Please assign it to the Standing Committee on the Interior.

Questions?

Further debate? Further debate?

Ms. Thompson has moved second reading of Bill 171, An Act to enact the Veterinarian Professionals Act, 2024 and amend or repeal various acts. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

I recognize the member for Chatham-Kent–Leamington.

Interjections.

Mrs. McCrimmon moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 168, An Act to implement the Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Guidance Manual and to report on stormwater management guidelines periodically / Projet de loi 168, Loi mettant en oeuvre le Manuel d’orientation sur la gestion des eaux pluviales par un aménagement à faible impact et visant la rédaction de rapports périodiques sur les lignes directrices en matière de gestion des eaux pluviales.

The fact that we’re speaking of low-impact development is just manna from heaven for me, as a civil engineer, as the low-impact development lead for the city of Windsor for the last number of years prior to my election. I’ve built a number of low-impact development projects in my career, including some that actually didn’t work all that well, and you learn from every project that you’re involved with.

I can certainly appreciate where the member from Kanata–Carleton is coming from. The Ministry of the Environment’s stormwater management guidelines were last updated in 2003. That’s separate and distinct from these, but really, a lot of time goes by for the passage of these guidelines. If anyone ever wants to print them out it’s probably about an inch thick of paper that you’ll get—a lot of text. Actually, it’s an interesting read, but at the same time, as a practitioner, it may not be the most practical effort to look at those 2003 guidelines and say, “Okay, I’m going to design properly.” In fact, that was one of the biggest challenges I had as practitioner: How do I understand the consequences of my design? What were the best ways to design a project?

This is where the Credit Valley Conservation Authority as well as the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority really took it to heart to create a different ecosystem specific to low-impact development. It’s called Sustainable Technologies. The website is sustainabletechnologies.ca. They published a guide in 2010 which ultimately became recognized throughout the province by practitioners as being the best standard that we have for looking at low-impact development and how we should build, including—one thing that was novel for 2010 was doing the overall cost in terms of the life cycle of the project. That’s something I actually haven’t seen in many previous sets of guidelines. That came from Credit Valley Conservation’s sustainable technology consortium.

Since the publication of that guide in 2010, Sustainable Technologies has evolved. They’re no longer going to publish a guideline document. What they’ve done is go to a wiki type of system where, as new elements of the knowledge base come online, they can be added, they can be evaluated and you can learn from the experiences of others in a more dynamic fashion. These guidelines aren’t the sole evolution to wiki; I’m a Scout leader on the side, and Scouts Canada has moved to a wiki for their ongoing changes as they delve into topics such as child protection and child safety etc.

Just to elaborate a bit about what low-impact development truly is: It’s taking out the stormwater component of what otherwise gets sent down to the waste water treatment plant. I built two parking lots as my first projects for low-impact development, each of which had an infiltration trench, which was effectively acting as a reservoir at the edge of the parking lot. All the water would trickle down from the pavement, end up in this big, deep gravel pit and then it would be dispersed underground so it didn’t end up going through the sewer system. You would contain the work on site.

In the most recent project I was a part of, that I designed, we used tree cells—the same kind of concept, but outside of some of our planted trees we were going to direct some of the stormwater that would have gone onto the streets into these tree cells. The tree would actually drink the water and grow more and be more prosperous because of that low-impact development.

I’ll commend the federal government for the DMAF program that they had because they asked for low-impact development to be brought forward as part of their funding allocations, so it actually gave a challenge to us as practitioners: How do we actually make this work? What are the best tools in the tool box for these technologies?

The member opposite is quite right: My community of Windsor–Tecumseh is pretty low-lying. It’s adjacent to Lake St. Clair. We had not only a significant threat of flooding; when the wind was high we actually had overland flooding coming from the lake, and it made it onto Riverside Drive.

Basement flooding is something that we’re all well aware of. I can think of a couple of days that stand out during my time as a municipal councillor. Those days when we had a big storm and people were flooded out, really, those were unproductive days in my day job to respond to those times. Sure enough you want to help your neighbours pull out. Basement flooding is a public health issue. You end up developing mould if you have a flooded basement. You also have so much damage, so much that gets trucked to the landfill. Think of carpets, think of drywall and the different pieces of furniture that are affected. So it’s imperative that we do our best to take stormwater out of the system, provide for those high-risk storms the most capacity possible within the pipe. That’s truly where low-impact development comes into play.

I was very thankful to actually see that the Ministry of the Environment is in the process of looking at the low-impact development guide, and in tandem with the Credit Valley effort with the wiki.

