This
document is available in Adobe Acrobat Format 22.05KB
June 14, 2001
Premier Mike Harris to testify June 29
The Walkerton Inquiry has announced that Premier
Mike Harris will testify on Friday, June 29. No dates have been published for
when former Environment Ministers Brenda Elliot and Norm Sterling will testify,
but it is expected they will testify prior to Harris during the week of June 25.
Get prepared for meetings with Val Gibbons
The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has
announced it plans to implement the Managing the Environment report,
written by Val Gibbons. It has established an Implementation and Transition
Secretariat, headed by Bob Breeze.
Val Gibbons and other senior staff are holding
information meetings across the province with ministry staff.
OPSEU produced an analysis of the Val Gibbons
report when it came out in February http://www.opseu.org/walkerton/gibbons.htm
Prior to your workplace’s meeting with Gibbons,
hand out to all OPSEU members:
- Our
analysis of the Val Gibbons report
- The executive
summary of OPSEU’s Renewing the Ministry of the Environment
report.
OPSEU believes the evidence from the Walkerton
Inquiry shows that the Ministry must be re-built and strengthened so that it can
fully carry out its responsibility to protect Ontario’s environment.
We don’t believe the solution is to dilute and
offload this responsibility to other public organizations and the private
sector. This is what the Val Gibbons report suggests. Among other things, it
talks about the MOE moving away from direct front-line enforcement and
compliance. We believe that testimony from the Walkerton Inquiry shows that
exactly the opposite is needed: more resources should be put into front-line
enforcement and compliance.
Six questions to ask Val Gibbons
Members have asked their union to suggest
questions to ask Val Gibbons when she comes to their workplaces. OPSEU held six
workshops across the province with MOE staff in February and March when
preparing our Renewing
the Ministry of the Environment
report for the Inquiry. The following questions are based on what
members told us:
1) Staff told OPSEU that no other agency, body or
ministry is better placed to be responsible for the protection of the
environment in Ontario than the MOE. The MOE sets and enforces provincial
standards so that every citizen of Ontario, no matter where they live, has the
right to a clean and healthy environment.
The Managing the Environment report
says: "the Ontario government should give careful consideration to the
creation of an arms-length operating agency for operational/program delivery
of environmental management." (Managing the Environment, Executive
Summary, p.g. 24)
If this recommendation is implemented, won’t
this move responsibility and accountability for protecting the environment out
of the MOE? If so, what public organization will be ultimately responsible and
accountable to the people of Ontario for a clean and healthy environment?
2) At every one of the six workshops that OPSEU
held with MOE staff, staff said that there aren't enough people to do the
work. Staff are carrying very heavy workloads in this ministry. Is the
ministry going re-build its staffing complement by hiring more staff?
3) There is general agreement from everybody,
that the MOE lost a lot of scientific expertise in the cuts of 1996 and ’97.
See the January, 1998 briefing document quoted in the May 28 Pipeline.
Is the ministry going to re-build in a systematic way its scientific and
research capacity?
4) There is general agreement that training isn’t
sufficient in the ministry. Is the MOE going to start a comprehensive training
program of its staff and all new hires?
5) Staff are hampered by lack of tools and
equipment. Sometimes the equipment is old and falling apart. Other times there
aren’t enough tools, equipment, cars to go around. Is the ministry going to
rebuild its inventory of tools, equipment and other supports that staff need
to do their job well?
6) Staff told OPSEU that they believe the MOE must
take an ecosystem approach to protect the environment. This is the MOE’s
mandate as spelled out under the Environmental Bill of Rights. There is
general agreement that there is a need for a comprehensive source protection
strategy when it comes to water. When is the ministry going to develop and
implement with the appropriate players such a strategy?
Sterling asked to make notification amendment in
1997
As reported on CBC radio June 11 and as reported
in the Pipeline
May 17, former Environment Minister Norm Sterling was asked in
1997 to amend legislation so that private labs immediately notified health units
of adverse drinking water test results.
Former Minister of Health Jim Wilson wrote
Sterling in August 1997 "to request an amendment to the Ontario Water
Resources Act (OWRA) or assurances from the Ministry that adverse drinking water
test results from drinking water sytems under the jurisdiction of the OWRA, are
immediately brought to the attention of the local medical officer of
health."
Sterling wrote back to Wilson’s successor,
Elizabeth Witmer, in November 1997, saying, in effect, that such an amendment
wasn’t necessary because the responsibility to report on the part of both
operators and the private labs "is clearly delineated in the [Ontario
Drinking Water] Objectives."
In Witmer’s reply, she reminded Sterling that
the Medical Officer of Health has the legislative authority to judge whether
water is safe for human consumption. She wrote: "the importance of the
local medical officer of health receiving early notification … cannot be
overstated."
The letters are significant evidence because they
show the government was warned three years before the e-coli outbreak in
Walkerton about the need to legislate the reporting requirements of labs and
operators.
The exchange of letters between Sterling and the
two Ministers of Health was examined at the Walkerton Inquiry May 7 and 8. As
reported in the Pipeline May 17, it was conscientious civil servant,
Chuck Le Ber, who raised the concerns at the Ministry of Health which resulted
in the initial letter from Wilson to Sterling.
Le Ber was being told by health units that with
the privatization of routine drinking water testing, they weren’t being
notified by the private labs of adverse test results.
