Report continued from volume A.

1755

Private Members’ Public Business

Water services

M^me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should continue to adopt modernized measures to streamline the development of communal water/waste water systems and permissions for distributed modular off-grid water/waste water treatment facilities in small and rural communities, including those found in York region.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Ms. Gallagher Murphy has moved private member’s notice of motion number 32. Pursuant to standing order 100, the member has 12 minutes for their presentation.

I recognize the member.

M^me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: Thank you, Speaker. During my first election in 2022 and over these past three and a half years, one of the top concerns I’ve heard from constituents is the lack of affordable homes. This concern was voiced by millennials who were looking to purchase their first home, as well as homeowners who were concerned for the opportunities of their adult children to purchase a home and seniors looking to downsize but without enough options for downsizing to a home in their own community.

As I reflected on this concern, I came to understand one of the critical cost factors when looking at building hamlets of homes. Whether it be single detached homes, semi-detached, townhomes, condominiums or rental apartments, critical infrastructure was playing a key role in whether a housing development could move forward.

I would like to take us back to 2018, when I entered the public sector. One of the top priorities for the municipality of York was the waste water treatment capacity in the region. To this day, it remains a top priority for the region.

Coming from the private sector, I had no knowledge of how waste water systems could negatively or positively impact the opportunity to grow communities. I suspect that most constituents would fall into this category. We take for granted that waste water systems are available. Critical infrastructure, like the availability of waste water systems, can either allow communities to grow or bring the growth of communities to a halt.

These systems can also greatly impact the cost of the home. Depending on the type of home and how the home is connected to this critical infrastructure, it could add upwards of $60,000 to the cost of a single home.

We know that this infrastructure must be a viable system as it has a significant impact on our environment. This is why these systems are highly regulated through the Ontario Water Resources Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Ontario building code, and the planning considerations, as detailed in the provincial planning statement and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.

I heard from the municipalities of York region. I heard from the town of East Gwillimbury, which has a small presence in my riding, and I have heard from the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville: Waste water capacity remains the single biggest constraint to new housing development.

While we await the long-delayed York Durham sewage system expansion, which is a long-term infrastructure project that will have a very high cost to build and will take close to 10-plus years in the best-case scenario, there is help. This is the opportunity, and this became my inspiration for this motion.

A modular or communal waste water system is a viable, proven solution. Better yet, Ontario-based technology exists. It is scalable and can be deployed quickly, making it an ideal potential to unleash building solutions for small and rural municipalities, including those found in York region.

I am happy to say that under the leadership of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Minister of the Environment, they support my motion and have commenced consultation on the following themes related to communal waste water systems: (1) municipal consent, (2) liability and financial safeguards and (3) streamlining approvals.

1800

Speaker, this consultation process is critical to the adoption of modernized measures to streamline the development of communal water/waste water systems, and permissions for distributed modular, off-grid water/waste water treatment. We can unlock housing supply in underserved rural communities by adding these systems to Ontario’s tool box for addressing housing-enabling infrastructure challenges.

I would like to share with you a statement I received from Richard Aubry, chief architect for Redwood Properties, an Ontario-based housing developer who specializes in rental units: “This initiative champions innovation in community building by allowing alternatives without reliance on large-scale, publicly funded centralized infrastructure. The motion promises to unlock opportunities currently hindered by outdated policies and regulations, which were established before the advent of advanced modular waste water treatment technologies—many of which are developed right here in Ontario. Embracing these modern solutions will pave the way for more sustainable and flexible development practices.”

Speaker, this is just one example of a developer who could be building homes for Ontarians. However, the planning provisions have not kept up with the technology available today. Things change, and we have the responsibility to ensure that our planning provisions reflect the sustainability of modern waste water systems.

Another example, in speaking with a housing developer who has installed a communal waste water system, as noted by Mr. Bob Schickendanz, president of FarSight Homes: “There are many challenges in providing affordable housing for families and individuals across Ontario. This includes having sufficient water and waste water infrastructure to support growth. If you can’t flush the toilet, you can’t provide the homes that are desperately needed. This is a particular and common problem in small and rural communities that do not have sufficient resources or experience to build the facilities to enable the construction of new neighbourhoods.”

Speaker, I have many other statements like these I can share with all my esteemed colleagues here this evening—they are all the same thing—but let’s hear from the municipalities and local watershed-based agencies that manage and conserve the natural resources of the area.

