MAJOR DEFECTS IN BILL 68 - …

MAJOR DEFECTS IN BILL 68 - PLAN TO PROTECT ONTARIO ACT - REGARDING LOCALY-GOVERNED CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES
The decision of the Ontario Government, contained in Bill 68, to replace the local collaborative governance of Conservation Authorities by a provincially appointed body contradicts the principles of good planning in three major ways.
(1) The decision has been made to remove local governance of Conservation Authorities with no consultation with municipal governments or with the general public both of which have strongly expressed support for continuation of local governance of Conservation Authorities because of the outstanding strength effectiveness and success of the locally-governed collaborative programs of Conservation Authorities over their eighty- two years of existence.
(2) The decision has been taken with no documentation provided of any deficiencies in the performance of Conservation Authorities of their critically-important roles, essential to the future continuation of sustainable prosperous communities in Ontario, of protecting, expanding and restoring the natural resources of the province.
(3) The decision is contrary to the specific direction of the Provincial Planning Policy Statement 2024 that calls for watershed planning conducted as a collaborative effort by municipalities acting through Conservation Authorities.
The importance of local governance on a watershed scale to the achievement of sustainable protection of natural resources was recognized from the beginning of the Conservation Authorities movement in Ontario. As noted by Richarson and Barnes (1970) the decision of the Ontario government to establish a Conservation Authorities Branch of the Ministry of Natural Resources in 1943 came as a response to the appeal for action from community conservationists issued at a Guelph meeting in 1941 and the formulation of a test Master Plan by local groups in the Ganaraska watershed in 1943.
In their 1970 history Richardson and Barnes note that the original 1946 Conservation Act required communities to “recognize the need for action on a problem, and be willing to contribute financially to the undertaking before the government will institute an authority in the region. The conservation movement has been a movement of, by and for the people for the past twenty-five years.”
The value of local governance of Conservation Areas continued to be. by Provincial governments. In 1981, on the occasion of the thirty-fifth anniversary of the establishment of the Ganaraska Conservation Authority, Premier Bill Davis and Minister James Auld noted the many achievements of the GRCA and commended the local community for the vision and commitment of all its members in promoting the lasting contributions made through the application of local governance of the Conservation Area. In the words of Minister Auld “this partnership of local people and the Province brought together as a Conservation Authority is as relevant today as it was thirty-five years ago”.
International recognition of the relevance of local content in the governance of conservation efforts continues to this day. The STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL WATERR INSTITUTE - A leading center of expertise in water governance - published the following summary of lessons learned from deliberations in COP 30.
Post-COP reflections underline that justice, local leadership and the experiences of affected communities remain prominent concerns. Climate impacts disproportionately affect people already facing water insecurity, and water governance that does not incorporate local knowledge, rights and participation is unlikely to succeed.
Proceeding with the elimination of local governance of Conservation Authorities as set out in Bill 68 without a background report demonstrating major flaws in the long-standing and highly prized current system of voluntary collaborative governance by local municipalities is a huge mistake and risks major damage to future achievement of sustainable prosperity for the Province.
There must be an immediate pause to any changes in governance until a science-based background report on governance options for Conservation programs is prepared and a robust consultation on the future options for governance is conducted with all stakeholders, especially municipalities and First Nations.
If this report identifies issues arising from present governance, I am confident that solutions can be found that do not require loss of local governance. The eighty-two-year record of achievement confirms the ability of the present system to adjust to new circumstances.