I support increasing the…

I support increasing the transparency of the conservation authorities funding sources. Board members should have a clear role and act with the public interest in mind, not their own interests.

I am strongly concerned about the proposed changes to the core mandate. As per the very first line of this proposal, the Conservation Authorities Act enables programs and services that further conservation, restoration development and management of natural resources. Please clarify how the proposed changes will achieve the intention of the Conservation Authorities Act of conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources if they will only focus on conservation of only conservation authorities land.

Please demonstrate how this plan will:
1. Focus on watershed planning: Development doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Runoff from development is toxic and will result in economical ramifications like desalinating water reservoirs, loss of revenues from fishing and recreation, algae control in watercourses among other many other long-term impacts.
2. Protecting watercourse: the revisions should focus on protecting headwater features. Headwater features nourish watercourses and keep them healthy. Unhealthy creeks result in downloading costs to municipalities to front the bill on capital infrastructure projects like creek erosion.
3. Wetland protection beyond flood control: wetlands serve biological, recreational and economical functions. How will wetlands and their important function to the ecosystem be preserved with these new revisions?
4. Prevent pollution: Clarify how the new definition will prevent sediment and erosion, a serious impact to Ontario’s natural features. Will the definition of pollution address other forms of pollution (e.g. thermal, salt, metals, etc.).

Lastly, introducing and tabling Bill 108 in front of Queen's Park while a public consultation is occurring is premature and undemocratic.