RO number 025-1257 Act …

RO number 025-1257
Act Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to the government’s proposed changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. For reasons outlined below, I do not support this legislation. Data from the Upper Thames Valley Regional Conservation Authority shows that they respond to requests within the suggested time frame 99% of the time. This is efficient. How would creating another level of authority improve on this efficiency? If there is a conservation authority that is not responding efficiently, why not focus on it directly rather than ruin a structure which has protected people and property from natural hazards (e.g., floods, erosion)? What are the hard data supporting the amalgamation of these conservation authorities? What problem is the legislation trying to solve? Why would an oversight committee increase efficiency? In fact, it can be argued that creating another level of bureaucracy would only slow down decision making.

The Conservation Act was developed to protect people from the impact of flooding and bad land use. Clearly as the impact of climate change becomes more and more obvious, the mission of the conservation authorities today is more critical than ever. Since their introduction, the authorities have been effective in managing our watersheds. Again, I ask: Why mess with what works?

The people who understand the rivers and their impact best are the conservation authorities themselves. Why weren’t conservation authorities actively involved in creating this legislation rather than being consulted after the legislation was proposed? Yes, the consultation period allows them to provide input, but we know that when a government has a majority in parliament, it tends to proceed as it sees fit. Creating legislation without talking to the experts does not seem like a good idea.

Conservation authorities “provide on-the-ground expertise, build community relationships, and deliver programs tailored to the watershed's needs.” This community-focused delivery will be lost when the conservation authorities are amalgamated. And looking at the proposed amalgamation of the conservation authorities, one can’t help but wonder how it will actually work. For example, Lake Simcoe is grouped with parts of Lake Huron and (weirdly) Lake Superior. What is needed in Lake Simcoe is so different than what is needed in the Great Lakes, and I suspect Lake Superior is another matter altogether. Inevitably such an amalgamation would mean that valuable local knowledge will likely be lost.

Amalgamation means that there will be less local decision-making and less municipal input into decisions. And yet ironically, conservation authorities receive more money from municipalities than they do from the provincial government. Moreover, the costs of the oversight committee will be passed onto the conservation authorities. Either taxes increase or there will be less money to do what they must do now. We will lose services. Another way to look at this is that municipalities will need to pay more but will have less input into what happens in their district.

One final point: the minister should not be able to override the conservation authorities on issues of safety. The minister does not have the expertise that the conservation authorities have and to override it seems folly.

I enjoy visiting the conservation authority managed lands in my area. Each is unique and responds uniquely to the needs of the community. Local control matters. Amalgamation means loss of control in decision-making, increased taxes, and fewer services. At a time when the need for local knowledge is critical, this legislation seems a huge step backward.