For immediate release:
October 11, 2006

Source Water Protection fails litmus test – MPP Barrett

Queen’s Park— Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant MPP Toby Barrett says the government’s source water protection bill penalizes property owners while failing to live up to its name.

Barrett says the proposed legislation deals primarily with placing regulations on land within defined proximities of municipal wellheads including steep fines of up to $100,000/day for non-compliance.

“It’s very simple, honey is sweeter than vinegar, and carrots really can be much more effective than sticks,” Barrett intoned before putting the legislation to the test:

“I proposed a litmus test to evaluate legislation like this: we need to ask whether the proposed legislation will accomplish its stated intentions,” Barrett stated. “A second test: We need to ask, whether this proposed legislation represents the fairest possible approach to stakeholders.”

Barrett then pointed out that the few consultation sessions the government did hold, the verdict was clear.

“…through that brief week of public hearings, stakeholders made it very clear that this legislation did fail on both tests,” Barrett assessed. “They’re angry about the lack of consultation. The second thing people are angry about is the punitive nature of this bill.”

Barrett concluded that the disingenuous nature Bill 43 has taken from the get-go is par for the course for the current government.

“We know there were 240 amendments. Does that not suggest we take another look at this particular piece of legislation?” summed up Barrett. “I would suggest, with respect to this particular government, it uses honesty in consultation much like doctors use salt: sparingly.”
-30-

For more information, please contact MPP Toby Barrett at: (519) 428-0446, (416) 325-8404, or 1-800-903-8629

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand–Norfolk–Brant): I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on Bill 43, the Clean Water Act. You would know, Speaker, that this Legislature is often marched by negativity and generally bad behaviour, primarily from the government side. So I’d like to start my remarks with a bit of a positive note. I issue a compliment to this government’s spin doctors for a very clever name they have given Bill 43. They call it the Clean Water Act. They have disguised this bill as something that will somehow clean up our water supplies. Now, this is something that the stakeholders that attended the hearings indicated would be unlikely at best.

Despite my compliments to the Liberal spin doctors opposite for this clever title for there proposed piece of legislation, we do have to recognize that it is somewhat disingenuous. From our side, in the name of honesty, we really felt it should have been called the Municipal Source Water Protection Act; in fact, that was one of our amendments. It was one of 240 amendments that were shepherded through by our environment critic, Laurie Scott, and the member from Durham, John O’Toole.

I do want to be clear: I support clean water. I support source water protection. The entire opposition caucus supports clean water. Who doesn’t? Who doesn’t support clean water? In fact, probably the Liberals opposite, those across the way, would support clean water. But what I’m putting forward tonight is that this proposed bill will do very little, if anything, to clean up our water supplies, and in my view, it really represents a missed opportunity.

I was hoping the government would have proposed some more effective measures, some positive sanctions, if you will, some measures in the realm of education programs or information programs. Tax incentives or grants oftentimes are very effective ways of influencing people’s behaviour—low interest loans, for example—the kinds of things that were recommended when we debated the spills bill. In fact, the Minister of the Environment of the day had an advisory committee, and the minister’s advisory committee recommended just some of those things that I had mentioned: low interest loans, grants, positive incentives, rely more on education, rely more on information rather than using the heavy stick, rely a bit more on positive incentives to encourage people to make investments in cleaning up the sources of our supply of water. That was another minister of another era. That legislation passed, not nearly with as many amendments as this present one; I think probably half the number of amendments for that spills bill. And it is regrettable that the advisory committee for the minister of the day was ignored.

It’s very simple. Honey is sweeter than vinegar, and carrots really can be much more effective than sticks. Instead, the Liberals loaded Bill 43 with sticks, forgot about the carrots, forgot about the honey, and here we have it.

During second reading debate, I proposed a litmus test to evaluate legislation like this. First of all, we need to ask—and I’ll state this again—we need to ask whether the proposed legislation will accomplish its stated intentions. This government needs to clearly say what they hope to achieve in the legislation and should effectively and efficiently, and I should say cost-effectively, work towards that goal. A second test: We need to ask, all of us in this Legislature, whether this proposed legislation represents the fairest possible approach to stakeholders. We heard from stakeholders as we travelled the province, in Walkerton, Toronto, Cornwall, Bath and in Peterborough. I did not attend the hearings in Peterborough. Is it the fairest approach to those landowners, those farmers, the small municipalities, representatives of rural—

Mr. O’Toole: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I’m just wondering if a quorum is present.