Firstly, I would like to start with Eric Jolliffe, chairman and CEO of the regional municipality of York: “York regional council and the regional municipality of York strongly support efforts to advance housing-enabling infrastructure through innovation and sustainable solutions. Water and waste water servicing capacity can be a challenge in our ability to meet the growing demand for new and affordable housing. By modernizing approvals for communal and modular waste water systems, this motion has the potential to unlock housing supply in smaller and rural municipalities, where servicing options are limited or non-existent, while protecting the environment. These innovative approaches are an important tool to get homes built faster and support sustainable growth across York region.”

On a more local level, in the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, His Worship Mayor Iain Lovatt says, “I fully support advancing housing infrastructure through innovative and sustainable solutions. Addressing water and waste water servicing challenges is essential to meeting the demand for new and affordable homes. Modernizing approvals for communal and modular waste water systems will help unlock housing opportunities in smaller and rural communities.”

Another aspect of planning these water/waste water systems is not just the technical engineering, but also the social dimension, including Indigenous economic participation and treaty rights, embedding the Indigenous participation in the life cycle of these projects. First Nation communities share infrastructure challenges which can be addressed in regional development.

We have processes in place to ensure environmental assessment and compliance approvals; however, current processes for these smaller projects can take five to seven years and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars before construction even begins—obviously discouraging investment in these underserviced areas. We can improve the process based on clear, performance-based standards that could replace years of redundant approvals, enabling faster housing development while maintaining strong environmental protection.

Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues feedback I received from an Ontario-based manufacturer of the communal waste water treatment system. Thank you to Brad Gaffney, an engineer with Newterra, located in Brockville, Ontario:

“Across Ontario, prefabricated membrane technologies already deliver equal or better environmental protection than large municipal plants at a fraction of the cost, footprint and time to deploy. The barrier is regulatory approvals. A clearer, faster approval path will let rural building homes roll out years from now while upholding Ontario’s highest water protections. By streamlining proven options such as membrane bioreactor treatment and modern drinking water trains, communities can choose compact systems that support financially responsible growth and unlock private investment to help grow Ontario.”

Imagine the opportunity to build a variety of attainable housing, while creating greater food production and vegetation. We can have phosphorus reduction and the removal of pharmaceutical/microplastics into Lake Simcoe, or any of our freshwater lakes. We can achieve the goals of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan through innovation, working with First Nations communities to achieve common goals. We can realize long-term economic growth.

Speaker, I’d like to quote Rob Baldwin, CEO of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority:

“Implementing advanced communal water and sewage systems can unlock local growth, increase housing supply and significantly assist in building better small and rural communities while protecting the local environment, whether in the Lake Simcoe watershed or across Ontario.”

Speaker, I’ve got to close real quick; however, I’ve got to tell you I had a conversation with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Farmers and rural municipalities are increasingly constrained by limited access to fresh water and aging waste water infrastructure, preventing responsible growth and leaving agricultural land without the reliable water sources needed for long-term viability. Imagine a future where treated waste water becomes a dependable, environmentally responsible water source for farmland, protecting freshwater supplies while improving crop resilience and long-term sustainability. Imagine: Providing more flexible waste water options can unlock new housing faster—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Thank you.

Further debate?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I am glad to be able to stand as the official opposition shadow minister for infrastructure and speak to this private member’s motion from the member from Newmarket–Aurora. It is a motion to encourage communal waste water facilities, and I have a lot of concerns and thoughts on this topic.

Everyone wants to build housing—the housing that people need, mind you. We need a mix of housing: affordable, single-family, transitional, supportive, multi-residential, rent-to-own—you name it, people need it. But we can’t do it without following best practices, or else the quality of homes and the quality of living will be affected by government’s short-sighted, developer-driven ambitions. I will say that anything worth doing is worth doing well.

The government MPP for Newmarket–Aurora is here debating her private member’s motion advocating for more private water and waste water systems and streamlining communal water and waste water systems. This motion is mainly about promoting privately run water and waste water facilities with the effect of enabling sprawl-oriented development outside settlement areas that are served by municipal facilities, benefiting much of the same cast of characters that we met during the greenbelt scandal.

I want to remind people that this government’s approach to land use planning has been about enriching well-connected speculators and not the efficient delivery of new housing and housing-enabling infrastructure. If it were, we would see housing, but we don’t.

1810

Communal waste water systems are historically a bad idea, and that’s why the province moved away from them in the first place. We’re debating a non-binding private member’s motion from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, and I’ll read you part of the motion: “The government of Ontario should continue to adopt modernized measures to streamline the development of communal water/waste water systems and permissions for distributed modular off-grid water/waste water treatment facilities in small and rural communities, including those found in York region.”

