Dec 14, 2025 RE: Bill 68 and…

Dec 14, 2025
RE: Bill 68 and ERO #025-1257
I live in the southern part the Huron-Bruce provincial riding and offer some comments on the proposed Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency and restructuring of conservation authority boundaries.

It is difficult to surmise any positive benefits from the proposal as there is no detail provided around governance structure, budget, impact on local jobs, continued local operations including stewardship of natural assets, and plans for local conservation authority (CA) staffing and assets in general.

Currently CA’s receive 8% of their funding through provincial grants and special projects (reference: Conservation Ontario). Provincial funding only accounts for 1% of the budget of my local CA in recent years (reference ABCA submission Nov 25, 2025). What will it cost to establish and operate the OPCA and will these costs sit within the MECP budget? If so, how does the proposal improve upon the current model from a provincial costs and funding perspective, particularly when so little provincial funding is currently directed toward CA’s?

A number of conservation authorities have conveyed in their own submissions that they will be expected to cover the costs associated with this proposal. If this is true, under what legal statute can the province compel organizations to incur a new cost based on a provincial proposal with which many or most of these organizations do not agree? “Who pays” is important detail that should be included in the ERO posting and backgrounders.

It is also difficult to contemplate how the proposal will better support municipalities and especially their constituents. There are few examples where regionalization has provided better or more timely service. Regionalization of hospitals has provided access to expensive equipment such as MRI’s but wait times are untenable and local rural hospitals have been forced to reduce emergency services due to staffing shortages as jobs are reduced locally and medical staff follow regional opportunities. When banks pull out of small towns, the impact of job loss and reduction of local service is also felt very deeply. Regionalization has historically hurt small town Ontario.

The proposal to restructure CA boundaries and consolidate services under a large regional structure would seem to under-represent the interests of the many stewardship-minded farmers, rural non-farmers and residents of small towns and villages. Many rural residents (farmers and non-farmers alike) enjoy close working relationships with their local conservation authority: they can call or visit when they have a question, concern or complaint. The creation of large regions would significantly reduce the accountability of CA’s to local ratepayers.

Local knowledge is critical to effective land management. I recently moved from Oro Medonte township at the top end of the proposed Huron-Superior region, to South Huron township at the bottom end and can see for myself that the landscapes are very, very different. It is unfathomable to me, that the proposed super-region could possibly ensure that local knowledge continues to be applied in an effective way in local land use decisions.

There is no detail in the proposal around the impact on local jobs. Conservation Authorities are very important employers in our rural communities. Their staff live, shop and contribute substantially to the fabric of our rural towns and villages. Reduced local services to rural Ontario communities have long resulted in the stagnation of rural economies: what is left behind are bedroom communities where residents must travel away from their homes for work and for the amenities that support daily living. This conflicts with the idea of good planning, which aims to build well-rounded communities where residents have easy access to nearby amenities.

In this same light, it is important to recognize the role that conservation authorities have in connecting people and children to the outdoors through the natural spaces they manage and the educational programming they provide close to home. As we know, budget reductions caused the closure of many outdoor educational programs that were once offered by school boards. What impact will the restructuring have on the capacity of local CA’s to continue to offer these experiences?

It is true that not all conservation authorities have the same resources: some are underfunded and do not have access to the best or latest technology. The goal of modernization through digital permitting processes and consistency of technological capacity across CA’s could be better achieved by building upon the relationships of local CA’s within municipal boundaries, and through the umbrella organization that already exists in Conservation Ontario. Indeed, the creation of a new provincial agency seems to be duplication of effort as an entity already exists through which similar goals can be achieved.

In summary, I am concerned that Bill 68 and the ERO proposal will:
- have a negative impact on rural economies through potential job loss
- reduce services that are currently enjoyed locally
- see reduced care of the natural spaces owned and managed by local conservation authorities that provide local ratepayers with much needed opportunity to enjoy nature and the outdoors (of which there are few in South Huron compared to the top end of the proposed Huron-Superior boundary. We need these spaces here.)
- have the effect of creating, rather than reducing, red tape by being drawn into the provincial bureaucracy through the creation of a provincial agency.
- reduce accountability of CA’s to their member municipalities and local ratepayers.

The upside - which seems limited to (potentially) reducing duplication and balancing expertise and capacity across CA’s - could be more efficiently achieved through increased collaboration within municipal regions, and through the existing umbrella organization Conservation Ontario.