Session: 38:2
Date: 30-May-2007

SAFEGUARDING AND SUSTAINING ONTARIO'S WATER ACT, 2007

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): We've had many members today from our side of the House who have wanted to speak to Bill 198. As was mentioned by the member from Waterloo-Wellington, there was a time allocation, so we only have such a limited amount of time. I was happy that they all participated and that I'm doing the cleanup on Bill 198, Safeguarding and Sustaining Ontario's Water Act, 2007.

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): They saved the best for the last.

Ms. Scott: I'll take that as a compliment from the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal.

It's been brought up that we intend to support the bill, but we certainly have some reservations and some amendments that we brought forward to committee that did not get passed. This act does 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 social, economic and environmental well-being.

We all want to protect our water sources. We had many people come before committee who knew about the bill. The problem again was that not a lot of people knew about the bill. The hearings were just held in Toronto here. Certainly the bill affects all of Ontario. It would have been nicer to see a little more time taken, especially on the water-taking aspect of the bill.

There were two parts to the bill. The Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources both spoke here this afternoon. We had even said in committee that really there should be two parts to the bill, because we heard from quite a few stakeholders that they hadn't been consulted-the water-taking permit being the Ministry of the Environment and the protection of the water basin aspect being the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Tim Morris from the Sierra Club pointed this out when he said that "there is still a lot of work to be done in regulations following this legislation to further define and implement the wording of the legislation." This would be much better served in two pieces of legislation, which we thought should go on.

Consumptive use has been brought up a lot this afternoon. The member from Leeds-Grenville was quite concerned for the company in his riding, Invista. I know the member from Peterborough and I had lengthy conversations in committee about the definition of "consumptive use." We stand to have philosophical differences, which I appreciate. I know that we had some clarification. The fact that some of the states may interpret the definition differently and lead to an uneven playing field and competition is still a concern, but something we could possibly, hopefully, work out in regulation. But we appreciate the two sides of the argument that did occur there.

Some other concerns that were brought up, not just at committee but by the Environmental Commissioner before the committee, were that the MOE and the MNR said that funding for both ministries is inadequate for them to fully operate and fulfill their obligations and their functions. I know that Premier McGuinty campaigned on making the environment a major priority, but we had the Environmental Commissioner say that there's not enough funding. We had several stakeholders say, "Well, that's all nice. You're doing this bill, and if there's no money to go with it to make it work, it's not going to work." So there's quite the dichotomy between what the government says and what's actually going to happen. That was brought up by several stakeholders.

Rick Findlay, the director of Pollution Probe, said with respect to Bill 198-and this goes in line with the concerns of the Environmental Commissioner-"Another important requirement is to be able to make the case for the resources necessary to implement this legislation over time, and the Environmental Commissioner has recently noted the chronic underfunding of the ministries responsible for managing and cleaning up the Great Lakes, the ministries of the environment and natural resources, in particular." Even properly intended legislation cannot be implemented without adequate resources.

There's no escaping those facts. We brought forward amendments from several groups. The Georgian Bay Association was spoken about at great length by the members from Parry Sound-Muskoka and Simcoe North. We're pleased that the government did listen to some of their concerns and made some amendments to that bill. They've done a great job, standing up for the Georgian Bay Association, working with Mary Muter and her group and the concerns with transfer within water basins, not just watersheds. So I appreciate that the government has listened to that. There's always the devil in the details with many of the regulations that were brought forward. So I thank all the members for voicing their concerns about that, and the Georgian Bay Association has done great work too.

The federation of agriculture is certainly one of the voices of Ontario farmers and is very important to my riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, which is very dependent on a strong and successful agriculture sector, as is all of Ontario. Mr. Don McCabe, who's an executive member of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, stated in the committee: "We are pleased that this bill recognizes the substantial stewardship role Ontario's agricultural producers take to minimize their water use and ensure an efficient use of water by recognizing that conservation charges will not apply to primary production."

