Ontario Hansard - 12-April2006

CLEAN WATER ACT, 2006 /
LOI DE 2006 SUR L'EAU SAINE

Ms. Scott: Okay, the Minister of the Environment's dad and my mom are watching, so we have to behave correctly, because we do get reprimanded if we are out of line as we are watched daily.

To turn to the debate, the Clean Water Act has three main purposes: It will require municipalities and conservation authorities to map the sources of municipal drinking water supplies; it will direct local communities to monitor any activity that could potentially threaten water quantity or quantity and take action to reduce or remove that threat; and it will give local authorities the power to take preventative measures before a threat to water can cause harm.

When this bill went out, there was a lot of concern; it has been on the environmental review -- I can't think of --

The role of the conservation authorities: They have been given money from the MNR so that they will take assessment and work with municipalities. For the people at home, I think that conservation authorities -- they have a lot of great members; I have family members who are on conservation authorities -- could be more accountable. I think that accountability would ensure that the conservation authorities look at the big picture and support provincial land use objectives, not just conservation.

This is a quote from the Role of Conservation Authorities:

"Conservation authorities' board members should be elected at large by the public. Electing board members would ensure conservation authorities operate in an open and transparent manner with the objective to enhance the quality of life for Ontarians."

The Ontario Home Builders' Association had some input on this in September 2005:

"The OHBA recommends that the Ministry of Natural Resource and conservation authorities have a mandate to protect the environment and to support balanced growth. OHBA further recommends conservation authorities be more accountable to the public through the election of board members. Conservation authorities should be subject to provincial land use objectives and not just conservation."

Certainly the municipalities are genuinely in support of the good intentions about the sources of water. They believe they have substantive issues. The municipalities are key to this, because they are going to take all this over. This is a five-year process, and they are going to take over implementation of this. They want more of a role in the areas of policy development and implementation, and having a substantive, but apparently unfunded, mandate. They're concerned that this is going to proceed with the development of a new, complicated layer of decision-making to deal primarily with a land use matter, whereas the municipality has plans in its area under the Planning Act.

What complicates matters more is the apparent desire by the provincial government to take over source water protection plans as local instruments of local creation. There's very limited representation on the source protection committees. They want to ensure that they're going to have representation, that they're going to work together, because they control the Planning Act; they have the official plans in their riding. So there are a lot of things.

We've talked about this legislation being brought forward in regulations -- a lot of it we're not sure of yet. Municipalities are concerned about what their role is going to be. They feel that they don't have any real decision-making powers on the source water protection committees, and it's directly affecting them. So they just want to be consulted. I think that's what they're saying. Theirs is a consultant role, and they need to be more empowered in the decision-making process.

From this, the minister has the powers, and they're concerned that it's all just going to be from the top down. I know there has been talk about municipalities' involvement, but they're not really having the hammer to deal with it. So the municipalities are concerned.

Source water protection around the wellheads and intake areas, which is critical for municipal responsibility: "The proposed legislation does not read that way and is therefore an issue of serious concern." This is AMO that's saying this. It says, "The province, by virtue of its decision-making in all aspects of the source water protection plan development, has the full `ownership' of the source water protection plan.

"While municipalities have no ... role in decision-making at the front end of the process, they are required to take on new and substantive responsibilities of implementation." As a minimum, if they're requiring municipalities to be the implementers, "then surely they should be given every opportunity to endorse or approve requirements at every opportunity in the process."

With integration with the existing legislative and regulatory framework, they've got concerns about "a clear, clean slate" upon which a new regime can still remain. "The specific work leading up to the development of the SWPP" -- the source water protection plan -- "and the approval of the plan are all responsibilities of the province, and as such, the logical conclusion is that the ownership ... is apparently that of the province." But again, "when dealing with land uses, municipalities have the land use planning authority." They're saying it's another erosion of their authority.

