URBAN VS. RURAL All…

URBAN VS. RURAL

All watersheds deserve the same level of service and protection, whether urban or rural, as there is not one area that is inherently more valuable than another in Ontario.

Rural areas and urban areas do face different challenges, and these do require different resources and programs. Due to varying levels of funding, resources and staffing, mapping and planning standards vary considerably across the province. This can result in some landscapes receiving greater protection than others, based not on the quality of the landscape, but the resources available to the CAs.

I am deeply concerned that the needs of rural communities and the agricultural sector will be adequately recognized and prioritized in this consolidation, particularly since the lead CA is expected to be an urban one in each region.

I am concerned that rural areas will be tasked with doing more with less resources, and that Developers will benefit from this lack of oversight. This could shape planning in Ontario in a direction that is not sustainable.

This is already an issue within our province, where Developers prefer to build on Greenfields over infill development as generally there are lower development standards in rural areas with fewer staff resources, lower development fees, and thereby greater profit for Developers. This is where improved provincial standardization could be beneficial. We need to encourage densification in our cities to fund the upgrading of existing infrastructure, and to transition to cleaner modes of transportation. Therefore, we need to shape our policy to discourage greenfield development. The Conservation Authorities could have a greater planning role in this in partnership with local municipalities.

PROVINCIAL STANDARDS

I do concur with developing an Ontario Provincial Conservation Authority (OPCA), but I think it should be made up of existing staff members of the local CAs, and its purpose should be to develop a set of minimum standards to be adhered to across the province. The shift would be a policy one and not a physical rearrangement.

For example, committees to address the main provincial issues could be developed. I will use the example of a floodplain mapping committee. This committee would be made up of a local expert from each watershed. They would look at best management practices for floodplain mapping within the CA and provide a recommendation and path forward for one floodplain mapping system for the province. Committee members would then return to their local CA and be responsible for bringing their local CA up to date on the approved provincial standard.

It is not necessary, or advisable, to completely reinvent the wheel, when the foundations for standardized policy already exist within CAs that are often held up as the gold standard both nationally and internationally. Money is better spent advancing our policy and operations than shifting administrative duties and dealing with physical office space. This standardization of expectations would provide clarity in development applications which would streamline application approvals.

FUNDING AND SCALE

The OPCA should be funded by the province. Currently the province provides only 5% of the operating budgets for CAs but is seeking a disproportionate share of the administrative control. This is hardly fair to municipalities providing the vast majority of the funding.

Currently, urban areas receive more revenue due to increased development fees, and as a result have more comprehensive resources and programs.

Provincial funding also needs to be commensurate with the size of the CA so that rural communities are not deprioritized. More funding will need to be allocated to bring some CA’s up to a provincial standard.

If the province seeks to reduce administrative costs through amalgamation, scale needs to be considered. While amalgamating two adjacent CAs with similar landscape characteristics may be feasible, amalgamating 7 CAs as in the proposed Huron-Superior Regional Conservation Authority is untenable. The distance between Thunder Bay and the rest of the CAs in this case is not viable to manage.

Centralization rarely, if ever, results in better service delivery at the local level.

It does not make sense to have development permits reviewed at the provincial level, because local sites need to be reviewed in person, and local CAs are best positioned to provide this service. Local CAs are also better positioned to understand the local context, (ie. Urban and rural).

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, a healthy environment is the foundation of a successful economy. If resources are not adequately managed, that resource does not exist as a source of future income. I am concerned that the current provincial government is not taking this into account. I am also concerned that environmental protections are becoming subject to political influence.

Protecting our environment has intrinsic value. This was originally part of the purpose of the private-public administrative setup for Conservation Authorities; to make them a separate entity that would be less subject to bias. I am concerned that this amalgamation is more about bring CA’s into the influence of politics than it is about developing the best planning policy for Ontario.