I appreciated the words from the member about why she’s bringing this forward. These are systems that exist currently in the province. My colleagues from rural, remote and northern areas have communal waste water systems in their areas, and we may hear a little bit about that today. So I don’t know exactly what this motion enables; however, here we are.

A little background here: The provincial growth plan used to have a servicing hierarchy that required new developments to connect to municipal facilities, if possible, so if you’re going to turn on your tap or you’re going to flush the toilet or whatever, the hierarchy is that they should be connected to municipal facilities, if possible—allowing a private or communal solution only if a municipal hookup wasn’t feasible.

However, this Ford government removed all the reference to this hierarchy from the 2024 updates to the growth plan and provincial policy statement, referring to various options rather than the previous express preference for municipal hookups. Most people didn’t notice because sewage systems aren’t sexy; however, critics of sprawl were alarmed. While some additional flexibility might be reasonable—and as I said, there are communities all across the province that have different needs. If we are thinking about rural and remote, we want people to have options. The member talked about housing, and if you can’t flush, then there’s not housing. But we should be encouraging improvements to existing municipal systems to allow for that growth. Sprawl should not be our first go-to here.

So, while some additional flexibility might be reasonable in certain situations, particularly in rural Ontario where municipalities might struggle to deliver water and waste water infrastructure across those large land areas, the most likely beneficiaries of this change are the sprawl developers seeking to build outside of urban boundaries. I might be a little bit more in the weeds here than the folks at home are interested in, but the point is the politics of sprawl flows through those water pipes.

The member from Newmarket–Aurora represents a riding that is supposed to be connected to the new York-Durham sewage works that this Ford government mandated under the Supporting Growth and Housing in York and Durham Regions Act, which was enacted with Bill 23. I’m familiar with that, as a resident from Durham, so I was surprised that this particular private member’s motion is advocating for private waste water solutions when that member’s own community is getting a massively expensive new sewage solution that this government mandated be built.

Some of the people we’ve been talking to—when I realized that I would have the opportunity to speak to this, I reached out to people who know a little bit more than I do on the history of these communal waste water systems. The executive director of the Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition, Margaret Prophet, shared a little bit of background in regard to communal waste water systems. She said, “Not only do they not have the same rigorous requirements from the Minister of the Environment for testing they generally fail. I mean, it’s all there in the history books. Talk to almost any planner who has been around and they will tell you what a dangerous thing this is.”

Certain developers have occasionally misrepresented the ownership of these facilities to prospective homebuyers. So, people are buying a home in a development and they will assume that that water is provided and that their sewage is being looked after by the municipality, but they will mistakenly believe that it’s being delivered by the municipality when it is actually being delivered by the developer or whatever private company it hires to operate the facility. And if the private facility ever runs into trouble, those homeowners might wind up paying big costs to connect to the municipal system, as has happened to residents in Oro-Medonte in recent years.

Oro-Medonte, that example—and how am I for time? I’ve got time. I’ll tell a little story.

Eagles’ Rest is a luxury gated community development in Oro-Medonte that will have a privately operated sewage treatment facility. It is being built by Fernbrook Homes and Crystal Homes, which is owned by Nick and Mario Cortellucci. You’ve heard those names in this place before. Its lobbyist is Nick Kouvalis. We’ve heard his name in this place before.

There will be 208 homes built at Eagles’ Rest whose prices range between $1.3 million and $2.3 million.

Folks may recall that Mr. Kouvalis had made the news in 2021 when he was trying to get approval of the Eagles’ Rest privately operated sewage treatment plant while also advising this government at the same time.

Interjection.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Yes.

Eagles’ Rest got its environmental compliance approval—oh, “eagles’ nest.” I think I’ve been saying “Eagles’ Rest.” My bad. I will correct my record. But it got its environmental compliance approval for the waste treatment plant in 2023, and the development is proceeding.

However, eagles’ nest appears to have misrepresented the ownership of the new sewage treatment plant. The ERO posting for the ECA acknowledges concerns that eagles’ nest was falsely claiming “municipal services of water and sewers,” when the waste water treatment facility will actually be privately owned and operated. All of these people buying pretty expensive homes, expecting municipal water and sewer—but it’s a private company. However, years later, the eagles’ nest website continues to falsely claim that it’s privately owned sewer system will be municipal.

The government’s decision notice says, “This is the home builders’ website who are likely unaware of the error; the website should be updated to reflect that the water system will be municipally owned and the communal waste treatment facility will be privately owned.” But that hasn’t happened.

Victor Doyle, former Ontario government planner who some have called the architect of the greenbelt, has said that, “Historically, communal services for subdivisions ... were rarely accepted by municipalities given they typically have liability issues as the” Ministry of the Environment “required them to sign responsibility agreements to take over” and “fix the systems if something goes sideways.”

