May 15, 2019 Carolyn O…

May 15, 2019

Carolyn O’Neill
Great Lakes Office
40 St Clair Avenue West
Floor 10
Toronto, ON
M4V1M2

Re: Modernizing conservation authority operations - Conservation Authorities Act (ERO#013-5018) and Schedule 2 of Bill 108

Dear Ms. O’Neill,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks’ proposal to amend the Conservation Authorities Act.

Quinte Conservation was encouraged that the ERO posting identified the ‘core frontline role’ that conservation authorities play in their local communities and further identifies the important role that conservation authorities play in the environmental protection process. Quinte Conservation supports the Province’s intent to improve Board governance of conservation authorities and to increase transparency in conservation authority funding. These are two goals Quinte Conservation continuously works hard to achieve and improve, where possible.

Quinte Conservation has a few concerns with the posting and therefore offers the following comments for your consideration in amending the Conservation Authorities (CA) Act and any associated documents. The comments provided are based on our experiences as a regulatory body under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, a commenting body under the Planning Act, and as the Quinte Region Source Protection Authority under the Clean Water Act.

Defining Core Mandatory Programs and Services
The proposed amendment of the CA Act defines the core mandatory programs and services provided by conservation authorities to be natural hazard protection and management, conservation and management of conservation authority owned land, drinking water source protection, and protection of the Lake Simcoe watershed. Quinte Conservation is concerned that this limited list fails to recognize the vital role conservation authorities play as natural resource management agencies. Section 20(1) does not appear to have a proposed amendment within the postings, yet the section states, “The objects of an authority are to provide, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, programs and services designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals.”

The exclusion of natural resource management from the list of core mandatory programs and services is also in contradiction with the “Made in Ontario Environment Plan” which states the Province will “work in collaboration with municipalities and stakeholders to ensure that conservation authorities focus and deliver on their core mandate of protecting people and property from flooding and other natural hazards, and conserving natural resources.”

Quinte Conservation recommends amending the list of core mandatory programs and services to include ‘conserving natural resources’. This would be consistent with the purpose of the CA Act and the Made-in-Ontario Environmental Plan and would also recognize the important role that CAs play in protecting the function and resilience of Ontario’s natural resources at the watershed level. This role has evolved over time and has led CAs to become critical implementers at the watershed level for a number of provincial and municipal goals and objectives related to natural resource management and protection of the natural environment including, but not limited to Great Lakes water quality improvements, watershed resilience to climate change, urbanization and other land use changes. This role can only continue if the Province continues to recognize the importance of operational flexibility within the CA Act that has to date, allowed for innovation and practical solutions to local current and emerging issues.

Should the list of core mandatory programs and services not be amended to include ‘conserving natural resources’, then Quinte Conservation recommends the watershed management activities that guide or strengthen the ability to deliver on the mandatory programs be included in the prescribed regulations. As currently proposed, watershed management programs and services (e.g. management of fish and wildlife habitat, studies and projects related to Great Lakes water quality improvements , invasive species and endangered species management) and associated education programming would not be eligible for watershed-wide municipal levy support without the agreement of each individual municipality. This limitation could result in imperative components of a program being removed, leading to less-effective core programs.

Further, Quinte Conservation recommends that standards and requirements be developed for each of the core mandatory programs and services along with the eligible activities under each core mandatory program and/or service. These standards should be developed in consultation with conservation authorities and municipalities and should include all key elements of the mandatory program and service area as this development of standards and requirements for each core mandatory program area and the eligible activities within each mandated area is of critical importance to CA operation.

Quinte Conservation recommends that:
• The Province amend the proposed list of core mandatory programs and services to include ‘conserving natural resources’ to be consistent with the purpose of the CA Act and the Made-in-Ontario Environmental Plan;
• The ability to manage local environmental issues on a watershed basis be maintained, consistent with the CA Act;
• The watershed management activities that guide or strengthen the ability to deliver on the mandatory programs be included in the prescribed regulations; and
• Standards and requirements are developed for each of the core mandatory programs and services along with the eligible activities under each core mandatory program and/or service.

Scope of Standards Prescribed in Regulation
In addition to the inclusion of all key elements of mandatory programs and the associated eligible activities in regulation, it is imperative to recognize and respect that all eligible activities may not be relevant in every watershed across Ontario. Therefore, the requirements under each program must allow for the specifics of each CA’s jurisdiction to determine the applicability of each. For example, Quinte Conservation owns, operates and maintains 39 water control structures, while other CAs do not have any flood and/or erosion control infrastructures.

