Session: 38:2
Date: 17-Apr-2007

SAFEGUARDING AND SUSTAINING ONTARIO'S WATER ACT, 2007

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to stand today and debate Bill 198, Safeguarding and Sustaining Ontario's Water Act, 2007. I'm pleased to share part of my time today with the member from Simcoe North for the debate. I appreciate the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka speaking to Bill 198 last Thursday for me.

The first amendment to the Ontario Water Resources Act is to add a purpose, which states: "The purpose of this act is to provide for the conservation, protection and management of Ontario's waters and for their efficient and sustainable use, in order to promote Ontario's long-term environmental, social and economic well-being.
"
I think we would all agree that this is a great purpose. We all want to protect our water resources in Ontario. Although stakeholders and those concerned are not quite convinced that this proposed legislation will actually meet its grandly stated objectives, I will certainly be putting some of those points forward in my comments this afternoon.

We all strongly believe that we must work together to protect the most important natural resource we have: our water. However, there are some significant problems with this bill that will not allow for the protection of our water resources as claimed by the current government in this legislation.

Firstly, while proposing to ban diversions out of the basin, this bill still allows for large-scale diversions between individual Great Lakes within the basin. Ontario has three basins, and the Great Lakes are all contained in one basin alone.

Also, despite imposing a new water tax on the taking of water used for industrial or commercial purposes, this bill does not encourage or support the development and practice of water conservation in Ontario. I think conservation is often forgotten by this government, and certainly one of the pillars we should work towards is more conservation.

1620
The fact of the matter is that in 2003, almost four years ago to the day, Dalton McGuinty announced, "We will stop allowing companies to raid our precious water supplies.... We will end this reckless giveaway." That was 2003, almost four years ago. We're now in 2007, with the first implementation of the proposed legislation to take place not until 2009: That's six years away from the 2003 election promise that was made by Dalton McGuinty. Even their own Liberal backgrounder on this bill, handed out in the flashy photo op, says, "This is the first of several steps required...." So we're nearly four years into their mandate and they're finally taking the first steps to protect our precious water resources, which I mentioned was clearly stated as a Dalton McGuinty promise.

This government has had four years, I say again, to put together strong, comprehensive legislation to properly protect our Great Lakes and water resources, but this bill is a very small step. There's a very strong odour of some political motivation, I would say. The bill represents the 11th hour again, the last second, a supposed green attempt for a rollout by the McGuinty government, trying to get the people of Ontario to really believe he is going to do something about the environment.

The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement, protecting and working to sustain our Great Lakes water resources, is of vital importance to the province of Ontario. The Great Lakes holds nearly one-fifth of the fresh surface water on our planet. But according to the Environmental Commissioner's 2005-06 annual report, by 2001, water levels in three of the five Great Lakes-Lake Superior, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron-had been lower than normal for four years in a row.

According to an article in the Ottawa Citizen on April 14, the national chairperson of the Council of Canadians argues that this Liberal government's water strategy is concerning, given growing concerns over water scarcity and the impact of climate change in Canada and worldwide. They also argue that many people forget to mention that most of Canada's water is not renewable. I quote: "[I]n recent years, one-quarter of Canadian municipalities have faced shortages. One-third rely on groundwater to provide for daily needs. Water shortages in the Prairies cost $5 billion in economic damage in 2001 alone."

Many concerned Ontarians have begun to realize that our abundant water resources might not last forever, especially without a conscious effort by government to show the necessary leadership to protect and conserve them. This bill implements the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement that was signed in December 2005 by Ontario, Quebec and the eight US Great Lake states. Proposed amendments to the Ontario Water Resources Act in this bill include-sorry for being technical, for those watching at home-section 34.3, which talks to the prohibition of intra-basin transfers, elevating a ban on diversions out of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin from a regulation to be part of the pact act.

However, Ontario already prohibits the diversion of water out of its three major water basins. It was actually the previous government that implemented the policy which banned the transfer of water out of the basin, and that was there in 1999. The proposed bill simply changes this ban from regulation into statute. That transformation from regulation to statute is important, perhaps, but it's not over the top for this government and this minister to try to pat themselves on the back. It is hardly groundbreaking. We, the previous government, did it in 1999. It was in regulation, but it had been adhered to, so it's not something new that was brought on.

