Global news is reporting that Bill 56 "streamlines" the Clean Water Act. I had my aintern look at the bill (...) with an eye for what the effects on the clean water act are. The biggest change I see is that the bill removes the power of municipalities to place restrictions on any existing polluters in agriculture (the culprits in Walkerton) or industry:
Bill 56 reframes Ontario’s Clean Water Act from a precautionary, locally driven regime toward a centrally managed, discretionary one. The most direct consequence will be reduced ability of local authorities to block high-risk land uses near wells, aquifers, and intake zones. The language of “designed to achieve” introduces interpretive flexibility likely to favour development interests over strict protection.
It doesn't move this power to the province, it just does away with it. Municipalities can set restrictions on the emissions of future polluters, but existing ones are to be grandfathered in.
Why would we want this?? Even assuming someone doesn't have our best interests in mind, why would they want this? The only reason I can see is that they already own large agricultural and industrial polluters.
Overall, this omnibus is clearly the next salvo in Ford's war against municipalities and accountability.
spoiler
Summary of Bill 56’s amendments to the Clean Water Act, 2006 (Ontario)
-
- Limits on local power to block drinking-water threats
The bill narrows what source protection plans may contain for activities identified as significant drinking-water threats. Only two policy types are allowed:
-
A prohibition, but only for new or future activities (not ones already occurring).
-
A requirement that future decisions be “designed to achieve” stated objectives rather than conform absolutely to them.
Effect: municipalities and conservation authorities lose the ability to impose binding restrictions on existing industrial, agricultural, or development activities that threaten water sources. Existing operations gain de facto grandfathering.
-
- Ministerial and regulatory centralization
The Minister gains new authority to:
-
Order reviews and revisions of protection plans.
-
Dictate prescribed wording for policies.
-
Define by regulation which instruments (permits, licences, approvals) are covered and what standards apply.
Effect: technical and planning control shifts from local source-protection committees toward Queen’s Park. Political discretion replaces many statutory requirements.
-
- Automatic or “deemed” approvals
If the Minister fails to respond to an amendment within 120 days, the change is automatically approved.
Effect: inertia now benefits proponents rather than regulators; oversight lapses translate directly into legal authorization.
-
- Repeal of prior conformity clauses
Repealing subsections 39(7)–(8) removes older requirements ensuring that all provincial and municipal decisions conformed with source-protection policies.
Effect: weaker linkage between water-protection plans and actual permitting or planning decisions; easier for development to proceed despite unresolved threats.
-
- New “prescribed instrument” system
A new section 42.1 replaces the earlier catch-all conformity rule with a narrower duty: the decision-maker must ensure the instrument “conforms to the prohibition” or “is designed to achieve objectives.”
Effect: practical compliance becomes subjective—focused on intent rather than measurable outcomes. Enforcement will rely on ministerial interpretation rather than statutory clarity.
-
- Predicted outcomes
| Domain | Likely effect | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental protection | Moderate-to-severe weakening | Fewer enforceable prohibitions; existing threats effectively immunized. |
| Regulatory speed | Faster | Deemed-approval and centralized regulation reduce delay. |
| Local autonomy | Reduced | Municipalities and conservation authorities lose discretion. |
| Industry/development | Easier project approvals | Fewer binding conformity tests; more reliance on design-intent language. |
| Public transparency | Lower | More decisions shift to regulation and ministerial order rather than open hearings. |