Comments for Proposed…

Comments for Proposed Consolidation of CA Boundaries
The following comments are in order of the five bullet points
1. The Province must permit the seven to organize and attempt to solve and rationalize the tasks befitting their new and unique jurisdictions. There will have to be start-up Provincial funding to support the creation of the new, larger Regional CA.
Municipalities dealing slowly with a backlog of new building applications will push back against increasing Municipal levies in support of new staff and administrative structures, as will those that are currently operating efficiently under existing legislation.
Also, if there is to be a rationalization of office space there will be financial support for relocating staff if there is to be any hope of retaining experienced personnel without incurring delays to retain, recruit new and train new staff.
2. There may be fewer duplicate applications - more will be handled within the same regional office which will produce some time saving and related spin-off savings.
But the same practical risks (i.e. flooding) and on-site concerns unique to each watercourse will need to be addressed as at present.
With a new regional framework there will need to be greater equality with financial compensation for staff. Ability to attract good staff from outside the GTA CAs will be necessary to retain experience and skills.
3. Unless the Province intends to resume financial support in a meaning full way it should not Chair the new region, nor appoint a Chair.
If the Province intends to appoint members to the municipal boards governing reorganized CA’s they will also need to ensure the boards remain effective democratic bodies – and ensure municipal members are not just waiting upon the decision(s) of the Provincial appointee(s). If the Municipalities are footing the bill for the consolidation – they will not work well if they are merely rubber-stamping Provincial directions. In short, the Province should pay for the new governing structure and any staffing and office support needed.
Further, the new Regional structure should have separate Secretary and Treasurer positions selected by the Municipalities. This will allow Municipalities to maintain control which had been stripped away, typically when the CA General Manager’s position was combined with Secretary and Treasurer and effectively created a “Strongman General Manager” board position.
4. The existing oversight process (if cumbersome and time-consuming at the CA level) provides site-specific oversight. If the Province implements seven “one size fits all” process there be teething problems unique to each new Region due to geography and its local development needs.
Transparency is something different than just getting faster, or the desired result. If the Municipalities are to continue footing the bill it would be inadvisable to create a new application process that will have to be explained, taught to proponents and have that extra time allocated. Having new (and separate) Secretary and Treasurer board positions will aid quick responses.
5. Financial support to the lower tiers for the reorganizational period (for at least two budget years) – will improve the roll-out. Having all Municipalities to first formulate and then debate budget reallocations within existing bodies that already struggle to operate within their existing financial and staffing resources will cause extensive delays.

As a post script, I would make some concluding comments below:
A simplistic response would be to support those existing CAs that are experiencing delays with the financial means to immediately hire and train additional staff to deal with the backlog in an expeditious manner, rather than “burn it all down”.
The proposed rationalization to just seven regions is perhaps excessive. Halving (or pairing) the more rural CAs (at risk of creating a lower tier) might be easier. I would suggest for example the St. Clair CA could be joined with Lake Huron, or with the Ausable-Bayfield and Maitland Valley CAs . Nottawasaga and Lake Simcoe have more in common with Central Lake Ontario than Lake Huron in terms of economic development as that seems to be the problem that the Province is addressing.
Since the mid 1990’s the Province has withdrawn financial support from what was intended to be a partnership. The 444 Municipalities across the Province have shouldered the financial burdens despite their unique geography, population, economic strengths as well as the ability to support them. There should be no reduction in existing good service to smaller, less active regions to solve turn-around times and conflicts in more active areas.
It would perhaps be an oversimplification to let the final seven regions come together to develop their own solutions, but there the 36 have been able to do this without Provincial financial support.
I would hope the Province does not adopt a “Call Centre” response or add staff that are essentially case workers in the MECP. Call Centers can be antagonizing and time-consuming steps for early adopters and inexperienced Planning and Regulatory intake staff who begrudge having their hands tied waiting in queues. I have recent experience making new inquiries with AI-driven responses (with MTO drivers license renewals)
There are 36 CAs by design under the Conservation Authorities Act, so descriptions of the CA network in Ontario as “fragmented” are misleading, if not correct.
Since the disaster of Hurricane Hazel in the mid 1950’s CAs have had the unlovable task of acquiring floodplain properties and regulating the use there and surrounding properties. They were never intended to be instruments of Provincial policy beyond public safety and environmental sustainability.