change in private laboratory facilities testing their water. This will allow my ministry to follow up and ensure that the new lab is fully aware of, and able to fulfill, its role and obligations.

Third, the Ministry of the Environment will review every certificate of approval currently in place for all water facilities in Ontario. In the new regulation, all water treatment facilities must have their certificates reviewed at least once every three years.

Fourth, regarding the issue of notification, I want to underline that the current procedures in place do-I stress "do"-require any testing labs to notify the Ministry of the Environment and the local medical officer of health, as well as the municipality, of test results. However, we recognize that built-in redundancies or fail-safes on the notification procedures may have resulted in some confusion about reporting obligations. We do not want there to be any question about notification requirements. These requirements must be absolutely clear.

If any laboratory gets a test result indicating unsafe drinking water quality, the Ministry of the Environment and the medical officer of health must be informed, as must be the municipal water facility operator.

I have directed my staff to consolidate and strengthen the requirements I have outlined by codifying them in the new regulation. This will make it absolutely crystal clear that all three agencies must be informed, and in a timely way.

With three investigations, more facts will come to light, and this will mean, in turn, that further steps will be taken depending on the nature of the findings.

The staff at the Ministry of the Environment have a major task ahead of them in shaping the regulations I have requested. From my experience as minister, and especially in the past few days, I can tell you that my staff are all ready to roll up their collective sleeves to get to work. They share my belief, and the belief that I know is shared by all members in this Legislature, that Walkerton must not be repeated, not in Walkerton and not anywhere else in our great province.

There are a number of issues that require serious consideration by the ministry. For example, we still need to determine the exact format, including the penalties that will be associated with non-compliance. Even with many details remaining to be worked out, we can spell things out immediately. This is only fair to everyone concerned and it's in the best interests of public safety.

Of course, we do not want to do anything that will jeopardize the integrity of the three investigations that are under way or are soon to be under way. But we are doing our best to make abundantly clear the responsibilities that laboratories and the owner-operators of facilities have to inform authorities of potentially unsafe water supplies.

I'm very proud to be part of a government that is very serious about protecting water quality and ensuring the highest quality of life possible for its residents. We have assisted Ontarians in many municipalities through our $200-million provincial water protection fund, which is helping in situations where problems are being experienced as a result of problems with water and sewage infrastructure.

With respect to water quality in the Great Lakes and the connecting channels, we have invested $300 million to clean up areas of concern in our portions of the system. Through the Great Lakes Renewal Foundation, the province is stimulating new partnerships that are investing millions of dollars to continue the vital work of cleaning up, conserving and protecting the Great Lakes and our other water resources.

The foundation was established with an initial provincial contribution of $5 million in seed money. This investment has generated eight times that amount in the form of in-kind and financial support from other sources. Certainly we know that improvements to our water quality can be made. Consider the findings of the third report of progress under the Canada-Ontario agreement respecting the Great Lakes ecosystem, released in September 1999. This report states that the Great Lakes are cleaner than they have been in 50 years.

Among the highlights: Ontario's municipal-industrial strategy for abatement regulations limiting discharges from nine industrial sectors, which have resulted in a reduction of at least 70% of toxic pollutants being discharged into Ontario's waterways.

The pulp and paper regulation has resulted in an 82% reduction in discharges of chlorinated toxic substances into the Great Lakes, as well as the elimination of discharges of dioxin and furan to water from this sector. Significant reductions have also been made in discharges of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, cyanide, zinc, lead and chromium. Ontario has cleaned up 12 contaminated sites within its jurisdiction in the Great Lakes basin. Cleanups at an additional 50 sites are being funded by private groups or responsible parties. Of these cleanups, 31 are completed.

The collection and treatment of contaminated groundwater continues at eight sites and work on a further 13 sites is scheduled to be finished in 2000.

The amount of chemicals entering the lakes continues to decline. Significant reductions have been achieved for dioxins, furans, mercury and several other toxic contaminants. One of the best indicators of improved water quality is the fact that beaches are remaining open for longer periods in Toronto, Hamilton and other lakefront communities. This is the result of government programs to separate formerly combined storm sanitary sewers and/or to put holding tanks in place to deal with excess runoff.

Returning to our topic, drinking water, a report released in February 2000, called Drinking Water in Ontario, shows that Ontario's drinking water is better than, or as good as, that found anywhere in the world according to ministry testing between 1993 and 1997. The jurisdictions with which Ontario was compared include Australia, Great Britain, Japan, South Africa and the United States. The ministry's drinking water surveillance program results indicate that 99.98% of water samples analyzed meet health-related Ontario drinking water objectives.