One major problem is that the bill still allows for large-scale water transfers among watersheds within the basin, known as the intra-basin diversions. The proposed amendments to the act prohibit the diversion of water for new or increased intra-basin transfers of 379,000 litres per day or greater from one Great Lakes watershed to another Great Lakes watershed, subject to strictly regulated exceptions.

An exception standard sets out the criteria that must be met by applicants before these proposals will be approved.

In terms of the exception standard, although water taken from the basin must be returned to the basin, as transfers from the basin are prohibited, there are no guidelines in this bill that stipulate the quality of the water that must be returned to the basin. I think this is a very glaring omission, especially from a government that spends so much time touting its so-called leadership on the issue of water quality in Ontario.

Then we go on: Subsection 34.6(3) enshrines in the Ontario Water Resources Act the exception standard, set out in article 201 of the Great Lakes agreement.

The exception standard sets out seven criteria that must be met by applicants for proposals for new or increased transfers from one Great Lakes watershed to another. It states that there must be no significant adverse impact to water quantity or quality. The phrase "significant adverse impact" is both vague and unclear and does not assure Ontarians that the quality of their water will be protected.

The issue of intra-basin transfers is a very significant concern for many stakeholders and groups in regard to this legislation. Diverting water out of the upper Great Lakes and into the lower Great Lakes will work to compound the possible and projected effects of climate change. These effects will have a profound impact on Ontario, degrading ecosystems and destroying fish, bird and wildlife habitat.

Allowing these large-scale intra-basin diversions to continue is dangerous because of their potential effects on the water levels of the upper Great Lakes such as Lake Huron and Georgian Bay. I know that has been brought up by the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka, and we'll certainly be hearing much of that as the bill moves forward.

Groups affected, such as the Georgian Bay Association, are concerned that the exception criteria for this supposed ban on new intra-basin transfers are vague and could be subject to much interpretation. York region is leading the way in terms of establishing a precedent for intra-basin transfer opportunities. York region wants to draw water from Lake Simcoe and send its sewage to a treatment plant on Lake Ontario via an extension to the big pipe-a classic example right there of the intra-basin transfer.

Various stakeholders and interested parties are concerned about the long-term impacts of this big-pipe proposal and the general in-basin diversion exception because of the precedent that it does set. Other municipalities will also request and likely be awarded exceptions under the legislation for similar in-basin transfers.

Mary Muter, head of the environmental committee for the Georgian Bay Association, has stated her concerns with intra-basin transfers allowed by this bill. She says, "Once one 19-million-litre pipe goes in, others will follow and we could have a raft of pipes across southern Ontario, diverting Lake Huron/Georgian Bay water into Lake Erie and Lake Ontario."

In an article published in the Toronto Star on April 10, Mary Muter said, "Lake Huron/Georgian Bay water levels have been close to record low levels for the past six years. We are concerned that allowing the York region transfer out of the Lake Huron/Georgian Bay basin in Ontario will set a precedent that others will follow and cumulatively will lower lake levels even further. This will result in even more dried up wetlands and loss of fish habitat."

Allowing intra-basin transfers in this legislation is concerning, as it sends a message to other US jurisdictions on how far they have to go to fulfill the Great Lakes agreement.

She states, "No state has the ability to divert water from one Great Lake to another the way Ontario can, just because of our geography."

Dan McDermott, director of the Ontario chapter of the Sierra Club, has a similar concern. He states, "It would be hypocritical of Ontario to divert water over hundreds of kilometres between Great Lakes because" of "its geographical advantage ... while telling US jurisdictions they cannot transport water from one end of town to the other because these communities straddle the edge of the basin."

So we need to protect our water resources and to show some leadership when it comes to conserving and protecting the Great Lakes. How can we expect other jurisdictions to be careful with our water if the government of Ontario cannot take the lead in such an important area?