When it comes to the guide, I had a chance, in preparation for this debate, to read through it, and I was reminded immediately of the 2003 stormwater management guide, and, when push came to shove, for the designing of a project—really, the guide was a great tool to show the background and the whys, but for the actual implementation, I did have to rely on resources that were outside of those guidelines. The guidelines set what the expectation is, but it doesn’t really tell you how to get there. It does tell you the different types of technologies, and it’s a useful tool to have, and it should exist. And I fully support having the Ministry of the Environment—I know the government does; otherwise, it wouldn’t have been actioned and it wouldn’t be on the registry at the moment.

What’s the future of this document? Is it going to be a living document? The 10-year update cycle? I look at the 2003 guide, still not updated, but it’s also still relevant in some ways because it’s not something we would rely upon to actually figure out how we’re going to develop the low-impact development projects. Looking at the guideline that’s on the registry today, I would say—really, the same. It is there to provide the background, the whys and the opportunities that exist, but when push comes to shove, you are going to have to look to something that’s a bit more dynamic in order to make the design decisions that you need, as a practitioner, to actually implement the low-impact development.

The member opposite mentioned the Windsor Star, and, coincidentally enough, there’s an article from February 10, 2002, titled “Riverside Residents ‘Delighted’ with New Anti-Flood Improvements.” This is actually the last article that I appeared in as an engineering subject-matter expert before being elected. It gets into a couple of cases. We had, in Tranby Park, two reservoirs; there’s a permeable parking lot, an on-ground dry pond at the back of the park—my colleague Tiffany worked on that. There were references to the initiatives that I had done and a couple of others in the neighbourhood, with permeable pipes underneath residential streets such as Matthew Brady. My boss at the time cited that these projects were absolutely making a difference. Actually, members of the community were quoted as saying they’ve noticed changes to their frequency of flooding as a result of the implementation. I won’t go that far, because sometimes the intensity of the storm is different in a given location, and that may not actually be the reason why they’re experiencing relief. But on a theoretical basis, for sure, when you take stormwater out of the system, that means that water is not occupying the piece of the pipe, and you’re gaining valuable capacity when you have a high-intensity storm in your neighbourhood.

Ultimately, those low-impact development projects are more frequent; however, they are more maintenance-intensive. They don’t have the same lifespan as normal projects that have the big, full sewer, full reconstruction. You do have to take out the sediment. You collect a lot of sediment when water gets collected into a sewer system, or, in these cases, the infiltration trench. You need to clean out the aggregate that’s used as a filter, and that has a frequency of probably about a 10-year time frame.

So there are some tricks of the trade that are part of designing low-impact developments, that are more dynamic. You have to gain that knowledge and experience as you try these out. They aren’t in wide application; they should be. And I certainly commend the member opposite for bringing this forward, because there’s a lot of unmet potential with the development of low-impact development guidelines.

I referenced the wiki earlier, and this is actually—to speak of how dynamic it is, we will gain knowledge, just as I did. My first project, I’d call a failure. What was happening is, the water table ending up being so high close to the Detroit River that my infiltration trench had groundwater enter it, and so when the water came and drained into it, there was nowhere left to go. The capacity was eaten up by groundwater. Okay, lesson learned. As a designer, we’ve since fixed it by having an overflow sewer. That bit was installed years later.

This is the kind of knowledge that a practitioner will gain. They learn from their mistakes, and we gain our knowledge base. So a practitioner will not be reliant on this guide to keep them up to date. This guide will show what the outcome should be, but really, the experiences we live will be put into the wiki, sustainabletechnologies.ca, and really, that will be the tool for keeping practitioners up to date.

As I say, I applaud the efforts of the member opposite. From a functional perspective, a practitioner will not need an update in 10 years. They’re not going to rely on this to do their design. They’re going to be looking at a more dynamic source of information, whereas this will be the archival piece. It is not destined to be something that will have much added to the knowledge base as a result of a 10-year review.

With that, I won’t be able to support it. I certainly appreciate the effort by the member opposite.

Further debate?

Further debate?

I would like to begin by saying how disappointing it is to hear that this Conservative government will not be supporting the sensible piece of legislation. It’s sensible, practical. It’s a disappointment to hear the government not supporting this again, but are we surprised? How could we possibly be surprised? This is a government that has not once, in the almost six years that they’ve been in power, taken climate change seriously, taken the impact on our infrastructure—

Interjections.

Interjection.

I just have to say that I think it’s timely that the member is bringing this forward, because this year is the 70th anniversary of Hurricane Hazel. And what did that teach us? This was back in 1954. Hurricane Hazel at the time was a real tragedy for the city of Toronto. I remember my mother talking about it. She was a young girl at the time. Eighty-one people lost their life during Hurricane Hazel and the ensuing floods. Over 1,900 people were homeless. And it incurred about a billion dollars in damage in today’s standards. So this was a huge, huge disaster in the province. At the time, the province of the day worked in co-operation with local municipalities to come up with ways that they could make sure that they were protecting and preventing this kind of loss of life and loss of property from happening again.