I certainly agree that Ontario farmers are leading examples of land stewardship in the province of Ontario. The Farmers Feed Cities campaign was launched to educate everyone why we need to keep a strong agriculture sector that can provide safe, sure, high-quality foods to us and also that they are great stewards of the land. I thank them for that campaign. They were also concerned-again, back to the "consumptive use" definition-and felt that significant public research needs to be conducted on that. I say that again as a reminder to the government that that definition is going to be coming up a lot as regulations to this bill go through.

Another point I'd like to put forward on the record pertains to the absolute need for our farmers to have uninterrupted access to water for the very life of crops. Many farmers use storage ponds to alleviate the stress on other water sources during irrigation. The OFA's recommendation, which the PC Party brought forward in a proposed amendment, would see that the bill recognized the beneficial management practices of the OFA. Unfortunately, it was rejected by the government. But let me quote Mr. McCabe again:

"If you're going to make that kind of an investment into that crop, you need to be able to ensure that the water's going to be there to nurture that crop to its fullest potential.... We get one shot a year to do it right, and if that crop dies on the vine, that's a long time to come back around."

We wanted the government to take what the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has said. They didn't. I don't want them to throw any more stumbling blocks at our farmers in our agriculture communities than are already out there for the agricultural sector. I hope that, as this wasn't addressed in legislation, it will be addressed in the regulations as they come down.

The government did allow one of our amendments to pass. I want to thank the members of the justice policy committee for seeing that that was removed, and that was the provision that the permits expire, even if applied for on time, if a year passes by. That was in respect to farmers who have followed the rules, have applied on time for water-taking permits, and who should not be hurt because they have not had an answer back, the government being too slow to respond to that. So we were pleased that the government said that amendment could go through.


1740
I spoke before about the Georgian Bay Association and the good work they have done. They themselves actually raised a significant amount of money, undertook a study and found that 2.5 billion gallons per day, which was a previously unknown diversion, had been taken out of the St. Clair River, leading to the current low water levels in Lake Huron, Lake Michigan and Georgian Bay. I think it's just astounding that they took that task on themselves, raised the money and found that diversion that had been unaccounted for before. That is certainly why that amendment-we brought through a similar amendment, but the Liberals passed their own amendment. It dealt with the watersheds and returning the water to the same watershed. So we appreciate the work done by them.

The member from Leeds-Grenville brought forward his concerns on the consumptive use and the loss of jobs in his riding that could occur because of the definition of that, and the company that's willing to pay for the use of water but not for the water they're returning right to the same source for their business. Again, it's not an incentive for industry to move to the province if they don't know the rules and if they're scared they are going to change before them, and we certainly don't need any more loss of manufacturing jobs.

The Canadian Bottled Water Association, another provider of many jobs in our province, stated in public hearings, "We were not consulted by the Ministry of the Environment as they developed the $3.71 fee level.... We believe that this bill has more to do with politics than environmental science or stewardship. The timing and handling of the bill through the legislative process does not invite proper scrutiny or analysis." So another major association contradicts any attempt made by the minister for proper consultation to take place on this bill.

Mr. Anthony van Heyningen of Refreshments Canada says, "I know that neither Refreshments Canada nor our members were consulted prior to the introduction of this bill.... We are further disappointed that the government has moved time allocation on this bill."

Again, that section of the bill was rammed through without the consultation to take place that should have allowed citizens to come forward and more study to be done, because a lot of people didn't know about Bill 198, and it takes a lot of energy, time and work to get into the details of what it would actually mean to you.

This is another group of people coming forward saying that it should have been split in two. There could be a constitutional challenge on this. I guess we're going to have to wait and see.

Bill 198 also has the obligation to report; the agreement was every five years. Pollution Probe brought forward a suggestion that there needs to be more transparency and better monitoring, and reporting annually. Unfortunately, that amendment did not get through.

The Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association also provided an amendment that we brought forward that dealt with safety from electrical dangers in working underground with the water and the water level in the ditches. The government said it was not a concern and they didn't pass that amendment, but I just wanted to put on the record that they had brought forward a concern that they saw within the bill, and we're disappointed the government did not act on that.

Unfortunately, I'm running out of time, but we've had as much debate as we're allotted here.

Interjection.

Ms. Scott: There's unanimous consent for an extension, I hear in the background? There's a limited amount of time for debate, and I appreciate the opportunity that I've had. Thank you.