1630
According to Karey Shinn, chair of the Safe Sewage Committee here in Toronto, the inter-basin transfer is a "leak in the Great Lakes agreement." I quote: "The inter-basin transfer proposed will ensure water from Georgian Bay is polluted as sewage, all the way to Lake Ontario, where it will be discharged through the Duffin Creek sewage treatment plant in Pickering. This will put additional stress on existing Lake Ontario drinking water intakes for most of Ontario's population along the shore, including Toronto residents." As my colleague the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka made reference to in his comments last week, "Diverting water out of the upper Great Lakes and into the lower Great Lakes will work to compound the possible and projected effects of climate change."

According to the Environmental Commissioner's 2005-06 annual report, Ontario has seriously neglected its duties when it has come to the Great Lakes agreement. From what we've been seeing so often, it's certainly clear that Dalton McGuinty needs to wait for a report from an independent officer of the Legislature before taking any action. In this case, it was the Environmental Commissioner's report that provided the need for this government to act. But there is also the minister responsible for the OLG, as we've seen and discussed for I think almost 150 questions now, waiting for the Ombudsman's report before doing anything to deal with those issues that are so important to the people of Ontario, that are still sitting on his hands and that he's still not taking responsibility for. We ask him every day.

The Minister of Children and Youth Services has been scathed by not one but two dreadful reports by the Ombudsman, for a lack of interest and leadership in the children and youth ministry. The latest report was for her neglect to share any care and compassion for needs of the children of our brave military men and women. That was last week.

We see a trend happening here, the shameful leadership by the Dalton McGuinty government and the ministers that I have mentioned.

Under "Water taking," subsection 34(1) states, "Despite any other act, a person shall not take more than 50,000 litres of water on any day by any means except in accordance with a permit issued under section 34 (1)." The exceptions currently listed include private domestic wells or water used for domestic and other non-commercial uses or municipal supplies. Also exempt are institutions such as schools and long-term-care homes; environmental uses such as wetlands projects or hydro powers; and agricultural uses. Additional exceptions are water takings that started before March 29, 1961.

I have some comments on private wells which I'll get to later.

This bill also includes a water conservation tax, which allows the government to charge commercial and industrial users of water to promote the practice of water conservation by highly consumptive users. But this new tax is not guaranteed to promote water conservation at all. The reality is, it's a new tax. What will it be used for? Maybe it's administrative. How much will it be? Something this government does extremely well is implementing new taxes under the guise of fancy names designed to dissuade people from seeing what is really happening: another money grab out of the pockets of hard-working families in Ontario. They take your money; you're not sure where it goes.

All this tax will do is give the government more revenue to pay for an expanded administration. They're going to charge $3.71 per million litres of water. It will not really work to move companies towards the practice of water conservation.
In an article published in the Toronto Star on April 4, Ramani Nadarajah, executive director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, was quoted as saying, "It's not going to have a huge impact in terms of actually resulting in water conservation." It's not just us saying that; this is from the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

The Council of Canadians stated in the Ottawa Citizen, on April 14, "We believe Mr. McGuinty's proposal will do nothing to deter corporations from removing millions of litres of water from the Great Lakes, and will only serve to further commodify Canada's water, leaving it at great risk of depletion."

The new tax will start with highly consumptive commercial and industrial users of water such as water bottlers, canners, breweries and producers of abrasive products, but taxes on companies with fewer impacts on watersheds will begin to be phased in after 2009.

Certain sectors are exempt from paying this water tax, which has raised concerns by some interest groups about the fairness of such a water charge. The Canadian Bottled Water Association, in an article published in the St. Catharines Standard on April 8, stated that they are reluctantly willing to pay but believe there should be no exceptions.

Again from the Council of Canadians: "the government is sending the wrong message-that bottled water is here to stay."

So we'll be looking at the Liberal consultation process very closely. We hope that it does come soon, that we do go out to committee and hear from the public about this bill. What can we say to the Dalton McGuinty government about new taxes? They keep coming on. They promised not to raise your taxes. They signed a piece of paper with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation-all in print, all on video. We still have it, but they keep increasing your taxes. I hope the public remembers that when it comes to election time.