I do think this is an important bill, but I have to say, and I think that you will agree, that good stormwater regulations, which this bill represents, will not replace the loss and the damage that we’re seeing to natural heritage land, farmland, wetlands, green lands, the kinds of important properties that we need that are going to protect us from the impact of severe weather and the flooding that we can only expect to happen more and more.

In fact, my colleague here referenced the report from the—let’s see what the report was called. It was the provincial climate impact assessment report. This painted a grim picture. This report painted a grim enough picture that the government commissioned this report and it was released but hidden. The government hid this report because the impacts were so severe, it would seem to me that they didn’t want the people of the province to know that we are in trouble when it comes to climate change and flooding and severe weather on the way. And so the cost of flooding—the member from Kanata–Carleton did explain that it’s not just the loss of life; it’s the impact to our properties and our municipal infrastructures, which we all pay for.

I have a report here from the University of Waterloo Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation. It’s called Treading Water: Impact of Catastrophic Flooding on Canada’s Housing Market. They identify that “the most costly impact of climate change affecting Canadians is residential basement flooding, that is often made worse through poor land-use planning and management.”

You mentioned the flood that you experienced in the Ottawa area. There was a flood in Burlington, Ontario, in 2014; I think something like two years’ worth of rain fell in an hour or so, and it cost millions upon millions of dollars for the municipality of Burlington. Also Toronto in 2019: We were in this House at the time when that happened. Downtown Toronto flooded. People were trapped in their cars. A GO train had to be evacuated because of the sudden flooding. So these things are real, and they’re increasing.

From this report: 3.3 million Canadians live in a 100-year flood plain and 3.9 million Canadians live in a 200-year flood plain, so people are already living in flood plains, and these flood plains will only continue to be expand and be made more vulnerable by the decisions that this government takes when it comes to protecting our natural heritage and our natural lands, like the greenbelt and like wetlands.

I would just like to add that after Hurricane Hazel, the province of the day worked in co-operation with local municipalities and conservation authorities to allow conservation authorities to acquire lands and to regulate the vulnerable lands. Why did they do this? They did this because they recognized that, for example, stripping the Humber River drainage system at the time amplified the impacts of the damage. The flood plains couldn’t support the rain. That was what happened then, and that’s what’s going to be happening now if we build in the wrong place, if we continue to impinge on the greenbelt, if we continue to expand urban boundaries in areas where we shouldn’t, and if we continue to disregard and disrespect important tributaries, wetlands and waterways in the province.

I would say that in Hamilton—the Speaker will know this full well—we saw the damaging impact of flooding. It wasn’t flooding particularly, but it was Cootes Paradise where this beautiful natural area—it is actually a provincially significant wetland—was flooded by 24 billion litres of raw sewage that spilled into this area.

This spill was the result of a failure of oversight. It was a failure of aging infrastructure—the signals to show that this system wasn’t working failed—but it also is a lesson to show us that we have aging infrastructure across the province in municipalities, and that these severe storm weather events impact our ability to treat sewage in our municipalities.

And so, the city of Hamilton is continuing to monitor bypass events, where our sewage water and waste water treatment system can’t support the flood of water that’s coming into these systems and they have to bypass. Rather than going through the treatment facility, they have to bypass. In the case of Hamilton, it bypasses into the Hamilton bay, and in the case of, for example, Burlington, that happens as well.

So these have serious implications not just for people and for property, but for our important waterways, and it is shocking to me to say in the context of this, in the context of climate change and in the context of aging infrastructure and wanting to protect people, that this government continues its assault on our protected land. This government now has passed—or will pass on April 1, which is kind of ironic; April Fool’s Day—new regulations that will come into effect that, again, kneecap our conservation authorities’ ability to do their job and their ability to protect us from climate change flooding impacts. These regulations that come into effect will affect the 36 conservation authorities that we have across the province. Those are 31 in southern Ontario and five in populated areas in northern Ontario. Over 90% of Ontarians live within the jurisdiction of a conservation authority. So when conservation authorities are undermined and they longer have the ability to protect us, this impacts 90% of Ontarians in those areas.

And so I would like to say that these regulations, they’re shocking. They came along with Bill 23, which required conservation authorities to identify surplus lands that could be sold for housing. So this government has got the conservation authorities going through lands that were meant to be protected in perpetuity, lands that were there to protect us from flooding—this government has tasked, charged conservation authorities and their boards of directors to find surplus lands that could be sold.