A joint MOH-MOE committee of scientists, the
Drinking Water Co-ordinating Committee, produced an amendment around
notification procedures in June 1998. It was not followed up on until August
2000, when the MOE responded to the Walkerton tragedy with a regulation on safe
drinking water.
"It was a communications statement"
Former Deputy Minister Linda Stevens testified at
the Walkerton Inquiry May 28 and 29. Stevens was the deputy minister at the
Ministry of Environment and Energy from August 1995 to August 1997.
Commission Counsel Paul Cavalluzzo questioned
Stevens about the budget reductions of 1995, 1996 and 1997. In July of 1995,
Cabinet office directed the MOEE to cut its budget by $55.3 million.
In November of 1995, MOEE was directed to cut its
budget by a further $200 million. This was known as "the 40/20 plan".
It amounted to a 40 per cent cut in 1996 and a 20 per cent cut in 1997. The MOEE
submitted its budget for 1996 and 1997 (called a "business plan") to
Management Board of Cabinet on January 22, 1996.
Cavalluzzo took Stevens through about eight
internal government documents, including the business plan of January 22, 1996,
which warned that the cuts could lead to an increased risk to human health and
the environment. Most of these documents have been previously entered into
evidence. See the May
28th Pipeline.
Some of the key things we learned from Linda
Stevens’ testimony.
According to Stevens, neither she, nor
Environment Ministers Brenda Elliott and Norm Sterling, tried to re-negotiate
with Cabinet Office the amount of the budget cuts MOEE was told to make.
- Brenda Elliot, the Minister of Environment and
Energy from June 1995 to August 1996, was advised that the cuts would lead
to an increased risk to human health and the environment.
- Norm Sterling, Minister of Environment and
Energy from August, 1996 to June, 1999 was informed of the potential
impacts of the cuts to human health and the environment.
- The MOEE’s August 24, 1995, budget
submission regarding the $55.3 million cut stated: "These reductions
will have an adverse impact on the delivery of environmental protection
service levels which in turn will increase public health and safety
risks."
- The MOEE’s January 22, 1996, business plan
regarding the $200 million cut stated: "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 February 5, 1996 analysis by Management
Board of Cabinet of the business plan called it a "realistic assessment
of impacts." It went on to advise: "Overall reaction of the public
with respect to perceptions of environmental quality deserves emphasis. This
plan will quite severely impair the ability to respond to these
perceptions." This analysis was produced for cabinet ministers who were
members of two cabinet committees: Management Board of Cabinet and the
Policy and Priorities Board.
- The marketing and communications spin for the
cuts was drafted by ministry staff, political staff in the Minister’s
office, and staff from Cabinet Office and the Premier’s Office.
- The MOEE’s January 22, 1996, business plan
included a marketing and communications plan. It stated: "there is
broad public acceptance of some ‘current plan for future gain’ as far as
the spending cuts are concerned. However, there is also a strong public
expectation that the government will protect the environment and will ensure
a safe and secure energy supply." It listed as a "communications
objective": "rationalize the spending reductions to target
audiences as largely positive." It listed as a "key message":
"while the ministry will become leaner and more efficient, there will
be no compromise on environmental protection."
- A minute from the cabinet meeting of February
28, 1996, following up on a Policy and Priorities Board meeting of February
22, 1996, shows that cabinet authorized the MOEE to proceed with the cuts.
- Stevens was not aware of the ministry doing
any study on the capability and capacity of private labs to analyze drinking
water samples, prior to the privatization of routine drinking water testing
in July, 1996. This work had previously been done by MOEE labs. The
privatization resulted in the closure of three regional MOEE labs in 1996.
Commission Counsel Paul Cavalluzo asked Stevens
about the January, 1996 marketing and communications plan: "Now would you
agree with me after having referred to at least eight documents, many of which
you have seen describing impacts on the long term health of the environment and
indeed to human health itself, that this statement … where it says there will
be no compromise on environmental protection, is not accurate?" (Walkerton
Inquiry, May 28, p.g. 233)
Stevens didn’t answer the question directly at
first. Cavalluzzo put it to her again a little while later: "But would you
agree with me that where it says no compromise on environmental protection, it's
just inaccurate. It may be a nice marketing message, but it’s
inaccurate?" (Walkerton Inquiry, May 28, p.g. 235.)
Stevens replied: "It’s a communications
statement." She went on to say that while there were risks, in the eyes of
the senior management team, they were "manageable risks." (Walkerton
Inquiry, May 28, p.g. 235).
Cavalluzzo questioned Stevens about the MOEE’s
public business plan of May, 1996. It stated in part: "Without lowering the
current high level of environmental protection in Ontario, these reforms will
remove barriers that do not protect the environment and get in the way of job
creating economic activity." It made no mention of the risks outlined in
the confidential business plan of January, 1996.
Cavalluzzo asked Stevens three times if she
agreed with him that the ministry’s statement was inaccurate: "… if you’re
increasing the risk … how could the ministry make the statement to the public
that it is not lowering the current high level of environmental protection? You
must agree with me that that’s not accurate?" (Walkerton Inquiry, May 28,
p. 248)
Stevens would not admit that the ministry’s
statement was inaccurate. She replied at various times that you had to look at
the actual reforms in the business plan, and that the ministry was doing
everything it could to maintain its core functions.
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