Certainly breaking promises has been a trend. Close coal generation plants-let me see. It got broken, rebroken and rebroken, and we still don't know for sure what's going to happen with that. How we can we believe what they say?

The clean air plan was certainly based on closing the coal plants. That's what they said. They had no plan, but they did tell us they were going to close the coal-fired plants. People voted for them for that, and they did not come through on that promise. It was under Elizabeth Witmer, who was Minister of the Environment, that the Lakeview coal generating plant was closed. We came through on the environment for the people of Ontario. The pillars may have come down when the Liberals were in power, but it was under the previous Minister of the Environment, Elizabeth Witmer, that the Lakeview generating plant was closed.

There are other promises for the environment: diverting 60% of municipal waste. Our diversion rate now is about half of that, despite that amazing promise never delivered on by the Minister of the Environment. She has finally had to admit that they're abandoning that promise of waste diversion of 60%. It's not surprising.

Another one: Six years after Justice O'Connor's recommendations, of which Dalton McGuinty promised he would implement every single one, there are at least 34 of the recommendations that remain unimplemented, even with the passage of that politically named Clean Water Act. I'll get into some more details about that, and I'm sure the members opposite have heard them before.

We can go on for a while about the promise-breaking, saying anything to get elected, but I simply don't have that much time and I know the member from Simcoe North is anxious to participate.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): No, no. Twenty minutes left.

Ms. Scott: In another 20 minutes or so.

The Clean Water Act: The Minister of the Environment touts that continuously as an excellent example of how their government has demonstrated strong leadership on water protection. We all know that the Clean Water Act, like this current bill before the Legislature, is just an empty shell, with regulations, details-the devil's always in the details-to be determined long after the next election. We've seen that pattern consistently in the present Liberal government-after the next election, after 2007. When the Clean Water Act came before the Legislature, there was a bunch of undefined terms that were central to the ability of the bill to reach its objectives. They were unclear. All of those things were left to regulation.

Again in this bill, Bill 198, we are given vague definitions that are problematic for people trying to make decisions and for the public just to understand what's going on in the bill. What is the bill going to do or not going to do when it comes to the protection of the Great Lakes? I think you should be a little more definitive-don't mind the pun.

I think it's also fair to talk for a few moments about the minister's speaking notes about the so-called Clean Water Act. She so often puts those two pieces of legislation together. We've stated very clearly that we support clean water and source water protection for Ontarians; there's not a question about that. But they're trying to drive the message that we're against clean water, and it's simply not true. The Clean Water Act was just a political name. It was about downloading responsibilities onto municipalities, avoiding, abdicating responsibilities at the provincial level. Dalton McGuinty does a good job of avoiding responsibilities.

Every farmer and small business person in Ontario is in favour of clean water. They don't need to be hit with a hammer. The Clean Water Act was downloading responsibilities onto the municipalities and the rural landowners. They are stewards of the land, and they have continually been beaten upon by this McGuinty Liberal government. The difference between what Dalton McGuinty believes and what we see on this side of the House is that when a government tells a farmer or a community church or a small business owner that it is introducing new rules that will cause them to spend money to protect clean water, we on this side of the House would ensure there's certainly proper funding allocated.

1640
The Clean Water Act was clearly flawed legislation. Over 250 amendments came to the original bill. Over 100 of those were the government's own amendments for the legislation. So the minister will say a lot of money was spent on the science and research ahead of the introduction of this bill-they might have spent a lot of money; they probably wasted a lot of money-but they certainly didn't get it right. The largest number of amendments were brought forward by their own government. I thank the people of Ontario who came out to the Clean Water Act committee hearings to drive the message home.