I talked to many municipalities, and they've passed motions -- the city of Kawartha Lakes, my municipality -- with respect to the Clean Water Act, 2005, that the financial costs of required studies be funded by the province within funds announced by the province in December 2005; that an appeal mechanism be established for MOE decisions on source protection plans; that financial assistance be provided to municipalities to implement and enforce source protection plans; and that the act provide immunity to municipalities for any financial loss to landowners caused by the enforcement of source protection plans.

I think that goes back to the $67.5 million that was transferred to the conservation authorities to undertake the studies and hire the staff. So there are lots of dollars for bureaucrats to assess this, but there aren't dollars for stewardship and implementation, on which the municipalities, and some landowners to a certain extent, are acting.

There's a lot of grey area in the assessment, and nervousness and concerns. I know the member from Perth-Middlesex is over there, and he has a rural riding. I'm sure he has heard very similar concerns.

The municipalities are going to be asked to take on more of a role. And they're asking, "Where are the funds to do this?"

Official plans are going to have to be amended to comply with source protection plans. They cannot undertake any work or undertaking that would conflict with the source protection plan. They cannot pass any law that would conflict with the source protection plan. So they've got some really good concerns, and I know that when we go to committee and we have the chance for clause-by-clause amendments, we're going to have the ear of the government on that.

1610

The Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario made a submission. Overall, as we all do, they support the stated objective of Bill 43. "We note, however, the magnitude of the task that Bill 43 proposes to assign to municipalities." They're concerned about "participating in multi-stakeholder drinking water source protection committees; contributing to the preparation of assessment reports; contributing to the preparation of source protection plans; negotiating amendments to source protection plans where requested by the ministry; participating in hearings on source protection plans" -- the list is quite extensive -- and "the financial and staff resources required to deliver on these responsibilities." That's what they're saying.

"The government has not provided estimates of the total cost of implementation and has only committed $120 million over five years to pay for the planning phase.... We do not believe that the bill should proceed until the government has undertaken a full costing and made a commitment to provide municipalities" -- this is third-party; this is the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario. "Municipalities need to have a clearer idea of the framework in which they will be operating...."

The region of Waterloo on Bill 43: While it "provides the legislative basis for protecting local drinking water supplies, it needs to: provide additional information on land uses and activities that will be considered significant drinking water threats and on the risk decision-making process; develop procedures to resolve conflicts between source protection plans and areas of provincial jurisdiction; and allow greater flexibility for municipalities to assess, develop plans, and apply for timing extensions for their municipal drinking water intakes. The region will request that the province provide funding...."

I think it's a pretty consistent message out there from municipalities. They're being asked to take on a lot.

Barrie Councillor Barry Ward, an executive member with the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, some questions still need to be addressed in this matter. "The provincial government ... has made it clear that conservation authorities will be at the fore." I know that we've asked. In the city of Kawartha Lakes, the municipality wanted some more information before they apply for the funding, and for the conservation authorities to do the assessment. Again, it just shows that municipalities are really nervous, and I want to highlight to the government, how is all this going to shake out, shall we say. It is over a five-year process.
 

A lot of municipalities have concerns here, as do a lot of the agricultural and industrial communities. The Durham, York, Victoria Landowners Association feels it's going to have "devastating economic and social consequences for rural landowners."

It "gives enormous powers to the conservation authorities," which are unelected and hence "unaccountable to the public.

"The authority of the source protection committee to prohibit activities which have heretofore been lawful activities, without a meaningful appeal mechanism...."

The thing is, it is the appeal mechanism that is of concern, because they are going to be notified of their assessment. This is what I hear, and I hope it comes through that when land is being assessed, people will be notified.

But we're saying that you've got to have some more hearings. People have got to have an appeal process and plan. They can have limitations on their land use where the plan is not in place but the assessment is there. The agricultural community has had many struggles, a lot of government regulation has been brought in and consultation hasn't been done to the extent it should have been to impact how it's going to affect their lives. We need a strong rural Ontario for a strong Ontario.

For the assessment to be done -- this is just the way it is; they don't have enough of an appeal mechanism. It goes to the minister. The minister has the control. In land use planning, where is the OMB's role? There was an appeal to the OMB. Is there going to be a farm tribunal? Are members of the board involved?

