I am writing to express my…

I am writing to express my concerns related to the proposed changes to Ontario Wetland Evaluation System. I will also be commenting on the “Proposed Updates to the regulation of Development for the Protection of People and Property from Natural Hazards in Ontario” and “Legislative and Regulatory Proposals Affecting Conservation Authorities to Support the Housing Supply Action Plan 3.0” documents. As all three consultations are closely linked, I will be cross posting my comments. I fear that the proposed changes will dramatically weaken protections for Ontario’s natural heritage, including wetlands. As a landowner in southwestern Ontario with property that includes designated provincially significant wetlands, I am dismayed to consider the potential outcomes if these changes are implemented. Natural features provide many significant benefits for human and wildlife populations in Ontario. As we experience the dual global crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, it is extremely upsetting to see the Ontario government pursuing an approach that will further deteriorate remaining habitats in Ontario. These features provide important ecological services to our population such as absorbing flood flows, improving water quality, reducing heat islands, mitigating droughts and protecting land and property. In the long-run, these changes will bring significant additional costs to the citizens of Ontario. Moving forward with these changes while Canada has committed to goals of protecting our biodiversity (25 % protected land by 2025 and 30 % by 2030) and will be hosting an international biodiversity conference (COP15 in Montreal) in December, casts a large shadow over what should be an opportunity to demonstrate positive leadership in protecting natural heritage.

The timelines for comment associated with these legislative changes (including several other related postings that I am unable to review in time) is completely insufficient. The scope and scale of these changes will forever alter the landscape and imperil species at risk in the province. More comprehensive consultations with the public are required before moving forward. Furthermore, it is unclear what efforts have been made by Ontario to uphold its constitutional obligation to the Duty to Consult with Indigenous Nations that will be impacted by these changes. Given the significance of the proposals, it is clear that a consultation at the high-end of the spectrum with impacted Nations is required, including agreement with the proposals and accommodations for the loss of habitats, wildlife and opportunities to exercise their rights and interests.

Some of my key concerns include:

1. Elimination of provincial administrative role in the OWES
The proposed changes appear to make municipalities responsible for overseeing and approving Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) assessments completed within their jurisdictions. It is unclear how municipalities could be expected to have the expertise to take on that role. Particularly given that companion legislation forbids municipalities from entering into agreements with Conservation Authorities to provide support in the planning process. Despite downloading these powers, the provincial government is simultaneously overruling municipal decisions that seek to protect Ontario’s natural heritage (such as an imposed expansion of the City of Hamilton’s urban boundary and modifications to the Greenbelt boundary).

It is clear through these changes that the intent is not to have a streamlined wetland evaluation process but rather to create a process where the determination of wetlands is at the discretion of the development community and disempowered municipalities without the resources or knowledge to appropriately assess submissions. These inconsistencies all skew towards empowering the development community at the cost of sound planning and natural heritage.

The changes also eliminate the use of wetland evaluations for anything beyond land use planning i.e. development purposes. Wetlands in this context are framed only as impediments to construction without any consideration of how these important features are serving the community. These data are critical for strategically assessing habitat requirements for wildlife, source water protection objectives, flood benefits, academic research, and more.

2. Removal of provincial support to wetland evaluators
Many of the proposed changes to the OWES involve deletions of references to MNR(F), existing government databases of information, Conservation Authorities, and other knowledgeable entities. Ontario appears to not only be giving wetland evaluators free reign to determine wetland significance but also removing as many tools as possible to help these evaluators in the process. One can only assume this is being done to downsize or eliminate any role for the MNRF in land planning in Ontario and to prevent knowledge transfer concerning wetland features that may enhance wetland scores.

3. Dramatically reducing consideration of wetland complexes
The proposal removes all reference to wetland complexes and considers linkages between wetlands a maximum of 30 m apart only (vs. existing 750 m). This approach allows portions of wetland complexes to be evaluated as individual units, resulting in lower scores and less protection. This approach ignores wetland science including the important hydraulic and hydrogeologic connections between wetlands over significant distances. The inevitable removal of protection for one portion of a wetland complex will degrade the remaining elements, further reducing wetland habitat in Ontario.

4. No stand-alone consideration of threatened and endangered species in scoring
The changes remove significant weighting (up to 250 points / threatened or endangered species) from OWES. This move alone will eliminate the provincially significant wetland (PSW) status from many important habitats for species at risk in Ontario. This has huge negative impacts for species at risk in particular but also wetlands generally. By removing scoring opportunities and reducing scores in other areas while maintaining the same threshold score (600), the definition of provincially significant has been completely altered. The validity of the evaluation process is eliminated with these haphazard modifications.

5. Elimination of the ability for municipalities and Conservation Authorities to consider Local or Regionally Significant Wetlands
Local and regionally significant wetlands are eliminated from consideration under this proposal. These designations account for local factors unique to specific regions within the province and represent a significant proportion of status wetlands currently in the province. These wetlands perform many of the same ecological services as larger PSWs and are often more accessible for communities. They are also important stopovers for migrating birds and local wildlife. Together with other proposed changes, the vast majority of wetlands in Ontario will go from being protected to having no status.

6. Eliminating portions of the Greenbelt with no consideration of the regional impacts of these changes
The Greenbelt established in southern Ontario has become a treasured part of the landscape. The expectation by the population is that these lands will be protected in perpetuity from development and the whims of future governments. The Conservative government had made promises not to develop these lands and must not go back on this promise.

7. Ignoring government commissioned reports related to housing development and flood protection
The population of Ontario is growing and there are significant challenges associated with this growth. Rather than address these issues in a comprehensive way, the provincial government is ignoring even their own commissioned experts (Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force, Feb 2022) to vastly increase sprawl without implementing sufficient measures to enhance densification within existing urban areas of the province. Similarly, the government’s assault on Conservation Authorities runs counter to a commissioned report that indicated that these agencies need to be strengthened and enhanced and collaborate with municipalities to conserve natural features that help reduce flooding (Ontario’s Special Advisor on Flooding Report to Government, 2019). Complaints about Conservation Authorities concerning timelines for review and old floodplain mapping are a direct result of significant financial cuts to the budgets of these organizations by subsequent Conservative governments. It is essential that the government listen to their advisors, consult extensively, and move forward in a measured and deliberate way that considers both housing needs and our natural treasures.

Conclusion
Previous governments, Conservation Authorities, citizen groups and individuals have spent decades working to protect and enhance Ontario’s natural heritage. Having lived in other provinces over the years, I have always been proud of the efforts that Ontario has made to protect wetlands and other sensitive habitats. Recognizing that it is not perfect and there is always more work to be done, I have been struck by the positive benefits of the Conservation Authority model and recommended its adoption elsewhere. While other provinces take tentative steps in that direction, it is deeply discouraging to see these entities being dismantled. Once habitats lose their status and are developed, they are lost forever to the detriment of wildlife and human populations.
It is unacceptable for the provincial government to make such drastic changes to the rules of development in Ontario with a simple thirty day posting on a website. I, as well as many friends, family and acquaintances are shocked when we find out about these proposals but most people are not even aware this is happening. It is incumbent on the government to take a step back and institute a more comprehensive consultation process, with the population as a whole and in particular with impacted Indigenous communities.