I would like to understand…

I would like to understand the government’s intentions with this proposed exemption. It is unclear whether it will be limited to certain types of low-risk development and hazards, or if the purpose is to transfer Conservation Authorities (CA) responsibilities to municipalities on a much broader scale. While the government wants to focus CAs on their core mandate, this proposed sweeping exemption signals the exact opposite. As proposed in the legislation, the CA exclusions will nullify the core functions of CAs and open up significant holes in the delivery of our natural hazard roles, rendering them ineffective. This will negatively impact the ability of CAs to protect people and property from natural hazards, which seem to be more and more prevalent with extreme weather events.

Municipal staff don't have the same level of education, training and expertise that CA staff have regarding environmental regulations and sustainable development. The work they do is critical to having a safe, beautiful and healthy province for all citizens. Removing CA work puts the public and our infrastructure at risk.

Without limitations or further scoping, these proposed changes signal the likelihood of future delegation of CA permitting roles to municipalities that have neither capacity nor expertise in water resources engineering, environmental planning and regulatory compliance. This will result in longer response times and increased costs and impede the government’s goal of making life more affordable. Municipalities will also assume sole liability for the impact of development on natural hazards within municipal boundaries and on neighbouring upstream and downstream communities, which is a significant and new responsibility that they have never had to manage.

I recommend that the Province:
1) Address this risk expressly – keep all hazard-related responsibilities with CAs.
2) Engage with the existing multi-stakeholder Conservation Authorities Working Group (CAWG) to ensure there is a streamlined, consistent and scoped process for CAs to help the Province achieve its housing goals while ensuring costs are low, the process is fast and Ontario taxpayers are protected.
3) Protecting some environmental features will help with the protection of homes long-term, this should not be over looked or short-sighted.

Furthermore, Bill 23 as currently written, precludes municipalities from entering into agreements with CAs to provide advice on environmental and natural heritage matters. They will have to coordinate with neighbouring municipalities and the Province on a watershed basis, rather than taking advantage of expertise already available within many CAs. Without watershed consideration, large environmental issue can be possible as impacts are not just localized.

Key Recommendations:
1) Municipalities should retain the option to enter into MOUs with CAs, with clearly defined terms, timelines and performance measures, as allowed under Section 21.1.1 (1) of the CA Act.
2) Work with the CAWG to develop guidance for commenting and exploring the option of limiting CAs from commenting beyond natural hazards risks except where a CA has entered into an agreement or MOU.