Ontario’s Conservation…

Ontario’s Conservation Authorities (CAs) are watershed-based. They were designed to protect drinking water, reduce flood risk, conserve natural areas, and monitor watershed health. Over the past decade, a number of provincial changes have narrowed CA powers, redefined what programs CAs are allowed to deliver, and increased provincial control over permitting, land use, and budgets.

Further changes have been announced in Bill 68. This provincial budget bill, establishes the Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency which is intended to oversee governance, standards, and central permitting.

My understanding is that Bill 68 has passed third reading without committee consideration. Additionally, the province announced a plan to amalgamate Ontario’s 36 watershed-based conservation authorities into 7 regional organizations. In my local area of Grey Bruce, the ERO proposes that the Ausable Bayfield, Grey Sauble, Saugeen Valley, Maitland Valley, Nottawasaga Valley, Lake Simcoe Region and Lakehead Region conservation authorities be placed within a potential “Huron–Superior Regional Conservation Authority,” a region that would stretch more than 1500 km and include 80 municipalities.

I note the following items of concern:

· Conservation authorities were established as a direct response to rising concerns about flooding and erosion, including the incredible harm caused by Hurricane Hazel in 1954. Unique to Ontario, they holistically regulate development and deliver conservation initiatives at a watershed scale for the benefit of people and the environment.

· Central to the establishment of CAs was the recognition that they embody local needs and be led by local voices. The proposed amalgamation completely contradicts this principle by concentrating decision-making power in the hands of the province rather than local experts. Specifically, the legislative changes proposed in Bill 68 would allow the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks to impose directions regarding the new regional conservation authorities’ governance, programs or services at the Minister’s discretion.

· Even if decision-making processes for the seven proposed regional conservation authorities were allowed to proceed independently, the proposed boundaries are far too sprawling to enable locally relevant decision-making. For example, combining Lakehead Region Conservation Authority on the north shore of Lake Superior with authorities south of Lake Huron ignores the completely different ecology, hydrology and climates of these regions. It is unclear from the proposal and legislative amendments how this consolidation can possibly accelerate decision-making when the amalgamated authorities will need to serve dozens of municipalities with unique local needs and span watersheds with distinctly different environmental conditions.

· Decision-makers will no longer be part of local communities resulting in incredibly important local knowledge being excluded from key decisions, leaving communities more exposed to the devastating impacts of flooding and broader environmental losses. Flooding is the costliest natural hazard in Ontario and is expected to become an even greater threat in the coming years. This is a change communities cannot afford.

I urge the Province of Ontario to not proceed with the proposed amalgamation, which would ultimately undermine conservation authorities’ ability to protect communities from floods and natural hazards. Rather, conservation authorities should be meaningfully supported and empowered to do their jobs efficiently and effectively so that people across Ontario can continue to benefit from flood resilient communities, clean water and a healthy natural environment.