So there should be some simple guidelines here with respect to this legislation before us this afternoon, as with Bill 43, the Clean Water Act. If the government is going to bring in policies or regulations that affect the existing use of your property, you should have the ability to apply for some form of compensation. If a government intends to change the existing or permitted use of your property in the future, you should receive advance notice and the opportunity to make your opinion known before new rules come into force. If the government decision dramatically hurts your ability and your family's ability to earn a living, there should be an opportunity to appeal. These are straightforward concepts, and they've been ignored by the minister and by the Premier. It all boils down to, certainly, respect, and we don't see the Liberal government giving respect to the people, certainly in rural Ontario. It has been awful.

This is where the government actions affect the citizens, like I've mentioned with the Clean Water Act. They have to be able to be heard. I'm still waiting and we're all still waiting, and no doubt we'll continue to wait, for the Minister of Agriculture to step up to the plate to do her job of protecting the farmers who feed our cities. We're still waiting for some feedback on that. But she has decided to spin that Liberal rhetoric instead. Under Dalton McGuinty, this protection of your agriculture community is not going to happen. They haven't come through in three and a half years. I can't see that they're going to come through in the last six months, not that anyone would believe if they did promise something; you couldn't.

My fear, once again, with Bill 198 is that hard-working Ontarians in rural communities are going to be pinned with the bills while the minister gleefully takes credit. Again, more thoughtfulness, more planning: We don't see it here. The reality is that they politically polarized the Liberal Clean Water Act. They did that intentionally. It's just an empty shell. They threw some money at it after they heard, all from rural Ontario, how flawed this legislation was. They threw some money at it to keep everybody quiet, threw things in regulation and then they threw a party after the Clean Water Act. They had the big party, the clean water party-free food, free bar. They had great baseball caps, those blue baseball caps. Maybe we're going to have a whole bunch more parties if they're throwing out this green legislation before the election-pat themselves on their back that they've done a great job for the environment.

In discussion around both Bill 198 and Bill 43, there's real concern by rural residents about private wells being metered. Let me quote from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment at that time, the member from Perth-Middlesex, on August 25 in the hearings in Peterborough: "I think I'll have to post a sign in every Tim Hortons and every feed mill in Ontario that says, `There will be no metering of private wells.' The minister has said that over and over again." This is the member from Perth-Middlesex. He was quite confident at the time. But in Durham region just recently there was a meeting about the very topic, as their health department presented a seminar where a senior official noted that charging well owners for drawing water from their wells is coming for sure; that's a senior official who noted.

Certainly I and other members of my caucus have gotten calls and notes of concern about their wells being metered. Both the member from Perth-Middlesex and the Minister of the Environment have either said what they could to avoid this issue or more certainly have provided the assurance to the rural residents of Ontario that they would require. But, pardon the pun, Mr. Speaker, we all know that the word of Dalton McGuinty doesn't hold water.
Regardless, there are concerns-a lot of concerns-out there not being addressed properly by the ministry. In the same seminar it was noted that 23% of residents in Ontario obtain water from wells. That's a large group-it's certainly a large part of my riding-that I'm sure Dalton McGuinty would love to find a reason to throw an additional tax towards, along with the health tax which he promised he wouldn't do. More taxes, more taxes; someone is paying for Dalton McGuinty's $22-million spending spree.

The Minister of the Environment stated last week in the Legislature, "Absolutely no way can this legislation allow for the metering of homes" from private wells. Again, a very pointed statement saying that metering of private wells and homes won't happen. Whether you can believe them or not, I'm certainly not sure. I would say no because our promise-breaking is up way over the 50 mark. They've broken promises.
The Trent-Severn Waterway is in my area, so we're still talking water. It's all about water. Addressing the symptoms of climate change is vital. It's also equally important that we focus some of our attention on adaptation.
My riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock is almost 10,000 square kilometres in central Ontario. I've got 50 towns and hamlets and I have several watersheds within my riding. The city of Kawartha Lakes is the third-largest agricultural employer in the province. Tourism is also a big part of our economy.

We are known as cottage country to the people who flock there every summer to their cottages. In Haliburton county alone the seasonal population grows by 50%. So the population grows by 50% during the peak tourism season. Ecotourism is certainly also growing in that area. We have a wonderful part of Ontario, and people flock to enjoy our beaches and our waters. We're all here to help protect them.

