ORDERS OF THE DAY

WATER OPPORTUNITIES AND WATER
CONSERVATION ACT, 2010

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 18, 2010, on the motion for third reading of Bill 72, An Act to enact the Water Opportunities Act, 2010 and to amend other Acts in respect of water conservation and other matters

Mr. Peter Tabuns: … I will be talking about the Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act

…. this bill claims to stimulate Ontario-based clean water industries by creating municipal demand for clean water technology and by supporting clean water technology development, which, frankly, is not a bad idea. We need a market for clean water technology. We face growing and substantial challenges when it comes to providing ourselves—our society—with clean, potable water…

The bill aims to reduce water use in Ontario. It sets what are called aspirational targets for water conservation—or it doesn’t set them: It gives the minister authority to do that… It enables the minister to require municipalities and public agencies to develop water sustainability plans and prescribe changes to plans if targets are not met. It revises the building code to include water conservation. It enables prescription of water efficiency standards for appliances and products. Those are all the stated goals of the bill before us. These are the claims that are made for what this bill will do for society. I use the word “claims” when I talk about this government’s bill and when I talk about this government’s efforts because, in fact, this Liberal government has underdelivered consistently on environmental bills and initiatives; underdelivered in a way that the people of Ontario should not have to deal with; underdelivers in areas where the people of Ontario deserve fair, energetic treatment…

… Voters have been told, “We are standing up for the environment and for water.” But in 2010, a number of years later, those initiatives that were so boldly proclaimed such a long time ago are not enforced. One has to ask: What is the fate of this bill? Will it be passed and then be allowed to clutter up some deputy minister’s office? Will it fill up a hard drive somewhere, requiring people to delete other files so they can make room for yet another range of promises? I don’t know the answer to that. But I do know that if, in fact, action was taken—if legislation was put forward in 2007 and not brought into service and not brought into effect even by now, then one has to assume that we’re not going at rocket speed to deal with our water conservation problems…..

That failure to act is of great consequence to this bill. Will we in fact move ahead substantially and change the amount of water we consume, or will we have a very small act, a very small initiative, that will result in a few toilets being manufactured and a few faucets produced but not the reduction in water consumption that we actually need to engage in?

In the fact sheets that were provided in the briefing book that we were given—the MPPs who went to debate this bill in committee—there are a number of fact sheets about water consumption. In the UK and in Germany, the average use of water per person per day is half of what it is in Ontario. I’ve had the great good fortune to go to both of those places. People seem to be well washed. They drink tap water regularly. They are able to clean their homes. Yet they have in place a goal that we would aspire to have, and that’s cutting water consumption per person per day in half.

One of the things that surprises me about this bill, or rather, this larger initiative within which the bill should be simply a piece, is that we in fact don’t have a target, a goal. When you want to do something—let’s say you want to cut the money that is given to children and youth services—you set a target, right? Then you cut. That is not a good thing, but that is a standard measurement practice.

When you want to do something good, it shouldn’t simply be a statement of an expression. One should have a larger plan within which this bill nestles as a tool, something that allows one to achieve that larger plan. That’s missing, and that’s of great concern to me and should be of great concern to anyone who wants to ensure that we in Ontario have good, clean drinking water available on demand when we need it. That’s a significant piece and a concern that I have with the way this whole project is being approached…

In fact, with a small amount of translation, that applies entirely to what we’re talking about today, because there are different sectors using different amounts of water in different ways. There’s the industrial sector. There’s the resource processing sector. There’s the food processing sector. There’s the industrial/commercial sector. There’s residential. There are different areas with different potentials and different levels of consumption.

Again, this bill and the documentation that comes with the bill do not address what those targets need to be and do not talk about the sectoral needs of this province, again reflecting the fact that this bill is vague and, at the same time, narrow. It only talks about a small part of water consumption, and even then, within that reality, it is vague….

… How do you know that you’ve done what you set out to do if you don’t have reporting mechanisms? How can you hold a government accountable? How can the people know whether they’re delivering what they said they’d deliver, unless there are reporting mechanisms that people can understand quickly and clearly?

It makes sense that people would be able to track whether or not this bill, if adopted, was actually implemented along the lines that those who put it forward claimed it would perform. That would be really useful. I don’t see that here. That’s something that should be taken from the energy sector, from the Environmental Commissioner’s recommendations on that sector, and put in place so that people can actually judge whether or not the government is delivering on what it says it’s going to deliver on.

