In November 2025, the Ontario government rushed through new legislation to dramatically restructure public drinking water and wastewater services without any public consultation.
The Water and Wastewater Public Corporations Act (WCA) authorizes the province’s minister of municipal affairs and housing to remove water and wastewater services from local governments and assign them to arms-length governance structures by classifying them as “water and wastewater public corporations (WCCs).”
Despite being buried among other controversial measures in the omnibus Bill 60, the WCA drew considerable public backlash. A broad-based coalition was formed, bringing together water workers, environmental organizations, physicians and anti-poverty activists to push back against what seemed like the stealth privatization of provincial water infrastructure.
In response, Premier Doug Ford’s government tabled amendments to restrict shareholders in WCCs to “a municipality, the Province of Ontario, the Government of Canada or an agent of any of them” under Bill 98, which is now in third reading.
But University of British Columbia law professor Joel Bakan has concluded these amendments don’t rule out privatization. The possibility of shares being held by the ambiguously termed “agent” of the state opens the door for any number of public-private configurations.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young
Financialization
While critical details might be clarified in upcoming regulations, a troubling picture emerges when connecting the dots. Whether the WCA leads to outright privatization, its proposed reforms are consistent with an insidious global push to make municipal water and sanitation systems more amenable to private investment. This essentially transforms them into tradeable assets.
This process, known as financialization, would erode the public health and social mandate of public water infrastructure, undermining the capacity of communities to cope with growing ecological and financial stresses.
Around the world, fierce public opposition has resulted in the termination or non-renewal of private contracts in hundreds of communities around the world. Even the staunchest proponents of privatization now view water as too politically risky and insufficiently profitable for private sector engagement.
At the same time, there has been a growing appetite for “bankable” water infrastructure projects in the face of growing economic uncertainty. In response, international financial institutions and other powerful entities are pushing for policy reforms to pave the way for the integration of water into global financial markets.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Giordano Ciampini
Extracting profit
Privatization is not a necessary precursor to financialization. Corporatized public utilities, argues British water researcher Kate Bayliss, can perform the same function of laying the groundwork and creating revenue streams that can eventually be captured by financial markets.
In fact the World Bank, the largest funder of water projects in the Global South, promotes reforms to publicly owned and operated utilities to improve their risk-return profiles for commercial investment. In other words, public institutions are restructured to absorb risk and shift costs to local communities in order to ensure greater extraction of private profit.
The Ontario legislation follows this model by dismantling municipal services and restructuring them into arm’s-length WCCs.
By removing water and sanitation services from local control, WCCs create a more streamlined system for profit generation. Key decisions — including finances, contracts and water rates — would be made by corporate boards with little direct accountability to communities.
Deepening existing inequities
Measures that generate value for shareholders will likely take precedence over public health and equity-related considerations.
As Brock University water management expert Lina Taing warns, the proposed consolidation of operations will ultimately undermine hard-won accountability provisions. It will also diminish the “site-specific knowledge” that is central to the multi-barrier approach developed in the aftermath of the Walkerton contaminated water crisis in May 2000.
The plan would take effect most immediately in Peel Region, one of the most racially diverse municipalities in the country. By 2029, jurisdiction over water and wastewater services will be transferred from Peel to its three lower-tier municipalities, which will then be required to deliver services exclusively through a newly created WCC.
(Gerry J. Wood/Flickr)
The financial implications for Peel are deeply troubling. Water and wastewater infrastructure in Peel was built over decades with public funds. Under the new Ontario law, this infrastructure would be transferred to a WCC while Peel’s existing debt remains with the municipal government.
In other words, the assets are transferred while the liabilities stay behind. Peel will be left servicing legacy debt with no corresponding revenue stream, while revenues generated from water bills flow to WCC shareholders who bear no responsibility for that debt.
This is a textbook example of what scholars describe as risk socialization and profit privatization. Simply put, the public bears the burden while shareholders capture the reward.
Flint water crisis
In the words of American geographer Laura Pulido, racialized places often become the “testing ground for new forms of neoliberal practice.”
The Flint, Mich., water crisis also began with a state-level decision to place the city under emergency management.
The unelected city manager switched the city’s drinking water source to the highly contaminated Flint River as a cost-cutting measure, but failed to ensure the water was treated with corrosion inhibitors. This caused lead to leach from aging pipes and trihalomethanes (TTHMs) to form in tap water. TTHMs are a carcinogenic by-product formed when chlorine reacts with organic matter in water.
(AP Photo/Carlos Osorio, File)
Likewise, ongoing challenges in First Nations communities underscore the inadequacies of top-down federal initiatives to resolve the drinking water crisis with blanket solutions that are inappropriate, inadequate or unacceptable to local communities.
A recent study found high concentrations of TTHMs in tap water samples from three Manitoba First Nations reserves as a result of treatment processes that weren’t suited to local environments and climate conditions.
Stripping communities of power
Both Bill 60 and Bill 98 align with broader efforts to expand the financialization of Ontario’s public infrastructure.
The Building Ontario Fund was established precisely for the purpose of including private capital in priority infrastructure projects. Unless challenged, the new legislation will strip communities of their power to shape services according to their needs, will make it easier to extract private wealth from public infrastructure and will erode the social mandates that make public water services central to building just, equitable and sustainable societies.
Experiences with water financialization in the United Kingdom and elsewhere show an intensified form of the harms associated with water privatization.
Water rates often rise sharply to generate returns for shareholders, while revenues are paid out as dividends instead of being reinvested in system maintenance and upgrades. Over time, this can erode environmental protections, social equity and labour rights.
The Ontario government sought public input on Bill 98 until recently.
It was an opportunity for Ontario residents to join the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Canada Green Building Council, Environmental Defence Canada and many other organizations in demanding a better future for their water systems.