My questions are: Is the member aware that municipalities and municipal taxpayers are liable should a private system fail? Do they realize that virtually no municipalities allow private communal sewer and water for residential subdivisions because of this liability?

We need housing. We don’t need sprawl. We need services, but those services have to meet the needs of Ontarians.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Further debate?

Mr. Adil Shamji: Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak in this House on an issue that is of paramount importance to Ontarians, and that is housing and making sure that the housing-enabling infrastructure is in place to make sure that we have the homes that everyone here in this province requires.

I want to thank the member from Newmarket–Aurora for putting forward this motion, and certainly for recognizing the scale of the challenge that we have in terms of making enough housing available to Ontarians, and also for acknowledging the important role of having adequate, timely and well-funded infrastructure to enable all Ontarians to have access to the homes and the housing that they require.

You know, as I contemplate this thoughtful motion, I have to think about the background within which it’s being introduced. Because as we speak right now, what I’m hearing from municipalities across the province is that, unfortunately, they’re not getting the support that they need. They are concerned and are reporting that they are seeing a worsening download of provincial services onto municipalities, onto cities, which is therefore forcing them to have to fund these services themselves rather than get that support from the province of Ontario. And it’s forcing them to have to put those expenses onto their constituents, so we see rising property taxes. We also see decreasing quality of services and, frankly, crumbling infrastructure.

1820

As municipalities are seeing an increased downloading of provincial services onto their municipal budgets, one of the ways that they’re dealing with this is, yes, increasing property taxes. They’re also being forced to resort to revenue measures such as increasing development charges. We’re now seeing that development charges can easily add well over $100,000—even sometimes, in certain cases, approaching $200,000—to the cost of a new home. All of this is because the homes that the municipalities want to see built—that Ontarians need to see built—can’t get built, because the fundamental infrastructure that needs to be there to enable that to happen simply isn’t there.

You know, the Premier once said that he would make homes pop up across the province like mushrooms. And yet, here we are: the one province in our entire Confederation that has the lowest home building starts; the only province, actually, that has declining home building starts. And I’ve heard the Premier, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing blame these challenges on the economic environment that we’re in. No one can deny that we face difficult economic headwinds, but so does the rest of the country. And yet, somehow Ontario manages to underperform, by a long shot, every other province.

So, we have a housing crisis. Underlying that housing crisis, one of the issues is that we have an infrastructure crisis. We have aging infrastructure, crumbling infrastructure and, frankly, not enough of it. The private member’s motion that the member for Newmarket–Aurora has put forward hopes to, and I believe has the potential to, help address this. I want to actually thank her for finally standing up to make sure that we get all of the infrastructure that our municipalities and our home-building sector requires.

Now, as the motion has been put forward, we have a bigger responsibility. Let’s actually do the work to make this happen. Let’s actually take the steps to cut red tape. Let’s actually support municipalities. Let’s actually reduce the barriers to housing. The possibility of introducing communal water and waste water systems has potential; we just now have to do something with it. If we are going to proceed with this, then we need to make sure that—sure, a period of consultation is appropriate, but we can’t stay in consultation forever.

And unfortunately, the track record of this government is exactly that: Where people come forward and make recommendations—we saw that with the Housing Affordability Task Force—those recommendations ultimately fall on deaf ears and are largely left unimplemented. The HATF is certainly one of those examples. I’ve heard now for years that this government is consulting on single-stair egress for multi-level buildings. We’re still waiting for anyone to take action on that.

And so, my big fear is—I heard the member from Oshawa articulate a number of concerns with communal water and communal waste water systems. We need to make sure that we understand those concerns and the ramifications of proceeding with this motion. But even if the conclusion of those consultations is that we’re going to move forward, I don’t have confidence in this government that it actually would move forward.

While we’re in this favourable mood of wanting to pay attention to infrastructure, to make sure that municipalities have the services that they require so that we can build the homes that we need, allow me to offer a few additional suggestions that I think can help address the scale of the housing crisis we face right now, that I hope can actually help this government meet the moment.

I’ve been quite clear that development charges are too high. I’ve been quite clear that I think we should cut development charges almost altogether. The revenue gap that would be left by such a measure should be compensated for with a provincial infrastructure fund in the billions of dollars, because that’s what we need. I would put forward that suggestion.

I would also put forward the suggestion that we should rebate the HST on new primary residences, not just for first-time homebuyers but, frankly, for all homebuyers. This would help not just first-time homebuyers but, for example, it would help seniors who are living alone in their homes, who would like to downsize but simply are not able to afford to downsize.

