This
document is available in Adobe Acrobat Format 22.05KB
May 28, 2001
First Tory Environment Minister warned of
potential impacts of cuts
The Walkerton Inquiry is methodically combing
through government documents and establishing who was warned that deep cuts to
the environment ministry could increase the risk to human health and the
environment.
It was established through testimony and
documents the week of May 14 that the first Environment Minister under the
Tories, Brenda Elliott, was told of the potential impacts of the drastic budget
cuts on the ministry’s ability to protect the environment. It appears she did
nothing to convince her cabinet colleagues to soften the blow.
Elliott was the Minister of Environment and
Energy from June 1995 to August 1996. (Environment and Energy were merged until
October 1997.) She presided over the first phase of the implementation of the
cuts.
Layoff notices were issued to close to 800 staff
at MOEE in two phases: May 1996 and February 1997.
The Inquiry has yet to comprehensively examine
and hear testimony related to documents issued under Elliott’s successors:
Norm Sterling, Tony Clement and Dan Newman.
Senior civil servants who prepared MOEE’s
budgets through the 1990s testified May 15 and 16 that when the Tories first
took power, senior ministry officials read the Common Sense Revolution and
started planning for a 20 per cent budget cut. In late July of 1995, they were
told by Cabinet Office to plan the cuts according to the "40/20 plan."
The ministry’s budget was to be cut by 40 per cent in 1995/96 and 20 per cent
in 1997/98. According to testimony at the Inquiry, the 40/20 plan was
implemented.
Paper trail of documents
A paper trail of documents has been entered into
evidence at the Inquiry. They include:
July 21, 1995, memo from
Sheila Willis, Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM), Operations Division, to Richard
Dicerni, Deputy Minister, states:
"The changes we are suggesting are not
without environmental risk and legal exposure."
"Constraints as envisioned in the options
packages will seriously and significantly impair our ability to meet our
statutory obligations."
August 14, 1995, memo from
Sheila Willis to André Castel, ADM, Corporate Management Division, states:
"There are health and environmental risk[s]
associated with changes of this magnitude."
August 18, 1995, Expenditure Management Plan,
a MOEE briefing document, lists major implications of the cuts, including:
"Reduced ability to detect, diagnose and
remedy threats to environment and human health resulting in decreased public
confidence."
"Lowered staff effectiveness, morale."
September 1, 1995, Expenditure Reduction Strategy
1995-96, another MOEE briefing document,
states:
"In general, the impacts of these reductions
include: elimination of staffing flexibility to fill necessary highly skilled,
technical positions; and less monitoring, compliance, enforcement, standard
setting etc. activities which may increase environmental and health risks and
increase the Ministry’s exposure to charges of regulatory negligence."
January 22, 1996, confidential MOEE budget
submission (called "Business
Plan") to Management Board of Cabinet (a cabinet committee) for 1996-97 and
1997-98. It was signed off by Environment Minister Brenda Elliott. It
states:
"The Ministry’s ability to monitor and
assess environmental change and give early warning of long-term serious threats,
ensure compliance with environmental standards and regulations, and develop
policy and programs in response to emerging environment and energy issues will
be reduced as a result of:
- the closure of some air monitoring stations;
- reduced acid rain/urban toxic/Great Lakes
deposition monitoring and analysis;
- the elimination of inspections of closed waste
sites and reduction in proactive inspections of industries;
- a reduction in policy and program development
and research activities;
- a reduction in the Ministry’s scientific and
technical expertise; and
- delays in developing standards and in
providing expert advice on risks of water and soil contamination.
"The public may perceive that the government’s
ability to protect Ontario’s environment has been substantially reduced."
"The risk to human health and the
environment may increase as a result of improper or illegal actions which are
neither detected, nor controlled through orders and prosecutions as a result of
decreased compliance and enforcement activities."
"The level of front line service will be
reduced as a result of slower response times to complaints, a focus on
compliance activities rather than providing assistance with abatement actions
and less information available to respond to enquiries, and reduced technical
assistance to municipalities seeking to optimize water and sewage
treatment."
February 5, 1996, review of the MOEE budget
submission by a Management Board analyst.
It was prepared for the powerful Policy and Priorities Board of Cabinet and
Management Board of Cabinet (both are committees of cabinet ministers). It
comments that the submission is a "realistic assessment of impacts."
The review also says: "Overall reaction of
the public with respect to perceptions of maintaining environmental quality
deserves emphasis. This plan [the budget submission] will quite severely impair
the ability to respond to these perceptions."
Commission counsel Paul Cavalluzzo noted May 15
that the MOEE’s public business plan of May, 1996, did not make any mention of
the impacts or risks listed in the confidential business plan from January of
that year.
January 19, 1998,
Extent of MOEE Budget Reductions Since 1995/96, a MOE briefing document, assesses
the impact of the 1996 and 1997 cuts to the Ministry. It
states that while it is difficult to directly map the impact of the cuts on the
environment, it admits that all MOEE functions have "…experienced
diminished capacity…" They include: "reduced capacity to monitor air
and water issues" and "reduced scientific and research capacity to
support standards development and direction setting."
The document states: "Even though the
Ministry has attempted to protect front line delivery resources, budget cuts of
these magnitudes had a detrimental impact on the ability of the Ministry to
deliver front line services."
