I fail to see how the…

I fail to see how the proposal to consolidate Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities into 7 “regional conservation authorities” will improve government services.

These proposed new RCAs are huge, with jurisdictions much larger than of the existing conservation authorities (in fact, much larger than any municipality). As it currently stands, each CA has a Board made up of representatives of the local municipalities within its watershed. Going forward, a Board made up of representatives from each of the 60-80 municipalities within these larger watersheds would not be functional or efficient. In order to remain functional, the size of the Board will need to remain the same, while the size of the jurisdiction increases, in some cases by an order of magnitude. Conservation Authority Boards are already often accused of being unrepresentative and unresponsive; amalgamation will only make this worse.

Amalgamation will cause costs to increase. As it stands now, salaries at these local agencies are based on the local cost of living. Amalgamating into larger agencies will mean that salaries would need to be reflective of the cost of living over those larger jurisdictions. In many cases, this would increase salaries of staff based in small rural municipalities. While some senior managers will no doubt become redundant, those positions would be a small percentage of the overall workforce, so those savings would not offset this overall upward pressure in salaries. Furthermore, those CAOs who remain would likely experience an increase in salary (representative of their now greater responsibility).

Amalgamation also risks removing capacity from areas that currently are well served, and directing it to areas that are less well served; in fact, this seems to be one of the arguments put forward by the government in favour of amalgamation. The funding model for conservation authorities is one primarily based on levies; costs for the authority programs and services are apportioned to watershed municipalities based on population. This model ensures that as population increases, budgets can increase as well, to provide the services needed to urbanizing watersheds. This current proposal would seem to imply that resources will be taken from large and growing municipalities, and redirect them to small rural municipalities. That simply doesn’t make sense, though I don’t see how else the province expects to equate the level of service, without increasing services (and costs) in rural areas, or redirecting resources from well resourced to less well resourced municipalities.

Amalgamation will lead to delays in permitting decisions, at least in the short term. Over the next two to three years, these amalgamating agencies will be experiencing chaos as processes are aligned, new software and file management frameworks are adopted, and staff learn their new roles and new reporting structures. This will distract staff from planning and permitting decisions; distractions which are not needed at a time when Ontario is facing a housing crisis.

And consolidation is not necessary. The government’s stated goals of increasing speed and consistency in decisions, and ensuring consistency in the software tools used by CA staff can be accomplished now, by the newly announced Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency. That agency can address many of the current ills and inconsistencies in Ontario’s conservation authorities through guidance and direction, without the increased costs, decreased representation, and ill-timed chaos, described above. I fail to see how they would be less able to direct 36 agencies than they would be seven.

The proposal to consolidate conservation authorities seems to be more about someone wanting to put their personal stamp on the conservation authority program, than it is about actually streamlining approval processes.