These are the standards established to protect public health, produce aesthetically pleasing water and ensure proper operation of water treatment facilities.

The measures I have announced today will improve Ontario's ability to protect water quality. We've come a long way in this province in providing safe and abundant water supplies, but the events of recent days in Walkerton have shown us in dramatic fashion that there is still a lot of room for improvement.

Walkerton is a situation that pains each and every one of us in this House. I know that everyone from all parties shares in my feelings about what has happened. There is nothing we can do to undo what has happened, but we can move forward and try to effect some positive changes. By acting together, and by acting quickly with resolve, we can at least improve the safety of our water supplies and contribute to the health and well-being of Ontario residents.

The rest of the time-I would ask for unanimous consent-will be shared with my parliamentary assistant, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, and the member for Durham.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): As noted by Minister Newman, my time will also be shared with MPP O'Toole.

I, as all MPPs in the House, am very saddened by this tragic event and I share the concerns of local residents and their families. Our thoughts are with them, with lost friends and family. For those who are still sick I pray for a speedy recovery. On behalf of the Legislature, I wish to offer my sincerest thanks to medical practitioners who are taking care of the sick, to the municipalities and industries who have offered assistance to Walkerton, for example, by providing potable water.

Premier Harris, MPP Newman and the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer have met personally with residents of this community to deal directly with the events over the past week.

On the May 24, Ministry of the Environment staff met with the local PUC, their consultant and town council, to review operating procedures, to develop an action plan to confirm the source of the problem and to return the town's water supply to its previous safe state. As part of the action plan, we have turned over the operation of the municipal system to the Ontario Clean Water Agency, also known as OCWA.

Again, I understand the anger of people in Ontario. Five people have died and hundreds of people are sick, and we're committed to finding out as quickly as possible exactly what led to this tragedy. I'm sure that all members of the Legislature continue to be concerned about the health of the residents of Walkerton and are relieved that the number of new cases is now starting to decline. However, it's vital that the Ministry of the Environment continue to monitor and act on the situation, along with town and the Ministry of Health.

On May 25, the ministry issued an order requiring immediate implementation of the action plan to review the municipality's operating procedures, to develop a plan to confirm the source of the problem and to return the town's water supply to its previous safe state.

As you know, the ministry is also currently conducting an investigation on the cause of the E coli contamination. One question which has come up several times is whether the ministry had any warning of these health-related problems with the town of Walkerton, now known as the township of Brockton. As you know, the incidents leading up to the tragic events in Walkerton are the subject of an investigation. My ability to comment on them is severely limited because I have no intention of compromising that investigation. I can, however, clarify what the ministry knew and what actions it has taken.

Earlier this year, analysis of samples from this water system were conducted by GAP EnviroMicrobial laboratory. The ministry's Owen Sound office did receive faxed test results from GAP once in January and again in April of the year 2000. These test results indicated the probable presence of coliform bacteria in the Walkerton water system. However, no E coli was reported.

Total coliforms are bacteria which are common inhabitants of the intestines of warm-blooded animals. They're prevalent in soil and surface water. Not all coliform bacteria produce disease in humans, but their presence in treated water is taken as a warning of potential problems. The Owen Sound office followed up by telephone with the Walkerton Public Utilities Commission on April 10, 2000. The PUC said that following the irregular results, corrective measures were being taken, as prescribed in the Ontario Drinking Water Objectives, 1994.

These measures included increasing chlorination of the water supply system and further sampling. On May 3, 2000, the Walkerton PUC submitted to the Owen Sound office a copy of a GAP lab report which indicated that the follow-up testing showed an absence of any coliform bacteria or E coli. The ministry received no further lab results.

It has been noted that the ministry was aware of problems with the Walkerton water treatment system in 1998. The question is, would these tragic events have been avoided if the Ministry of the Environment had taken action in 1998? The ministry compliance inspection report on the Walkerton water treatment system, completed in 1998, confirmed a history of adverse sample results in two of the four wells in service at that time, as well as failure to maintain adequate chlorine residuals in the system, and that the bacteriological monitoring program did not meet the ministry's monitoring sampling requirements.

The ministry did take action on this 1998 problem. The ministry followed up with the municipality, which confirmed that appropriate action had been taken to address the problems noted in the ministry's compliance inspection report.

