Coupled with the changes…

Coupled with the changes proposed to the CAA through ERO posting 019-6141, this proposal will significantly alter how CAs operate in their permitting role and alter the way they interact with the development review process under the Planning Act. As a result, municipalities in Halton Region, including the City of Burlington, may no longer be able to rely on some of the valuable services in the development review process that have previously been undertaken in partnership with Conservation Halton (CH) and Halton Region. Currently, the City of Burlington is party to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the provision of planning services, focused on ecological review, between the Region and CH. Given the proposed direction of providing the ability for development authorized by the Planning Act to be exempted from permitting requirements under CAA, there is a significant concern that this signals the downloading of risks and responsibilities for natural hazards to municipalities. The following impacts on municipalities as a result of these changes and potential means of mitigating those impacts should be considered:

• Reduced access to technical expertise residing at conservation authorities in the development review process including, but not limited to ecology, hydrogeology, hydrology, hydraulic modelling.
• Additional financial burden to retain technical expertise to assess aspects of development applications previously reviewed by CA staff.
• Additional financial and staff burden to take on the responsibility of monitoring, inspection, and compliance responsibilities where an exemption from a CAA permit is given.
• Additional risks and responsibilities for natural hazards being downloaded to municipalities including inspection, compliance, and technical review.
• Duplication of studies and technical reports where Planning Act and CAA permits are filed for concurrently. This has potential impact to the delivery of Halton Region’s ‘one-study’ approach to Environmental Impact Assessments (or equivalent).
• Study duplication as a result of differing applicable standards and application requirements that will result from an inability to effectively coordinate planning act approvals and CAA permits.
• Diminished oversight of the impacts to the natural environment and water resources where a development is exempt from a CAA permit, or where development is authorized by a MZO.
• Diminished oversight regarding assumed ‘low-risk’ development in regulated areas through provided expanded exemptions.

The City of Burlington remains supportive of changes to the legislation that will aid in ensuring the issue of housing availability is addressed while balancing the protection of the natural environment and the protection of life and property from natural hazards. The City works together with agency partners including Conservation Halton to understand the risks posed by natural hazards and to formulate mitigation and enhancement strategies to ensure a safe and resilient outcome for all stakeholders.

The Province has posed four (4) questions to the public and agencies regarding the creation of an CAA permit exemption mechanism for use through the Planning Act. Those questions are:
1. In which municipalities should the exemption apply? How should this be determined?
2. Which Planning Act authorizations should be required for the exemption to apply?
3. Should a municipality be subject to any requirements or conditions where this type of exemption is in place?
4. Are there any regulated activities to which this exemption shouldn’t apply?

Before a substantive response can be provided on the questions posed, it must first be clarified to what extent the use of this exemption tool will make municipalities responsible for the risk and liability that goes with development planning within natural hazards. Section 3.0 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2020 has historically provided strategic direction to public bodies, including municipalities, on how to adequately plan for and protect citizens from natural hazards as follows:

Ontario’s long-term prosperity, environmental health and social well-being depend on reducing the
potential for public cost or risk to Ontario’s residents from natural or human-made hazard […]

Mitigating potential risk to public health or safety or of property damage from natural hazards,
including risks that may be associated with impacts of a changing climate, will require the Province,
planning authorities and conservation authorities to work together. (PPS, 2020. Pg. 32)

Taking this Provincial direction seriously, the City of Burlington in partnership with the Region of Halton and Conservation Halton, have moved to an integrated one-study approach to natural hazards planning within the development review process. This process permits all those agencies with vested interest or legislated responsibility for hazards to provide a coordinated response regarding study requirements and mitigation expectations. Restricting the ability of CAs to participate wholly within Planning Act applications and providing an exemption tool to effectively circumvent CA regulatory authority seems to be antithetical to the strategic direction reflected in the PPS (2020).

If the implementation of a CAA exemption mechanism is being seriously considered by the Province, it would make most sense to make its implementation at the discretion of individual municipalities. It would be further prudent to require a municipality to implement Official Plan (OP) policy authorizing the use of the exemption tool and describing the conditions under which it can be utilized. This would represent a more transparent approach to implementation that would include public consultation.

The impacts being felt locally, and globally, as a result of climate change cannot be understated. A healthy and functional natural heritage system represents the pre-eminent tool in adapting to impacts as a result of exacerbated natural hazards. The health and function of these systems have traditionally been addressed through a partnership of municipalities, public bodies, non-governmental agencies, and private developers working together on a common path. Bill 23’s proposed changes to the role of Conservation Authorities in protecting life and property from natural hazards represent a threat to the ability of the City to adapt and achieve resiliency.

The City, in partnership with the Region of Halton and Conservation Halton, have moved towards to an integrated one-study approach within the development review process. With the proposed changes to the CAA these coordinated efforts would be negatively impacted. If the ability to coordinate aspects of natural hazard planning with the regulatory authority responsible for them is removed, it is likely that municipalities will have to assume the related risks and responsibilities as well as the associated liabilities. To mitigate this risk municipalities will require access to technical expertise that have not been historically retained to avoid duplication with CAs. This is being viewed as having the potential to have a significant financial and staffing impact on municipalities.

It is more important than ever for the City to ensure the best tools and partnerships are able to be leveraged to ensure the health and resiliency to mitigate hazards being exacerbated by elements of climate change.

Next Steps:
The Province has City of Burlington remains supportive of the previous changes to the CAA and the accompanying Regulations that formed part of Bill 229: Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act. Those changes ensured that conservation authorities core services were appropriately defined (Category 1 services), and also set out the requirements that would need to be in place if a municipality sought certain programs or services from CAs beyond those mandatory services (Category 2 & 3 services). The City utilizes this flexibility to work in partnership with Conservation Halton and the Region of Halton through an established MoU for defined planning services. This has a resulted in a more streamlined review of environmental impacts and natural hazards while also providing more clarity and consistency in required submission materials. It is the City’s position that the diminishment of the role of CAs within the development and permitting processes will result in a prolonged pre-application process as well as the duplication of studies and requirements borne out of restrictions placed on CAs participation in applications under prescribed Acts. The City it respectfully requesting the Province reconsider continuing the direction that was prescribed through Bill 229.

Additional comments are provided in the attached letter.