Let’s take additional affordability measures, such as eliminating the land transfer tax for first-time homebuyers, for seniors, for not-for-profits. All of these—while we’re feeling so charitable and building up infrastructure and wanting to build new homes—are suggestions that could light a home-building spark in our province, that could open up new housing for tens of thousands, if not millions, of people.

Now, I do want to take a moment, again, to acknowledge some of the comments that my colleague the member from Oshawa mentioned. While it can be argued that there is a need for a range of infrastructure options so that homes can be built, I want to be careful about a few things. This can’t be an excuse for just reckless and irresponsible sprawl. We certainly can’t see this as a justification to build more homes on the greenbelt, for example.

I would also be concerned that the implementation of measures like this might be used as an excuse to not fund more definitive and more timely kinds of infrastructure, the kind that I understand the municipality of York is hoping to build over the next 10 years, which is expensive but reliable. I hope that in pursuing options such as this, we’re not going to forsake those kinds of options as well.

I may take this as an opportunity to simply wrap up and say I do believe, if we want to build more homes, that we need to support a range of infrastructure. That means offering municipalities options and the confidence to be able to assume a range of different infrastructure solutions. It has to be responsible. It has to be thoughtful. And it can’t just be used for reckless or irresponsible sprawl, either.

I thank the member for bringing forward this important solution, for allowing us to participate in this conversation. I look forward to seeing ideas such as this not just be stuck in endless consultation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Further debate?

Mr. John Jordan: I’m very pleased to speak to this motion put forward by the member for Newmarket–Aurora. Communal water and sewage systems will unlock housing in my rural riding of Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston.

Since I was elected in 2022, I’ve been working with municipal leaders, primarily Frontenac county, to increase their housing supply using a communal water sewage solution, a solution that addresses the cost-prohibitive model of building out water and waste water treatment infrastructure for rural development.

Communal water treatment and waste water treatment technologies, such as the new Terra model designed and manufactured in Brockville, Ontario, are opening the door to the possibilities for sustainable rural development.

Concrete examples in my riding of Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston include a 100-unit residential project currently being developed in Verona and, in Sharbot Lake, a former public school site, a two-acre parcel purchased by the township of Central Frontenac in 2017, with an initial plan of developing 10 senior units. Thanks to communal services, it will now be possible to develop mixed-use housing, with up to 50 residential units on that same property. The township can also expand the system to service other sites in the village such as Soldiers Memorial Hall.

The county of Frontenac’s long-term-care facility, Fairmount Home, will also benefit from communal services. The county is investing in a solution to service the existing 128 beds, with the flexibility for future expansion allowing for a capacity of up to 160 beds. In contrast, adapting or replacing the existing septic system would be less adaptable to future needs and inferior to a communal system.

Communal systems unlock the potential for increased development densities, ensure consistent and sustainable services, and protect the environment. Both developers and local governments can benefit from lower upfront infrastructure costs and more efficient ongoing maintenance and monitoring. As these areas grow, the ability to scale up the systems ensures that these developments remain viable and can continue to accommodate increasing populations, whether through housing, businesses or services like health care. Speaker, this is the breakthrough that will allow municipalities to explore healthy, sustainable development in rural environments.

1830

Kurt Greaves, CAO of Lanark county, said, “The ability to add communal servicing for subdivisions has the potential to be a game-changer for rural Lanark county. By increasing density and lowering costs ... communal servicing would act as an important tool to unlock growth opportunities in Lanark and across the province.”

From Richard Kidd, reeve of Beckwith township: “Beckwith township has a population of under 10,000—bordering the city of Ottawa’s west end. A small communal water and waste water system will allow us to develop denser housing and strengthen the long-term planning for the township. Smaller lots will allow the opportunity to provide housing for first-time homeowners and retirees looking to downsize.”

And from Louise Fragnito, CAO of South Frontenac township: “The ability to provide communal water and waste water systems in a rural community is an innovative, economical, and sustainable method to provide critical infrastructure to our communities. The use of communal water and waste water systems provides the ability to support growth, increase density and support diverse development within our communities in an affordable manner, while ensuring that public and environmental safety remains top of mind as these systems must meet MECP and source water requirements. Further, the use of communal servicing reduces environmental impacts by reducing the number of individual well and septic installations by using a centralized well/lake intake and septic through systems that can service multiple housing units at once.”

This is resounding support from the rural communities of my riding who have, to this point, been stalled by the cost of building out infrastructure to service rural development. Communal water and waste water treatment facilities are a real-time example of how we can move forward if we work together to examine new and innovative solutions through a rural lens.