We must understand that the municipality is and always has been fully responsible for ensuring that drinking water is safe. The Ontario Drinking Water Objectives prescribe standards of quality for all drinking water supplies. In addition, the ministry has established a comprehensive sampling program for all waterworks in the province in order to ensure that the people of Ontario have a reliable supply of safe drinking water. To be fair, we must recognize that municipalities take the responsibility for providing safe drinking water seriously.

Our drinking water surveillance program has shown that overall Ontario's municipalities ensure their drinking water quality is among the highest in the world.

It has also been asked whether this situation would have been avoided if the laboratories of the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Health were still conducting the analysis of water samples. I can't see how it would make a difference. Whether the lab is a ministry facility or a private facility, it's obligated to notify the owner-operator of the water system, the Ministry of the Environment and the medical officer of health in the event of any exceedance of health-related Ontario drinking water objectives.

At that point, the owner-operator is obligated to begin immediately collection of special samples to confirm if there is a problem and/or take corrective action. Corrective action includes immediately increasing the disinfection dose and flushing the mains. This action should continue until sampling confirms the Ontario drinking water objectives are no longer being exceeded.

Notification of proper authorities is a key question in the Walkerton tragedy. Both the owner-operator of the drinking water system and the laboratory are obligated to notify the ministry and the medical officer of health in the event of any exceeding of health-related Ontario Drinking Water Objectives. The Ontario Drinking Water Objectives require that the laboratory immediately notify the ministry if the sample results indicate unsafe water quality. The ministry, in turn, then must immediately notify the medical officer of health and the operating authority to initiate collection of special samples and/or, as required, take corrective action.

This was spelled out on May 14, 1995, when the ministry sent a letter to waterworks owners advising that the owner is responsible for notifying the ministry as soon as possible of the occurrence of any analysis which indicates unsafe drinking water quality. Later, in January 1997, the ministry released a guidance document for sample collection and the use of commercial presence-absence tests for the bacteriological analysis of drinking water.

The document recommends that laboratories should, with the permission of the owner, report results indicating the persistence of coliforms or the presence of E coli to both the ministry and the local medical officer of health regardless of the Ontario Drinking Water Objectives.

Another ministry guidance document for selecting an environmental analytical lab strongly recommends that the contract between the owner and the laboratory include a clause requiring the laboratory to immediately inform the local medical officer of health, the ministry and the owner of when health-related parameters are being exceeded. In the case of Walkerton, we know the PUC changed labs on May 1, 2000, and at this time we do not know if such a notification clause was included in the contract between the Walkerton PUC and its new laboratory.

The Ministry of the Environment does intend to change procedures to avoid similar tragedies in the future and strengthen requirements to protect our drinking water quality to ensure a similar tragedy does not occur in the future.

Today, even in advance of the results of the investigations, the ministry is proposing four important and mandatory changes, and these were alluded to by Minister of the Environment Newman:

(1) The notice requirements must be absolutely and unequivocally clear. If any laboratory finds a test indicates unsafe drinking water quality, it must immediately inform the ministry, as well as informing the PUC or the facility owner and the medical officer of health. All three offices must be informed in a timely way.

(2) All laboratories which perform tests on drinking water must be accredited by an agency, such as the Canadian Association for Environmental Analytical Laboratories. This accreditation will include certification of all tests which they perform if they're following the requirements of the Ontario Drinking Water Objectives. To date, such labs have been strongly encouraged to be accredited. Now there will be no option.

(3) Municipalities must inform the ministry if they change the private laboratory facility that is testing their water.

(4) The ministry is going to review every certificate of approval currently in place for water facilities in Ontario. In the future, the certificates will be reviewed at least once every three years.

There's no question that local officials and private labs are really quite well equipped to safeguard community drinking water. Local officials are trained and licensed to operate drinking water systems. The ministry tests and licenses operators of water treatment facilities in Ontario, and the ministry also requires facilities that need a certificate of approval to have licensed operators. Accredited private labs are certainly equipped to perform the tests required to safeguard provincial drinking water quality.

Private labs are accredited by the Canadian Association for Environmental Analytical Laboratories and the Standards Council of Canada and are certified for appropriate analytical tests such as the microbiological test to detect E coli.

There has been some confusion over the number of water samples required for municipalities like Walkerton. The Ontario Drinking Water Objectives distribution system sampling requirements: A population of up to 100,000 people is required to take eight samples, plus one sample per 1,000 people. In the case of Walkerton, this is 13 samples per month, with at least one sample per week. In addition, if there are any indicators of unsafe water quality, the ministry can order additional special samples taken to determine the exact extent of the contamination in the distribution system.