They just want to have fair hearings. Farmers and rural people are all good stewards of the land, but they need the resources and the tools to keep the environment as good as they want it to be and as good as we all want it to be. They do not need more regulations without consultation and without resources. They're very upset with this bill and their interpretation of it. That's why we need to go out and hear from as many people as we possibly can so we can get it right.

I want to read from the Ontario Farmer article. The title is "Clean Water Act a Big Challenge for Farmers and Landowners."

The new "Clean Water Act is likely to pose serious financial consequences for farmers and landowners who happen to own land in sensitive" areas.

Chris Attema did a presentation to delegates of the annual meeting of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association and said it could create "a problematic nightmare scenario" for landowners in the province.

"Wellhead production zones would require farmers in those zones to have a permit to farm. Pathogen and chemical management zones would be established as well as two-hour time-of-travel zones in sensitive watershed areas. The bottom line is that a whole swath of farmland could potentially be covered under these zones.

"Anyone with land in these ... zones could find themselves with a new raft of rules that could permanently change the way they farm or use their land. Making matters worse is that the legislation provides no evidence that the province would offer compensation to landowners who could potentially lose their livelihoods in some cases."

That is it: They're going to lose the use of a lot of their land and there's no compensation for that.

"Attema quoted legal advice given to the" Ontario Cattlemen's Association "on the implications of the Clean Water Act. The act the advice said "`will have serious consequences for landowners operating to effectively expropriate lands without any apparent compensation.'" We see confrontation and uncertainty.

I hope that the Liberal government is not creating more of a divide in Ontario. Is it going to pit rural against urban? We don't want that to happen. I can't imagine the members opposite really want that to happen.
 

The Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition, whom the minister mentioned, has consulted with her. They represent the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, AGCare and the Ontario Farm Animal Council. They have some real concerns with the bill. They have a lot of concerns with definitions that are within the bill, and rightly so. They feel that "Several items need to be specifically defined in the legislation rather than in the regulations. Terms like `highly vulnerable aquifer,' `risk assessment,' `wellhead protection area,' `drinking water threat,' `adverse effects,' etc."

They've already come up with amendments. They're getting ready to go to committee. "Rather than using the term `significant drinking water threat,' they would advocate using language that recognizes threats that are managed versus those that are not. They would like the bill to include a definition of `risk' that is contained in the technical experts committee's report," on which I know they had a member. We're not going to get into technicalities today, but they have researched. They are prepared to offer amendments and solutions.

They also have concerns with the source protection committees in the legislation because the committees, after the plans are brought up, may disappear. "They would like to see the role of the committee increased and to have the source protection authority provide technical support" to the source protection committees and for the source protection committee "to submit materials to the minister or director.... The source protection committee should be allowed to have the work completed by the SPA reviewed by a third party if necessary." Again, reasonable things that are brought forward that should be looked at.

"Consultation: There is no provision to require consultation with landowners that are impacted by the legislation. The provisions for consultation and submissions of concerns to the minister or director must also be extended to landowners impacted by the act." They will get their assessment, but where's the appeal mechanism? Is it going to be that the committee allows them to come and say, "I don't think that assessment is correct," or "I have some more input there"? So again, it's the appeal mechanism that needs to be -- I'm sure we all want a fair process, but the bill, in its present form, is not providing a fair process for assessment.

1620

"Source protection plans: Copies should be distributed directly to impacted landowners with information on how to provide comments." The points that are raised in oral presentations -- I hope there are many public information sessions -- should be sent to the minister. In a farm community, they're workers; they're working all the time. The meetings have to be so that they are able to go to them, or the hearings that they are going to appear before have to be at reasonable times so they can attend. I'm sure there will be farm representation on the source protection committees.

They believe the wording should reflect the goal of protecting municipal drinking water and human health in section 35(4), and that's ecological health and all water everywhere.

