Victims, advocates fear for Bill 66
Tories wiping out advances Walkerton created, critics say
“Do not drink this water,” warned the signs taped to fountains and bathroom sinks in a small Ontario town.
For thousands of people in the rural community 150 kilometres northwest of Toronto, the water they once used to brush their teeth, bathe their children and prepare their meals had become a hostile enemy.
Hospitals were overrun with new patients. Children were pulled out of school. Businesses closed.
The tainted-water scandal in Walkerton in the spring of 2000 devastated the community, with thousands falling ill and seven people dying. It was one of the worst health epidemics in the province’s history.
Nearly 19 years later, environmental advocates say Premier Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative government is posing one of the greatest risks both the environment and public health have faced in decades.
Last week, the government tabled a new piece of legislation, Bill 66, that, if passed, would allow commercial development to bypass several long-standing laws meant to protect the natural environment and the health of residents, including the Clean Water Act that was put in place following the Walkerton tragedy.
The stated purpose of the proposed bill is to cut “red tape” around planning approvals for businesses looking to invest in local communities.
Under the proposed legislation, if a development has the support of both the municipal government and the province and can demonstrate it would create 50 new jobs in areas with populations under 250,000, or 100 jobs for bigger cities, it could get
the green light despite possibly being detrimental to the environment.
Bruce Davidson knows what’s at stake.
It’s been many years since he became a spokesperson for himself, his family and his concerned neighbours.
Reached by phone at his home in Walkerton, he said many couldn’t have found his town on a map before the outbreak. He continues to educate others on clean drinking water.
But he worries that as time passes and the Walkerton tragedy becomes a part of history, it’s easy to forget why the hard-won protections were put in place.
“I think as Walkerton sort of moves more into the rear-view mirror … the tendency is sort of to say, ‘Well, is that really necessary?’” Davidson said.
“I think it sends the wrong message to industry and to everyone that if we have enough dollars in our pocket, the economic impact will win over the environmental impact.”
He called the Ford government’s
plan “ill-considered,” noting that the protections in place since 2006 are being studied as best practices as far away as China.
The bill, which would also circumvent legislation protecting the Greenbelt, Great Lakes and other environmentally sensitive areas, is set to be debated next year.
It was introduced without any public consultation or warning, critics say.
According to the conclusions of an inquiry into the Walkerton tragedy, in May 2000, some 2,321 people became ill from two types of bacteria, including a type of dangerous E. coli, after heavy rainfall caused flooding that flushed the bacteria from cow manure near a farm into one of three groundwater wells that was the source of water for Walkerton.
The number of people who fell ill represented about half the town’s population.
Following the outbreak, the Ontario government called a judicial inquiry, led by Justice
Dennis O’Connor, which made conclusions in 2002 about the lasting impact, source of contamination and recommended next steps for both local and provincial governments.
It specifically recommended the provincial government “develop a comprehensive, source-to-tap, government-wide drinking water policy.”
In 2006, under then-premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal government, the Clean Water Act was passed.
It followed directly from a dozen of the inquiry’s recommendations.
On Friday, Theresa McClenaghan and Richard Lindgren, respectively the executive director and counsel for the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA), posted on the organization’s website that Bill 66 “constitutes the biggest and most significant environmental rollback to occur in a generation in Ontario.”
Municipal politicians have also come out against the new bill.