In Ontario in previous…

In Ontario in previous decades we have experienced the impacts of "centralized, efficient, and more transparent" decision making. Decision making that sidesteps the unique needs and characteristics of the people in communities as diverse as the cities, towns and rural areas has often resulted in efficiencies proposed centrally, turning into costly messes locally. One need only look at the slew of municipal amalgamations in the late 90's for proof that less local stewardship of resources (financial, social, environmental) in no way makes things more efficient or cheaper to do.

Today we are to consider a proposal that (my words) will streamline development approvals as though the approval of development is the only metric of success; and any delay or study of the the related impacts of such developments is inconvenient to developers and therefore a failure. More surprising perhaps is that the proposed legislation includes steps to eliminate the subject experts in the field from the decision making (referred to as permitting) process.

Creating 1 rule and 1 ruler rather than science based policies and procedures recognizing the essential role of locally developed expertise on everything from flood control (including the safety of public, property and natural resources) is a return to an expensive and unsustainable past. Even if we were not facing an existential challenge in terms of human caused climate change, the nature of our economy, settlement patterns and land use would never survive a one size fits all open for business direction from the very ministries which were created to protect the above.

A preferable way toward predictable, efficient and consistent policies and procedures in terms of environmental protection, economic growth and a world class sustainable society is to create incentives to encourage successful opportunities for developers working cooperatively with those who know the land, water and species locally. Having developers pay into a "trust fund" for the environment and then encouraging that that same environment (our only environment) be harmed is terrible business. Why would I as a developer pay some sort of "offset fee" only to incur millions of dollars in damage costs when my development inside of a flood plain fails?

My experience as a conservation authority volunteer is that they have a complete focus on their original mandate. Ontario has changed greatly since that original mandate was struck. My observation is that in spite of underfunding and the steady aging of infrastructure, Conservation Authorities have maintained focus on the core mission and added many many strands of action as a result of the changes taking place each year since the 50's in their watersheds. I am for example personally involved as a volunteer in invasive species removal, habitat restoration, education and outreach. A volunteer or staff member in another watershed might be involved in these things or in projects that though similar are focused on a different unique aspect of watershed protection in their region. Just as there ought not to be a one size fits all approach to development (pretty sure a developer said that) there cannot be such an approach when it comes to protecting our watershed and everyone/everything within it. Not to mention the Lake upon which we depend that inevitably is the recipient of all of our decisions.

If we believe in transparency and partnerships. And if we want better things for all Ontario families then we need conservation authorities well funded and operating on a balanced footing with those who rely upon them for the dissemination of good science and science based decisions. In this partnership we actually create exactly the environment that responsible investors want. A strong base level of sustainability and clearcut action on climate change; both in mitigation and adaptation.