I want to thank our municipal leaders in Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston for their vision and their support to get more homes built.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Further debate?

M^me France Gélinas: I would like to thank the member from Newmarket–Aurora for bringing forward this motion. As you know, Speaker, I represent 33 small communities in northern rural Ontario. Whether you talk about Ivanhoe or Foleyet or Mattagami First Nation, Gogama, Biscotasing, Shining Tree, Westree, Benny, Cartier, none of those are big enough to be a municipality, none of those are big enough to have municipal water and sewage treatment plants, but all of them need sewer and water.

I can tell you that small communal water and waste water systems exist in many parts of my riding, have existed in many parts of my riding for a very long time, but I want to let the member know that the cutbacks that have happened with this government to public health mean that it is a whole lot more difficult to have your water tested to make sure that you can drink it.

The health unit still has to sign off to say that the water is safe to drink. They used to come out and do those tests. They are not funded to do this anymore, don’t have the money. People have to do that themselves. So we often end up with a big sign that goes to everybody in the community that says, “Do not drink the water.” And once you cannot drink the water, it becomes a problem really fast. We all need to drink water every day, Speaker, and you live in a northern rural community, and you can’t drink the water.

So, the government may want this communal water to continue. If they want it to be successful, they have to fund public health.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Further debate?

Ms. Laura Smith: I rise today in support of the motion to adopt modernized measures to streamline the development of communal water and waste water systems. I want to thank the member from Newmarket–Aurora for her work and diligence on this truly important issue.

This motion speaks to a fundamental need across Ontario to ensure that every community, large or small, urban or rural, has access to safe, reliable and sustainable water infrastructure. For far too long, many rural and underserviced areas have faced significant barriers when trying to upgrade and build new water and waste water systems. The regulatory path has often been slow, complex and expensive, making it difficult for these communities to grow or even maintain the systems they already have, and our government is exploring ways to streamline approvals for communal water and waste water systems. We’re reducing delays and paperwork so that municipalities can bring new housing online faster. By simplifying municipal consent and provincial approvals, we’re giving local governments the tools they need to unlock development in underserviced rural areas without lengthy and duplicative processes.

Modernized streamlined measures are not about lowering standards; they’re about removing outdated, redundant steps that prevent communities from accessing proven, safe and innovative technologies. Distributed, modular, off-grid water and waste water systems are no longer experimental. They are widely used, cost-effective and designed to protect both public health and the environment. For many rural communities, especially those far away from major trunk systems, these technologies provide a realistic and affordable way forward.

But what does this modernization mean in practical terms? It means that small communities can approve communal systems that enable new housing, including affordable housing, where the development is currently restricted by servicing limits. It means that villages and hamlets in York region, in my area, not too far away from the riding of Thornhill, and across the province can accommodate modest, responsible growth while protecting their water resources. It means that communities with aging septic systems—they can pose risks to groundwater and local ecosystems—that transition can move to more modern, environmentally sound solutions.

Crucially, modernizing the process strengthens environmental protections, and when communities lack proper waste water options, the alternative is failing septic systems and unmanaged runoff. These problems directly threaten our lakes and our rivers, and streamlining helps ensure that the systems that are built meet high standards and are deployed in a timely and coordinated way.

These proposed changes will save municipalities time, expand servicing capacity and help deliver more housing faster. Streamlining is not rushing; it’s about predictable timelines, clarity for municipalities and science-based assessments that reflect today’s technology. It enables responsible planning and creates a fair path for rural communities that have too often been left behind.

If we want Ontario’s rural and small communities to thrive; if we want to protect our water, support economic development and build homes responsibly, then we must continue to modernize our approaches.

I want to thank the member from Newmarket–Aurora for bringing this motion. For these reasons, I urge all members to support this motion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Further debate?

Hon. Steve Clark: Let me start by congratulating the member for Newmarket–Aurora for this excellent motion and the opportunity for me to speak this evening.

A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of giving the member a tour of a great company in my riding called Newterra, which will benefit from this type of motion. I have to tell you, Speaker, I was so impressed with her knowledge of this file. The research that she’s done is unbelievable.

I think we have an opportunity today to build upon the member’s comments about making approvals clearer; making them more consistent; making them more efficient; and getting essential infrastructure in place faster, supporting the development of affordable housing and enabling communities to grow. Faster approvals mean families are going to move into homes sooner. The local economy will benefit from job creation. Communities are going to have reliable water and waste water systems without unnecessary delays.

I want to be very clear to the members tonight. Technology like the membrane bioreactor, or MBR, works. It’s environmentally friendly, globally recognized and supports smaller, dense developments that don’t have municipal water systems.