The Acting Speaker: I would like to ask the table staff to determine if a quorum is in fact present.

The Deputy Clerk (Ms. Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Clerk: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much. I’ll return to the member for Haldimand–Norfolk–Brant.

Mr. Barrett: As I was saying, I’m very concerned, if this proposed legislation were to fail either one or both of these tests, where do we go from here? Obviously, legislation like this that cannot measure up to the mark should be scrapped or, at minimum, repaired before it is passed. We had some hope, with the advent of well over 200 amendments; regrettably, there were some very key amendments that didn’t go forward. Now, through the debate and through that brief week of public hearings, stakeholders made it very clear that this legislation did fail on both tests.

So let’s deconstruct Bill 43. Let’s contrast its actual content with what the Liberals promised. Now, we all know the promise was there, a promise of clean water. But in terms of content, Bill 43 is simple. It’s all about rules and regulations and red tape. It’s all about enforcement, penalties and permits, a constellation of negative sanctions. It’s about Dalton McGuinty coming onto your land uninvited, ticket book in hand, big stick in the other and laying down the law.
Now, during those hearings the proposed legislation was referred to in a number of ways, and I quote, it was called, “Expropriation without compensation.” We have certainly heard that argument this evening. It’s been called, “The perfect storm of injustice.” It has been called and again, I quote, ??“ Just another attempt by the McGuinty government”—and I’ll finish my quote—“to infringe on the rights of landowners, farmers and all of rural Ontario.”

You know, Bill 43 will not achieve what has been promised by Premier McGuinty. It essentially sets the stage for yet another McGuinty broken promise. Last week, as many in this House will know, the broken promise total was somewhere around 50. But in reality, I feel it’s much higher. Maybe that’s why the Liberals last week voted against the resolution brought forward during the opposition day. Perhaps the members opposite knew there were more than 50 promises and didn’t want the official record to stay at 50.

In my riding, Haldimand–Norfolk–Brant, and I think this goes for much of rural Ontario, farmers and rural landowners are very angry about this particular piece of legislation. They’re angry about the lack of consultation. They’re angry that there were five days of hearings. They remember the 18 days of hearings made available to people across the province during the deliberations around nutrient management.

The second thing people are angry about is the punitive nature of this bill. The hearings for source water protection became, I would consider it, a lightning rod of dissent against this McGuinty government. It was a symptom, in my view, of a broader disconnect between the Premier of today and the people in this province, a disconnect between this Liberal government and people who live across rural Ontario. Do I have another minute? Okay.

You know, just going back to the nutrient management: I mentioned 18 days of hearings. I travelled the province on all 18 days. It was an opportunity for farmers, municipalities and stakeholders to present some key input. The calibre of presentations I felt was very significant during the mere five days of these hearings. But again, we saw a government that appeared to show no semblance of concern or no awareness, really, of what was coming through at the witness table. They did not seem to be listening to the opinions, what I considered the quite valued and honest input from people who came forward. I would suggest, with respect to this particular government, it uses honesty in consultation much like doctors use salt: sparingly.

……

Mr. Barrett: Thank you to the member for Trinity–Spadina. He indicates we shouldn’t scrap this bill. Maybe he’s right. Maybe what’s wrong is we hasn’t done the research as legislators. There is so much material contained in those submissions during a mere five days of deputations. To my mind, research is essentially searching and searching again. I think there should be further analysis of what—I don’t know whether you were at any of the hearings, Minister, but I was. You know, in fact, I don’t think I saw you at any of the hearings. It’s regrettable. There’s so much good material there. The member opposite makes mention of science. Take a look at what was said, do the research, search again. Pull out that valuable material. The presentations were only 15 minutes in length, actually ten minutes plus questions. I regret they were held during the summer. That silenced a lot of people who had to come in from the fields, literally, to testify in August. That’s certainly not my approach to citizen participation.

We know there were 240 amendments. Does that not suggest we take another look at this particular piece of legislation? As the member from Durham indicated, the hearings were tragic. I offer my kudos to those presenters. The deck was essentially stacked against them. I will say that the Liberal members who did attend those hearings did get an earful. I know the member for Perth–Middlesex got quite an earful from the people at the witness table.

So just to recap: We heard from real people, we heard from real people living in the real world, people who are farming, running small municipalities, people who felt

So just to recap, we heard from real people living in the real world, people who are farming, running small municipalities, people who felt their views were not reflected in this proposed legislation.