In the southern part of my riding, the Trent-Severn Waterway goes through. But its reservoir lakes are in the northern part, in the Haliburton county part. I've received numerous letters from cottagers on Kushog, Kashagawigamog, Canning Lake, Horseshoe Lake, White Lake and others. There is a coalition now for equitable water flow in the Trent-Severn Waterway. So there has been a lot of initiation within my riding, and I'm glad to see that the federal government, with the member from Simcoe North, Bruce Stanton, and the member from my federal riding, Barry Devolin, have got support for a review of the Trent-Severn Waterway. We look forward to the results of that review coming out.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I asked them for a review too.

Ms. Scott: I see the member from Peterborough is supportive of that also. That's good. The parties are working together, on some levels, with water.

Certainly we've heard of the water fluctuations that go on. Many residents and property owners, recreational users and tourists are affected by that fluctuation of water levels and other environmental impacts of that system, not to mention all the great fishing that we have in my riding. Their habitat needs to be protected. Water resource protection and management, renewable power and economic rejuvenation are all things that need to be considered for this area.

The Frost centre was a vital environmental and outdoor education, environmental stewardship and conservation centre that was suddenly closed in 2004 by the McGuinty Liberal government. The local area-

Mr. Leal: Is it reopening, though?

Ms. Scott: I'm going to get to that. Thank you, member from Peterborough.

The member from Parry Sound-Muskoka and myself brought forward petitions. Over 10,000 signatures were signed in a very short period of time that helped force the present government to form the Frost working committee with people who volunteered their time for almost a year. They created a report, which they submitted to the government, and we're happy to hear that the government has seen that their ways were incorrect in 2004 by the closure of the Frost centre and put a competition out there for someone to reopen the Frost centre. So I'm happy to say that the FCI group was successful. There was also a great bid by the Friends of the Frost Centre, but the FCI group was successful, and we're looking forward to the opening in June, I say to the member from Peterborough. Hopefully, you will be attending.

We can see that the people in Haliburton-Victoria-Brock were on the edge of saying, "You have to educate the young about the environment. You cannot close down centres like this. It's a mistake." We need as much education on the environment as we can so we're all environmental stewards. I want to thank everyone involved for that steadfast campaign on the present Liberal government on how that closing of the centre was wrong and how we've taken it, how that has moved forward. We wish the Frost Centre Institute all the best for their opening. I know they're working very hard, and we look forward to having them in the riding.

1650

In regards to Bill 198, again, it's all about the environment. We saw the $22.4-billion increase in this year's budget spending. That's equal to an increase of $4,500 per household. But we're also seeing from this increase in spending more broken promises-not a big surprise-and meagre results. Are Ontarians any better off? Polls say no. I don't think so; they're not feeling better off. But they're spending more of the money.

In the recent budget, the Ministry of Natural Resources was cut by $36 million. Even properly intended environmental legislation could not be implemented without adequate resources, and here we have the present Liberal government cutting $36 million from the budget. The Minister of the Environment had to be disappointed. She had to be begging the Minister of Finance for some more money to support all these environmental promises. But I guess they're farther down the road. You don't need any money up front here now. But really it doesn't look like there's a commitment to the environment when the budget for the Ministry of the Environment went up just such a small, small amount.

But the government across the way is certainly listening to the polls. They must be, because we've been on the big rollout of green promises. They've seen the polls. They've seen that there's a huge focus on the environment, a huge shift onto the environment. It's been keeping me busy, anyway, following all the announcements. Implementation dates of course are way down the road. It was five years ago that Dalton McGuinty was out there starting on the election promises that he was going to do wonderful-sounding things for the environment. That was five years ago. It sounded good.

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Coal-fired plants.

Ms. Scott: Oh, I've already mentioned the coal-fired plants, the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka said. There were lots of things in that promise-breaking Liberal red ink that we saw in the platform of 2003. One of them was, "We will stop allowing companies to raid our precious water supply. We will end this reckless giveaway." We're now in 2007. First implementation of this legislation is to take place in 2009. So, you know, broken promises, extended dates-it's becoming the norm. Say anything to get elected.

