Legislative Assembly of Ontario
OCTOBER 10, 2006
CLEAN WATER ACT

Mr. Barrett: I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on Bill 43, the Clean Water Act. You would know, Speaker, that this Legislature is often marred 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 who 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, 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 and 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 some of those things that I just mentioned: low-interest loans, grants, positive incentives, to rely more on education and information rather than using the heavy stick, to rely a bit more on positive incentives to encourage people to make investments in cleaning up the sources of our supply of water. Well, that was another minister of another era. That legislation passed, with not nearly as many amendments as this one, probably half the number of amendments for that spills bill. 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. I'll state it again. First of all, 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 cost-effectively and efficiently work towards that goal. A second test: All of us in this Legislature need to ask 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 wonder if a quorum is present.
The Acting Speaker: I would like to ask the table staff to determine if a quorum is 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.

2110

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, which 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, but regrettably, there were some very key amendments that didn't go forward. Through the debate and through that brief week of public hearings, stakeholders made it very clear that this legislation did fail on both tests.

Let's deconstruct Bill 43. Let's contrast its actual content with what the Liberals promised. We all know that the promise was there, the 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.

During those hearings, the proposed legislation was referred to in a number of ways. It was called "expropriation without compensation," and we have certainly heard that argument this evening. It's been called "the perfect storm of injustice." And it has been called "just another attempt by the McGuinty government to infringe on the rights of landowners, farmers and all of rural Ontario."

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 of 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 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.

Going back to nutrient management, I mentioned the 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 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, that it uses honesty in consultation much like doctors use salt: sparingly.