Right now, it doesn’t have to deliver much of anything, other than trying to get the bill passed, to say in an election leaflet coming soon to a home near you, “We have a plan.” That may be the full and total function of this particular bill.

I’ve talked about this government’s record when it comes to climate change, when it comes to energy and when it comes to dealing with waste. In all of these areas there are substantial failings, and the nature of those failings says to us that it is legitimate to have real concerns about whether or not this bill will deliver what needs to be delivered….

...The Toronto Star reported in 2008 that the Canadian Medical Association Journal noted that Ontario had 679 boil-water alerts between 2006 and 2008, the most in any province. So I think the simple reality is that, from time to time, water systems will fail, and if people are alert, monitoring and taking action to ensure the public is protected, we shouldn’t be totally surprised. But for us to have more boil-water alerts than any other province is noteworthy.

The Star went on to report: “Hundreds of ‘boil water’ advisories have been issued in Ontario in the past two years, placing communities on high alert for tainted drinking water, the Canadian Medical Association Journal reports.

“In a story published yesterday, the CMAJ reported that since 2006”—in 2006, Dalton McGuinty was Premier, just so that it’s on the record and there’s no confusion as to under whose watch things happened—“Ontario had 679 such alerts—warnings by public health departments telling residents they cannot ensure the safety of their drinking water without boiling it first…

“The CMAJ reported nationwide figures for boil-water advisories, with Ontario, the most populous province, in the lead with 679 … followed by British Columbia with 530 and Newfoundland with 228. The CMAJ reported there were 1,766 boil-water advisories in place as of March 31, 2008,” in Canada.

Now, boil-water advisories are not in place everywhere. They tend to be focused on the most disadvantaged communities in this province. First Nations communities are the hardest hit. Eight of the 21 First Nations communities listed on Health Canada as having high-risk drinking water systems and drinking water advisories in effect are in Ontario. That’s substantial for a province that went through Walkerton, understands the consequences of failing to deal with contaminated water, has made very visible and public commentary about the need to deal with it, and still, eight of 21 of the First Nations communities listed as having high-risk drinking water systems are here in Ontario.

Former Ontario Environment Minister John Gerretsen says that First Nations issues were among his concerns when drafting this Water Opportunities Act: “It would not be right for Ontario to export our tremendous [water treatment] technology without first making sure that our people, including First Nations, have the best protection when it comes to the quality of their water.”

Frankly, I think he’s right. I think it’s going to be hard to sell technology abroad when people know that there are ongoing problems with water in communities in this province such that people have to boil water before they can drink it.

Think of yourself being in a sales meeting somewhere in Europe. Someone listening to the pitch from an Ontario company Googles the province and “water contamination” and finds, “Wow. This province that is saying that it has this great technology has all these boil-water advisories. Let’s think again about that.”

That has consequence for the people who are affected by the water systems that are failing and it has consequence for our reputation to actually sell products in the wider world. We should be making the decision to have clean water based on the first alone, but I throw in the second because for some people it’s the question of marketability that will be more of a determinant. We should not be in a position where people regularly have to deal with contaminated water systems.

Chief Bryan LaForme of the Mississaugas of the New Credit, in April: “Walkerton had an effect in mainstream Ontario, but not in First Nations.” Twenty-five per cent of his southern Ontario community does not have access to clean drinking water.

Slow implementation of the Clean Water Act passed in 2006 is of consequence to us here today. That act passed in 2006, but the source water protection plans for watersheds have only started to be developed and won’t be completed until August 2012. That’s six years. This is one of the more significant issues in this province, of consequence to settlement, of consequence to the environment, of consequence to the economy.

I was here for the debate on that act and told about the urgency of forward movement. Now we can see it’s very clear: six years from adoption to actually bring forward the watershed plans. These source water protection plans, which we were rightly told were so urgent to put together in 2006, still await the putting together and still are not complete. There are years to go before that act—part of that act—will be in effect.

What does that mean in terms of this water conservation bill that’s before us today? What it says to me is that potentially, that act, which was passed in the lead up to an election, because there had to be something on an election flyer that said we were taking action on water—this bill before us may well be our 2011 election flyer water act. We will see. I look forward to finding Liberal pamphlets on doorsteps in my riding to see if they talk about this water act. This government has failed to address a variety of critical environmental issues, critical issues when it comes to water.

I think initiatives on water make a lot of sense. This government has a very poor track record of delivering on programs that they have described as critical. We should not hold a huge amount of hope out for what comes forward from this bill, should it be passed. Ontario deserves better than that.