Kicking off this big fanfare six months out of an election, two and a half months or whatever left in the legislative agenda-he's got a lot to do, he's got a lot of time to make up. He started making those promises over five years ago. And even if this legislation does get passed, it's not until 2009 that these rules come in. So six years after the 2003 election promise we're just starting to take action. I thought if the environment was the priority that it was supposed to be, we'd have seen things within maybe the first six months or first year of our mandate. But, no, it's the last six months of the mandate.

Great photo ops, though, that we're doing. Great locations: Lake Ontario is where we did the big photo op for this bill that we're discussing today. More promises; who knows if they'll keep them? I don't think the people of Ontario are paying attention. They're not going to believe what the Liberal government has been promising and started promising before they even were the government. So I hope that they do take stock of this. There's certainly lack of leadership, no question, on the environment.
Interjection.
Ms. Scott: Look at that: The member for Peterborough is telling me there's an announcement coming in my riding. In a week's time? The dialysis unit? Okay, that sounds great. I'm actually attending the fundraiser this Thursday. Thank you, Mr. Leal, for the dialysis unit at the Ross Memorial Hospital in Lindsay.

We hope we've got lots of clean water out there. And we're hoping that the Liberal government actually is going to do something about the environment instead of making all these promises, having all these parties saying they're doing great things and yet doing nothing.

Yesterday our leader, John Tory, made a significant policy announcement on climate change. We're still hearing that the Liberal government is going to bring a climate change plan in, but, again, I guess a little closer to the election will be the climate change plan. But that will come after the election.


Mr. Dunlop: It's tough to make priorities.

Ms. Scott: It's tough for the priorities.

The environment and climate change all require leadership. We haven't seen leadership by the Liberal government over here. We've announced a plan with targets and how we're going to get to those targets.

Interjection.
Ms. Scott: Well, we'll see what you're saying. Let's see what you're saying.
Interjections.

Ms. Scott: The plan is out there. The press release is out there. The Liberals are a little jealous because we've got a plan out there and they have no plan. They've been in government for three and a half years, and there is no plan.

It was the Conservative government that closed Lakeview. You talk about coal plant closures. We're the only ones who actually did the coal plant closures. You guys take the credit, but that's politics aside.

I know the member from Simcoe North wants to add some comments on Bill 198. I'm sure we'll be sending this out to committee as soon as possible, because we want some public input. So I would like to thank the members for their time and attention and their heckling-I appreciate that-and pass it to the member for Simcoe North.

Ms. Scott: I'm pleased to conclude and thank the member from Simcoe North for helping out with the hour leadoff. I know he has done a great job of bringing the concerns of Lake Simcoe and all of his riding to the Legislature with respect to clean water and the effects that are happening up there with the leapfrog effects from growth and his acknowledgement of what the federal government is doing in their Trent-Severn waterway study.

The member from Timmins-James Bay made some good points on how this is all going to work with the Great Lakes and the water levels, the effect.

The member from Peterborough had the first-hand experience of a lot of water a couple of years ago, I guess we can say, and the infrastructure needs that are there. We have another Liberal member on record now as saying that they are not going to meter private wells, so I'm glad that the member brought that forward.

The member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, who has a great deal of background in the environment and who was the critic for our party for the environment, has been following the Clean Water Act and now this bill and he gives a lot of valuable input, and the member from London-Fanshawe, who was on the Clean Water Act tour with us, so he heard first-hand the concerns from rural Ontario.

Bill 198 has got different sections that we have mentioned here. The real intent of what environment policies should be addressing is that we have to change the way we do business for the long term here, and I think that has certainly come out in the bill. It's not just our environmental health; it's our economic health. If we don't have a good economy we don't have a strong environment. We all have to work together.

We hope that this bill will go out for input, for consultation, to everyone concerned. The member from Simcoe North brought that forward. I'm sure the ladies of Lake Simcoe will come out. Many of the associations in his riding have been green long before a lot of people in Ontario were paying attention to our environment.

So I thank the members for their time and look forward to further debate.