The company I talked about in my riding already has 25 approved ECAs for this technology in Ontario. Despite that proven track record, they face repetitive and duplicative approvals when deploying identical systems. This is a plant that builds modular systems, supplies them all over North America, and the delays aren’t protecting the environment. It’s just red tape that creates bottlenecks and slows down the building of badly needed housing.

1840

Streamlining the process is going to reduce duplication. It’s going to improve predictability, and it’s going to allow companies to deliver solutions faster and more efficiently. I appreciate the work that’s being done by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to develop a fast, reliable path through the environmental compliance approval, or ECA.

I want to thank Brad and Jeremy from Newterra for the outstanding work. They’ve hosted me and many politicians of all political stripes to come to their plant to see this technology that they employ, like I said, all over Canada and all over North America. What we’re asking is for MECP to adopt policies needed to solve our housing crisis without compromising environmental responsibilities.

In short, to the members today: We need a clear approval pathway for a higher-density, lower-cost communal system that produces gold-standard effluent. I appreciate the commitment by ministry officials. I appreciate what the member is saying about consultation, and I look forward to how things are moving forward.

But again, I want to thank my colleague the member for Newmarket–Aurora. Her motion is about enabling responsible growth, cutting red tape, supporting innovation and assuring municipalities have the infrastructure that they need.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Further debate? Further debate?

The member has two minutes to reply.

M^me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: First off, I’d like to thank all my colleagues this evening for their comments. To the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston, the member for Thornhill, the member for Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, the member for Oshawa, the member for Don Valley East and the member for Nickel Belt, thank you very much for participating and for your comments in this evening’s debate.

I heard a few things, and I’d like to reiterate where this is going. This really, at the end of the day, is to ensure that small, rural communities, including those in York region, have the ability to grow—to grow now—which is so critical. We can’t keep waiting and waiting for these big systems, at least in my region.

I wanted to reiterate a couple of things about something my colleague mentioned: The technology exists, and the environmental protections exist and they are rigorous.

I would like to quote one more person, a land use planner with Groundswell Urban Planners, Brad Rogers. He said to me, “These systems can be designed, constructed and maintained to meet or exceed provincial standards, while offering faster implementation and scalability where municipal infrastructure is not feasible.”

Speaker, I say once again, imagine: Providing more flexible waste water options can unlock new housing faster, more affordably, while protecting and, quite frankly, enhancing our environment.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): The time provided for private members’ public businesses has expired.

Ms. Gallagher Murphy has moved private member’s notice of motion number 32. Is it the pleasure of the House that this motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until the next instance of deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

Adjournment Debate

Government accountability

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): We are now at the beginning of the late show. Pursuant to standing order 36, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

The member for Ottawa South has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given by the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development. The member has five minutes to debate the matter, and the minister or parliamentary assistant may reply for up to five minutes.

Mr. John Fraser: Again, I want to thank you for being here at the table; thank you very much, everybody behind the bench, for staying a bit later and allowing me a few minutes to get this dissatisfaction off my chest. I appreciate whoever on the other side is here to respond to me.

I think it’s four weeks now that I’ve been talking about the Skills Development Fund and how money of this $2.5-billion fund has been shovelled out the door, with no strings attached, to a lot of donors, to a lot of insiders, to a lot of people who are connected to lobbyists or who are connected to government. It just doesn’t wash.

I asked a series of questions about who knew what when, especially in relation to Keel Digital Solutions, which we know that the Minister of Labour intervened on because it was a low-scoring proposal. The lobbyist was a close personal friend. We know the reason that it scored low was the concern that the company was actually buying its own software from itself, which sounds a lot like an in-and-out. Then we know it went to an audit, a forensic audit, and it still managed to get this money.

I think there’s a whole bunch of things, and if you unpack that—it’s like you’ve got the side where there’s clearly a conflict of interest on the side of the minister, and on the other side, how do we get a company that’s being audited in the first place, but even worse, under a forensic audit? What a forensic audit means is we think they’re hiding something. It’s not in plain view; we have to dig deeper. And then, of course, that forensic audit gets referred to the OPP anti-racket squad.

So the minister’s response has been, “Hey, we referred it in 24 hours.” Well, actually, I think the public servants probably referred it after they got—it’s not a political decision to refer to the police; it’s the public servants’ decision. If the minister wants to take credit for it, that’s fine.

But what I want to know—and it relates to what the Minister of Labour is saying that we have all these checks and balances—when did we know that the company was being audited? What date? When did that audit finish? When that audit finished, when did Treasury Board initiate a forensic audit? What date? When did it end?

