Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Wednesday May 17, 06

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton): I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill. Protecting our water supply is vital to everyone. This is a very noble piece of legislation.

I would like to read into the record a few comments and questions from some of my constituents. As you know, I have a large rural component to my riding, and some of the farmers and landowners have some questions. I'd like to put them into the record today, so hopefully at committee these issues or questions and concerns can be addressed.

My good friend Marlene Black, who is a farmer in Nepean-Carleton and lives in Goulbourn township, has a series of comments. She's afraid that this bill further restricts what a rural landowner and farmer can and cannot do. She's concerned that there's not a lot of detail on what the restrictions will be and how they will be implemented. She also has an interesting concern:

"The bill takes priority over other bills and acts. The Greenbelt Act also takes precedence over other bills." So she would like to know which takes priority over what. "It does state that if there is a conflict, then the most severe regulation will prevail." She finds this a little odd and a strange way to enact legislation, namely, that whatever is the most severe will prevail. "The concern here is that complying with one set of regulations, and then being forced through a more restrictive act to remedy and meet the more stringent criterion is time-consuming, costly and ... duplicative.

"Although the details are not known, the fact that there are fees, fees and more fees, is very clear," she says. "For many farmers and rural landowners the financial lemon has been oversqueezed. It is time that the beneficiaries of the legislation paid for the costs of the legislation, rather than the usual minority `stakeholder' who is negatively affected."

She doesn't know "the specific regulations that will result from the act; however there is every possibility that there may be farm restrictions" -- I'd like to know from members opposite if indeed that's going to be the case -- "in certain, yet to be determined areas, which will limit or curtail farming." As you know, in Nepean-Carleton, that's very important to many of my residents.

"There must be fair compensation for this curtailment. Again, the act and regulations are put in place for the benefit of all Ontarians, hence all Ontarians must compensate for the loss of property enjoyment, loss of income, loss of farming capability that may likely occur." So we'd be interested in seeing some results there.

Further on, on the compensation issue:

"The principle of just compensation must be agreed to now and respected by the government as it takes away more rights from the main stakeholder who will bear the cost of the restrictions. When the detailed regulations are implemented the amounts of compensation and those to be compensated must be just."

Just a quick comment from her on the public process: She believes that the timing for the public input has been short. As I understand it, there will be hearings. We look forward, hopefully, to inviting you to Nepean-Carleton --

Interjection.

Ms. MacLeod: Two and a half years? Well, I've not even been here two and a half months, so consider this input from Nepean-Carleton. We'd like to invite you to talk about the Clean Water Act in Nepean-Carleton, if you'd like to come.

We would like to see the public input process expanded.

We're concerned in Nepean-Carleton that the act seems to give some bureaucrats a little bit more power, and that's a legitimate concern from some of my residents. So I just submit this to you today.

There's a concern here for untreated sewage into the lakes. There is no mention in the act regarding water quality of one of the prime sources of southern Ontario drinking water, namely the lakes. We're concerned with cities dumping untreated or ill-treated sewage into the lakes at various times. There is no accountability anywhere in the act. So we'd like to see that looked at.

I have just one more concern over normal farm practices. There are conflicts at this time between normal farm practices and acceptability of normal farm practices by towns, cities and urban people. There have been bylaws enunciated by various urban councils that limit or eliminate certain normal farm practices, and Bill 43's enforcement, directed by municipalities, will allow the restriction of normal farm practices under the guise of source water protection. When this is done, there must be just and satisfactory compensation for the restriction of normal farm practices.

As I move to a close, I would just like these questions, concerns and comments from residents in Nepean-Carleton to be answered during the committee stage. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much.