The government has been asked why it closed all Ministry of the Environment water testing labs in 1996. Well, the ministry did not close all its water testing labs in 1996. It maintains a complete capability for water testing at its laboratory services branch facility in Toronto. What it did close were three regional laboratories that were providing routine water testing for municipalities. That was done because both the capability and the capacity to accurately perform the tests existed in the private sector. Municipalities were provided support to either contract with an accredited lab or develop their own.

The provincial government has been accused of downloading responsibility for testing drinking water to municipalities in 1996. The provincial government did no such thing. The responsibility for testing drinking water systems resides with the facility owner, and owners have always collected the water samples and submitted them to the lab. The owners were paying the Ministry of the Environment laboratories for water quality testing as early as 1993. The testing services provided by the ministry were mainly for routine water quality analysis that could be provided by accredited private laboratories.

The ministry decided to stop doing the analysis of water samples for the municipalities because there was adequate private sector lab capability and the capacity to do this testing. The Ontario government did not want to compete with the private sector on a fee-for-service basis.

Similarly, the government did not download responsibility for building and maintaining water and sewer plants on to municipalities in 1997. Municipalities are, and always have been, responsible for delivering water and sewage services to their communities, and we've heard this more than once today in the legislature. The transfer of title of some water and sewer services to municipalities under the Municipal Water and Sewage Transfer Act does not alter this responsibility. As a matter of fact, Walkerton already owned and operated its water treatment and distribution system in 1997, when the act was passed.

The majority of water and sewer systems in Ontario were already owned by municipalities at that time.

There is a straightforward system of accountability for drinking water quality in Ontario. The municipality is ultimately responsible for ensuring that drinking water is safe. The Ontario Drinking Water Objectives describe standards of quality for all drinking water supplies. In addition, the ministry has established a comprehensive sampling program for all waterworks in the province in order to ensure the people of Ontario have a reliable supply of safe drinking water.

In carrying out its responsibilities under

section 52 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, the ministry applies the Ontario Drinking Water Objectives in approving any waterworks that supply water for domestic purposes and serve more than five private residences. The ministry tests and licenses operators of water treatment facilities in Ontario and requires facilities that need a certificate of approval to also have licensed operators. The Ministry of the Environment conducts proactive inspections of waterworks to ensure operators have proper procedures and practices in place to ensure safe drinking water quality in accordance with the Ontario Drinking Water Objectives.

In conclusion, let's recap the actions the ministry took when it learned there was a potential problem in the Walkerton facility.

The Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound Health Unit first learned of a possible E coli contamination event in Walkerton on May 19. This occurred when it was alerted by the South Bruce Grey Health Centre staff that two cases of bloody diarrhea had been reported. On May 21, the medical officer of health did contact the ministry's Owen Sound district supervisor, but did not identify a water problem or request assistance. On May 22, the medical officer of health requested assistance from the ministry. An emergency response person responded and arrived on the scene within two hours of the request for this assistance.

The Ministry of the Environment officer took bacteriological samples and assisted the medical officer of health as required.

The ministry has continued to take water samples and monitor the situation. Ministry staff met with municipal officials and its consultant to formalize an action plan to restore a safe water supply. On May 25, the ministry issued an order requiring that the action plan be implemented immediately to review the municipality's operating procedures, to develop a plan to confirm the source of the problem and to return the town's water supply to its previous safe state. The ministry is also conducting an investigation of the cause of the E coli contamination.

At the request of the Premier, the Ontario Clean Water Agency has taken over the operation of the Walkerton water treatment facility for a six-month period. OCWA has advised that they intend to hire a hydrological consulting firm to assess the wells and the groundwater supply to the system.

As parliamentary assistant, I join Environment Minister Dan Newman in assuring you that the ministry continues to do its job and resolve the issues that resulted in the tragic events at Walkerton.

As I indicated, I will be sharing my time with another MPP, Speaker.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): With the consent of the House, I would agree to share my time with the member for Bruce-Grey, who would conclude.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Mr O'Toole: I would start to bring a human face to the story and say that each MPP has a duty to be informed when issues arise which affect the safety of their constituents. I have been in touch with my riding, the region of Durham, and the public health and public works departments. Durham region has six water supply plants, including five facilities which draw water from Lake

Document details

Collection	Ontario — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	2000-05-29
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	p37 s1 2000-05-29 hansard html
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	367a48978c46dc17b3a55de1905bf10b7e681c40

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).