I would say, if there is a mass sell-off of conservation lands, the outrage that we saw in the province of Ontario when it came to the greenbelt grab will be nothing compared to people’s outrage when their protected areas, when their trail areas, when their protected species like woodpeckers and owls and butterflies and just natural areas that people love are now going to be sold off.

These regulations not only change the buffer zone for development from 120 metres from a protected land to 30 metres, they also allow the minister of the day to force conservation authorities to issue development permits whether they want to or not.

They’ve also changed the definition—which is insane, that they have changed the definition—of what a headwater is. A headwater, really, if you think of the ground, is essentially a depression in the ground, because in Ontario, all of our tributaries and our lakes and rivers come from a headwater that’s under the ground. That’s how it works here. And so this government is saying now that they can’t protect headwaters and said what they will be doing is, if it has a defined bank or running water, that can be protected.

But I would like to remind this House that the Grand River starts from, essentially, a depression, a hole in the ground, north of Kitchener. Is this government saying that we cannot protect the headwaters of something such as the Grand River? This weakening of the powers of the conservation authorities is part and parcel of this government’s problem when it comes to understanding the importance of our conservation authorities.

And I would like to just end in the minute that I have left to say that I would like to remind all of us that we have a duty to protect the water. We are all treaty people through being Canadian citizens. We’re subject to the Between the Lakes Treaty between the British crown and the Mississaugas of the First Nations, and also the Fort Albany Treaty with the Haudenosaunee. And these treaties, they’re not just important treaties that we have an obligation to, to First Nations; they teach us and provide guidance on how we should treat water and how we should respond based on cultural practices, not just now but for generations to come.

I think this is a very good bill and we will be supporting it. But I appreciate the opportunity to show that this government not only is supporting this bill, but they have done—they’re going further and further to put our properties, our people and our lives at risk with their undermining of protecting important areas in our province. I think that’s disastrous, and I think that we’re going to pay the price one way or another.

Tick-tock.

Today, I’m honoured to stand up and debate Bill 168, Stormwater Flood Prevention Act, 2024. I’m extremely proud of my colleague the member from Kanata–Carleton for introducing and debating her first piece of legislation in this chamber, and I’m hugely supportive of this bill and what it is trying to achieve.

Bill 168 acknowledges the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events and takes proactive steps to adapt Ontario’s stormwater management system. By investing in flood mitigation infrastructure and updating development guidelines, the bill aims to protect communities across Ontario from the devastating impacts of flooding, safeguarding homes, businesses and public infrastructure. This is crucial legislation. Flooding is the number one cause of public emergency in Ontario and it’s the most common natural disaster in Canada, costing Canadians more than any other climate issue.

I’m sure everyone in this House fondly remembers when I put forth my private member’s bill, Bill 56, Fewer Floods, Safer Ontario Act, 2022. Those were good times. It was, like this bill, aimed at protecting Ontarians from the risks of flooding.

I spoke with every member in this chamber about Bill 56. Many of them had experienced flooding themselves, as we heard from my colleague today how many ridings have been affected by flooding, and they’ve had to deal with it first-hand with their constituents. Riddled with hardship, floods have environmental, financial, mental and, of course, physical impacts.

Naturally, this government that claims they are addressing the major issue of flooding killed my private member’s bill. Well, Speaker, I’m hoping my colleague has better luck today, as the government has yet another opportunity to address flooding in Ontario and protect our communities right here and right now with Bill 168.

I’m not sure that the government reads the news, so I will let them know: The Desjardins Group recently announced it will no longer offer new mortgages in high-risk flood zones in Quebec. It’s the canary in the coal mine, because if other mortgage providers follow their lead, experts warn there could be major consequences for homeowners and the housing market. So wake up.

We also know, thanks to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, that 10% of homes in Canada are no longer insurable relative to flood risk. It is alarming. We cannot let this crisis get any worse. And yet—and yet, Speaker, the Premier said today he is only interested in building single-family homes. I can imagine that means they will want to do more of what they do best: sprawl on top of flood plains; more disasters endangering the people of Ontario, their well-being and their wallets.

They have slashed conservation authorities. They have killed environmental protections. They voted against Bill 56, and from the sounds of their debate, I doubt they will be supporting Bill 168 here today. I truly hope I am wrong in that thinking.

I want to once again thank and congratulate the member for Kanata–Carleton. Your hard work and advocacy for your community, the folks of Kanata–Carleton and all Ontarians is felt and heard so strongly today and every day in this chamber. I am in full support of your great legislation and will be voting for Bill 168, and I urge all members here to do the same. It’s a smart bill.

Further debate?

Mrs. McCrimmon has moved second reading of Bill 168, An Act to implement the Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Guidance Manual and to report on stormwater management guidelines periodically. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

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

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

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

Second reading vote deferred.

The House adjourned at 1520.