Permit officials: If we can go to the permit officials, this is creating a lot of angst among agricultural and rural landowners. They're concerned about the permit officials. The Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition believes that "a permit system will not work" in addressing the problem. They feel they should "support risk management as an alternative approach and would recommend replacing the permit official with a risk management official."

We're trying to do this as in we don't want it to be enforcement. We want co-operation so that they could work with the agricultural community, develop a risk management plan that they work on together. A risk management official would not issue permits. So as opposed to a permit official, they're looking more at a risk management official who comes out and works with them on plans that they need to accomplish to achieve the work on their land if there is a risk there.

"Provisions of the act should not supersede the Freedom of Information...." There are a lot of concerns about that. "Farmers' information should ... remain private -- the inspection provisions should be bound by the existing agreement (memorandum of understanding) that environmental farm plans" should remain "confidential documents of the farmer."

We bring these things up because they are concerns. They want written notice of the tribunal's -- longer periods of time they want in.

They're concerned about the too broad attempt, I think, of the "multi-barriered approach to drinking water protection. They recommend actually listing those barriers (source protection, treatment, secure distribution system, monitoring programs, established and practised response to adverse conditions) and the statutes that address these barriers." I know they've made a submission to the minister on that, and I am hopeful the minister will follow some of their recommendations.

The Christian Farmers Federation, who have a great mission statement, have worked really hard at policy development. I have to say that over the years I've been involved they really are taking the good of the agricultural community and working within society. They do not support the proposed bill in its present form.

They bring a lot of good points forward, and I know they worked with the environmental farm coalition on that: that they're not required by legislation to consult with landowners -- again the consultation program -- prohibited activities -- land uses require permit; they require a notice while they are preparing the SPP. Again, the topic of the assessment is done, but enforcement is done before the official plan, the SPP, is actually finalized. "It does not guarantee formal public hearings. We all want to be good stewards, but we want to be consulted and give feedback before official enforcement is done."

"For protected areas and zones in the SPP, the draft will authorize municipalities to prohibit certain activities, require permits, activities and land uses, and require notices for certain activities that are now normal farm practices without reimbursing farmers for the cost of changing their farm practices."

That's a lot of the concern: the inability of farmers to do actual farming and have the tools to be environmental stewards of the land.

It's also the industry, and the Ontario Mining Association has brought a lot of good concerns about the bill to the forefront. They think the bill needs a stronger business case. There's no commitment of resources to carry out the activities called for. The Ontario Mining Association even called for a possible trial project. We've heard today about the increased hydro rates, how they're going to drive out business. We're saying this has a lot to do with industry and businesses. I've heard stories of dry cleaners, for example, that may have to move their entire business because of what is all of a sudden in the source protection plan. Where's the compensation for that? We all want to be good stewards, but there has to be an equal balance, and I think a lot of what we are saying today is that there's got to be a balance between the province and the municipalities on this.

When the bill gives power to the MOE to override existing land uses -- there already are rules and regulations with the MOE. Is this Clean Water Act going to supersede existing regulations that are in place for industry? It's a reasonable thing. It affects other areas -- MNR and MMAH etc. There's the need for co-operation and a clear distinction of how they're all going to work together.

The source protection committees -- again, is industry going to be represented? Every area is going to be different. Hopefully this is not going to be a cookie-cutter approach, but there is a need to have equality -- municipal, industry, consumers etc. -- from various groups so that it's consistent throughout the province.

Sound science -- again, we need to ensure that sound science is going to be in the forefront of this. It is over a five-year period, which we appreciate, but we want to be assured by the government that they're going to work with the public, industry and all concerned stakeholders in general so that we get this right.

I know that I'm coming close to my time that I'm sharing with the member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant.

The minister did mention some key Walkerton inquiry recommendations. There is concern that this actually disconnects with the recommendations from O'Connor. That should be a concern.

I know that large or intensive farms, and all farms in designated and sensitive high-risk areas, should be required to develop individual FWPPs and have provincial MOE approval, binding and consistent with the source protection plan.

Number 14: Once a farm has an approved FWPP, municipalities should not have authority to require that farm to meet a higher standard.