The document lists the following examples:
"reduction in the number of front-line delivery offices, the most
significant being the closure of the Gravenhurst District Office … This has
resulted in increased travel distance/time for staff to reach these areas, less
frequent field visits and longer waits for non-emergency issues to be addressed
that require a field response … reduction in the number of dedicated pesticide
program delivery staff … reduction in community liaison activities …
reduction in the promotion of pro-active initiatives such as Pollution
Prevention by front-line staff."
The document concludes: "The ministry has
consistently met all of its constraint obligations in a timely fashion. We have
reached a point where the capacity to meet future constraints cannot be achieved
without impacting on the delivery of core programs."
Commission Counsel Paul Cavalluzzo characterized
this document as "a cry from the Ministry saying, we can no longer take any
more hits if we’re going to continue to do a core function." (Walkerton
Inquiry, Cavalluzzo, May 15, p. 193.)
The senior civil servants who testified May 15
and 16 could not say for sure whether this January, 1998 briefing note was
submitted to the Minister of the day.
Norm Sterling was Environment Minister from
August, 1996, to June, 1999. He was quoted in the Toronto Star on April 25 as
saying: "The senior staff at the ministry held the position when I was
there that the cuts to staff could be made without risking either lives or the
environment."
Conclusions from the evidence so far
What we can conclude so far from the evidence:
Brenda Elliot was warned by senior MOEE staff that the cuts could lead to an
increased risk to human health and the environment. Did she use this knowledge
to defend her ministry against the budget cuts? Did she try to convince her
cabinet colleagues to reduce the severity of the cuts?
The government did not disclose the MOEE’s
warnings of an increased risk to human health and the environment to the public.
The government seems to have viewed the MOEE budget cuts as a public relations
problem. It concerned itself with putting the correct spin on the cuts, and not
with disclosing their potential impacts.
Another obvious question is: what did the
environment ministers who followed Elliott do about the warnings from senior
ministry staff?
The Inquiry will need to firmly pin down in
coming weeks the issue of ministerial responsibility for the cuts.
Former Deputy Minister to testify this week
As the Inquiry continues to hear testimony on
whether government policies contributed to the E. coli tragedy in Walkerton,
Linda Stevens will testify this week.
Linda Stevens was Deputy Minister at the MOEE
from August, 1995 to August, 1997. She was the top civil servant at the Ministry
to preside over the devastating budget cuts in 1996 and 1997.
The Inquiry did not hold hearings the week of May
21.
OPSEU lawyers will be at the hearings this week,
listening to testimony and cross-examining witnesses as they have been doing
throughout this phase of the Inquiry.
OPSEU represented at environmental fair in
Walkerton
OPSEU had a table at an environmental fair in
Walkerton May 20. The environmental fair was organized by Concerned Walkerton
Citizens and the Greening Walkerton Initiative.
We handed out copies of our report from MOE
staff, Renewing the Ministry of the Environment, which OPSEU submitted to
the Walkerton Inquiry May 1, http://www.opseu.org/walkerton/RenewMOErept.pdf.
We also made some initial contact with Concerned Walkerton Citizens. We look
forward to briefing them on our report in the near future.
OPSEU participates in Walkerton Inquiry
roundtables
Part II of the Walkerton Inquiry is examining
what should be done to ensure Ontario’s drinking water is safe in the future.
OPSEU has been an active participant in this phase of the Inquiry. Our report, Renewing
the Ministry of the Environment, guides us in our participation because it
contains the recommendations of MOE staff.
The Inquiry has assembled roundtable meetings of
experts to discuss a number of water-related issues. The experts participating
in these meetings include academics, environmental groups, various associations
of stakeholder groups and unions. OPSEU members and staff have participated in
roundtable meetings on groundwater protection and provincial responsibility for
drinking water protection.
At the meeting on groundwater protection, OPSEU
members highlighted the crucial importance of groundwater and aquifer mapping
and direct MOE participation in Planning Act approvals.
At the meeting on provincial responsibility for
drinking water protection, OPSEU members spoke eloquently about the lack of
resources. They talked about how the budget cuts handicapped the ministry in
performing its basic functions, both centrally and in the regions.
Members talked about the "climate of
fear" in the ministry and the devastating affects of the cutbacks on morale
and initiative of ministry staff. They talked about the need to speak truth to
power. They said that MOE staff don’t want to dwell on the past, but want to
look to the future. They want to help build a renewed MOE capable of doing the
job that so badly needs to be done. The point was also made that OCWA and the
public health units are under-resourced.
For a full listing of the roundtable meetings, go
to: http://www.walkertoninquiry.com/part2info/index.html
Contact OPSEU’s General Counsel, Tim Hadwen, if you want to participate in any
of the roundtables: 1-800-268-7376 ext. 230.
How to get in touch with us
To get on our e-mail list or talk to us about the
Inquiry, contact Megan Park at 1-800-268-7376 ext. 207 or mpark@opseu.org.
Check regularly www.opseu.org/walkerton/index.htm
and the Walkerton Inquiry website at www.walkertoninquiry.com.
Original authorized for distribution by Leah
Casselman, president.
Return to Walkerton
Inquiry Index Page