Because we do know that once it’s under a forensic audit, it should be a red flag to government. I not only think that there’s a problem with the conflict, but how is it in government that we can be giving more money—and it’s not the only ministry that was giving Keel Digital Solutions money. How are we managing the people’s money if the Treasury Board isn’t alerting people to possible fraud, to the people we are doing business with that might be hiding something from us or are hiding something from us? Because I think there’s a fairly high threshold to go there. It’s not something that’s a political decision. No minister or staffer said, “You need to send this to a forensic audit,” or “This needs to go to an audit.” It was the public servants. It was the public servants who did that all along the way. We need to know when that happened. We need to know when the minister and his staff, or the ministers and their staff, were informed.

Then we flash forward to today: We still don’t get answers to the same question, but the minister has the gall to blame the public servants, the public servants who said, “No, this is a risk. They might be doing an in-and-out; they might be buying their own software for themselves. Don’t do it.” They’re the ones that warned him. They’re the ones that said we need to audit these guys, that we need to do an audit. They’re the people who said we need to do a forensic audit. They’re the same people who said we’ve got to send this to the OPP anti-racket squad.

And the minister today and the government—because it’s going to happen and it’s going to be pervasive—they’re going to say it’s the deputy’s fault, it’s the public servants’ fault, when they did all the right things. They did all the right things, and the minister did the wrong thing. That’s my point.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): I recognize the member from York South–Weston.

MPP Mohamed Firin: Speaker, since its launch in 2021, Ontario’s Skills Development Fund has invested in more than 700 projects, delivered by over 500 organizations, helping more than 700,000 people in Ontario get the training they need for better jobs with bigger paycheques. The results, Speaker, speak for themselves: More than 100,000 people found work within 60 days of completing their program and training. That’s real opportunity and real progress.

Speaker, 700,000 people have been trained, retrained, or upskilled. We are training the next generation of Ontario’s workforce. This fund is helping us build the workforce Ontario needs to compete globally, training workers in critical sectors such as construction, manufacturing, health care, mining and more. Through the Skills Development Fund, we’re aiming to train 154,000 construction workers; 124,000 manufacturing workers; 52,000 health care workers, including PSWs; 35,000 workers in mining, quarrying, oil, and gas.

Under Premier Ford’s leadership, this government has invested $1.5 billion in the Skills Development Fund since 2021, and we’re not stopping there. We will be investing an additional $1 billion over the next three years, because we believe in workers, their potential and the power of training to change lives.

Speaker, I could quote statistics all day, but the true measure of success is found in the stories of people whose lives have been transformed by SDF. I said one of those stories in the House when I spoke about Kevin, who now has been able to put a down payment on a home because of the training that we provided to him through our Skills Development Fund.

Another story is Dylan, who joined the Indigenous training program at IBEW. Through the program, he got the training and skills he needed to stay safe and productive on-site and is now a third-term apprentice who is well prepared for the next steps in his skilled trades journey.

Then there’s Amanda, who entered the trades for the first time through Tools in the Trades Bootcamp. With support from program mentors and hands-on experience, she’s now on her way to earning her Red Seal certification. That’s what this program delivers: better training for a better job with a bigger paycheque. These are not statistics; these are real stories and individuals whose lives have been transformed by the Skills Development Fund.

Speaker, the fund is helping everyone from apprentices in Niagara to miners in northern Ontario, and it’s helping people like Frankie. Frankie lives with a developmental disability. Through Melly’s marketplace, funded by the Skills Development Fund, he got the training and the workplace experience he needed. Today, he’s proudly working at the LCBO, earning a paycheque and contributing meaningfully to his community. These stories show the diversity of Ontario’s workforce and the strength that comes from supporting the next generation of workers.

Speaker, the Skills Development Fund is also fuelling a surge in apprenticeship growth. Under the previous government, Ontario lost 15,000 active apprentices between 2015 and 2018. But under this government, apprenticeship registrations have soared by 70% since COVID, with more than 100,000 active apprentices today and over 16,400 youth registered last year, the highest in a decade.

The Skills Development Fund is delivering real results, and we’re investing in better training, better jobs and bigger paycheques—for veterans retraining to cyber security, to newcomers bridging their credentials, to people with disabilities entering the workforce and for young people discovering the trades. That’s how we protect Ontario’s future, that’s how we build a province where everyone has the chance to succeed and that’s why we will never stop supporting our workers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): There being no further matters to debate, pursuant to standing order 36(c), I deem the motion to adjourn to be carried.

This House now stands adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1854.