Number 15: The province should work with stakeholders to create a provincial FWPP framework.

Number 16: The province should establish a system of cost-share incentives for farm water protection projects.

These are areas we mention because these are the key Walkerton inquiry recommendations. It seems to be doing the opposite here, because it's giving the authority to municipalities through the permit official and reports to the municipality, not the province. That's not what the Walkerton recommendations have asked for.

I think there's a lot of grey area when the government says they're following the full Walkerton recommendations, which was an election promise by the Liberal government, and one that we'll be watching closely that they keep.

I'm pleased to now share my time with the member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant.

1710

To the member from Perth-Middlesex, I just want to comment that the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant's father was the last to see his cousin who was killed in the Second World War, and whom the Legion in my hometown of Kinmount is named after: the John McGrath Memorial Branch; so a tribute to the member and his family for the contribution they made to Canada.

I thank the members from Oakville, Hamilton East and Waterloo-Wellington. We've had a good discussion here this afternoon about the Clean Water Act. We've spent a lot of time with the feedback we received from third parties, and that's what this is about. There was one comment that I heard about the legislation, which was "right objective, wrong approach."

There have been a lot of questions raised: the municipalities, the amount of stuff in the regulations, and will municipalities have to amend official plans and zoning bylaws conforming with the bill? They want more of a say in the source protection committees and source protection authorities.

Compensation has been brought up, and it's a concern for all farmers. I know there was an expert panel report in January 2006 called Water Well Sustainability in Ontario on the EBR. The quote in there was, "Land users need to be assured that any alteration in land use beyond due diligence will be compensated as the alterations are done in the interest of the public good." I know that another member opposite had made that generality.

We've all got to work together. There has to be proper compensation and consultation.

I'm pleased to speak today, and I will speak at length, about the Clean Water Act, Bill 43. We certainly all are in agreement that clean water is essential. Having a nursing background, I know the minister mentioned that it is essential for health in Ontario. So I think all of Ontario as a province, and all citizens want to see clean water brought forward.

1550

It's been over two years that the government has had to bring in some type of clean water protection act. It was to be source water protection, but it's called the Clean Water Act. That's fine. There have been consultations, and we appreciate some that have gone on. I appreciate the minister telling us where her next travels will take her, because it is important to consult. I think everybody agrees with the general purpose of clean water.

We've met and discussed a lot with municipalities, farmers and landowners, and there's a lot of concern with the bill. This is part of our parliamentary process, to have discussion, and there is a lot of discussion going on. I have a lot of papers with feedback on the bill, and I will be going into that in detail later.

There are questions with the conservation authorities and questions with the municipalities as to what roles they will have. There are questions about who's going to identify, where the science is directly going to come from, source protection authorities that are in place, areas that don't have conservation authorities, the source protection committees, what composition they will be made up of, and will all the stakeholders be able to be represented equally? These are large areas of the province.

So we have a lot of concerns, a lot of feedback. We're glad to hear the government's going to be responsive, because we're going to be counting on it. We want them to go out on committee and have a lot of public hearings, because this bill is not going to work if we don't have the full co-operation of everybody in Ontario.

It was mentioned that a lot of the initiatives brought forward by this government were built on some of the groundwork that was put in place by the previous government in response to the O'Connor report. The previous government implemented 50 of its recommendations through the Safe Drinking Water Act. Two and a half years later, the current government has increased that number, but only by 10.

In the second part of his report, Justice O'Connor made 22 recommendations to address source water protection. This bill, the Clean Water Act, is intended to address those recommendations. Unfortunately, it's not clear that this bill or this government is going to succeed in fulfilling those recommendations, and the structures and processes contemplated by this bill point to some very real problems in the implementation.

I heard the minister mention some of the groups she has met with, and those are the people I'm going to speak about this afternoon too. They have some genuine concerns that we need to address. We, as the PC Party here, are hoping that this is going to go out to extensive consultations, because we have to get it right.

To bring people up to date, I know there has been talk about it, for those just tuning in at home. I'll say welcome to my mom, who just got the legislative channel.