Watershed management involves examining the environment and human activities within a watershed area and assesses the relationships between these activities to determine how the natural hazards, conservation areas and water resources of the watershed should be managed to ensure the health and safety of people and the protection of property, that conservation lands retain and enhance their ecological integrity and source water is protected. Without some flexibility being written into regulation to allow for the watershed specifics to determine how to best manage the watershed, there will be an inevitable decline in the holistic approach to managing the core programs and will make supporting other programs, such as supporting climate change adaptations, as outlined in Ontario’s Environmental Plan, more challenging. Conversely, by including flexibility, and allowing the integration of natural hazard with other watershed-based programs provides for optimum cost savings and efficiencies within the authorities.

Quinte Conservation recommends that:
• The requirements under each program must allow for the specifics of each CA’s jurisdiction to determine the applicability of each.
Conservation Authority Levies
As written, it appears the proposed amendments, if approved will fundamentally change the funding relationship between CAs and municipalities. Quinte Conservation agrees that CAs should be transparent in how they levy municipalities for both mandatory and non-mandatory programs and services. It is further agreed that CA budgets should be presented to their municipalities on an annual basis and distinguish levy funded programs from those that are not. Modern transparency standards for levy review and service agreements/memorandum of understandings for programs and services that the CA is undertaking on behalf of an individual municipality are supported.

The creation of conservation authorities recognized that water does not follow political boundaries and that there are economies of scale through cost sharing. Members of the Board of Directors are appointed by involved municipalities, and this watershed management governance provides an essential multi-municipality perspective on which program investments will most benefit a watershed and should be supported by a municipal levy. The Province’s proposal limits use of municipal levy to “mandatory programs and services” related to Natural Hazards, Conservation-owned Lands, Drinking Water Protection, and to Lake Simcoe watershed protection. The “other programs and services”/non-mandatory identified by a CA Board for their watershed would require individual Municipal Council agreement on budget for them and accounting with each municipality that participates in order for a municipal levy to be applied. This proposal will consume resources and may lead to financial inefficiencies and poor management of watershed resources. This proposal weakens the mandate, premise and value of the multi-municipality/watershed governance of conservation authorities as this new administrative instrument appears cumbersome and disposed to to definitional challenges. It transfers components of budget decision-making to municipal councils rather than with the Board of Directors. A more efficient approach to maximize the effectiveness of the existing governance structure would be through training of Boards rather than creating a new administrative tool that will greatly complicate the process, as well as create additional administrative burden. This proposed amendment seems contradictive to the government’s goal of reducing red tape and improving efficiencies. It is unclear how creating a complicated and time consuming process for watershed management programs and services CA Boards deem necessary to provide, will improve efficiencies and help reduce red tape.

Quinte Conservation recommends that:
• The requirements for individual Municipal Council budget agreements for ‘other programs and services’ be removed.
Provincial Investment
Quinte Conservation currently receives provincial transfer payments for natural hazards and source water protection. The Province’s ‘Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan’ recognizes how issues such as climate change can impact and threaten Ontario’s economic prosperity and the well-being of its people; and states that addressing these challenges is a shared responsibility. However, the 2019 Ontario budget cut 50% of the natural hazards program funding to Quinte Conservation with minimal, if any consultation. This seems to be a contradiction to the commitments highlighted in the Environment Plan and is a concerning indication that the Province is on a path to reducing the remainder of its natural hazards financial support responsibilities. Additionally, the proposed Bill 108 allows CAs to levy for Drinking Water Source Protection. This core program has been provincially funded to date, however with this inclusion it appears the Province is on the path to reducing this funding as well. This will have immense implications to Quinte Conservation’s operation and the province is encouraged to continue its investment in these core mandatory programs and services.

Quinte Conservation recommends that:
• The Province continue to invest (in terms of financial and technical support) in the core mandatory programs and services to be delivered by conservation authorities.
User Fee Revenues
Given the instability of provincial transfer payments and additional pressures on municipal budgets from provincial cuts, the CA/municipal budget relationship should retain the CA Board’s ability to charge and use fee revenues. No draft version of the proposed list of classes of programs and services in terms of which a CA may charge a fee was provided. As all CAs operate differently, and prices range depending on geographic location, cost of providing these programs and services, and a variety of other factors, it is our request that these core mandatory programs may be applied to municipal levy or could utilize other sources of revenue. For example, Quinte Conservation currently uses self-generated revenue to support conservation(owned) land management, in addition to, or rather than, municipal levy.

Quinte Conservation recommends that:
• The Conservation Authority/municipal budget relationship retains the CA Board’s ability to charge and use fee revenues.
Duty of Members
Quinte Conservation supports the clarification of the role of Board members to act in the best interest of the Conservation Authority. Further, Quinte encourages a review of current training for CA Boards and municipalities with an emphasis on member roles, powers and responsibilities, and a reminder that program and budget control is already fully within their power.

Quinte Conservation recommends that:
• The role of Board members to act in the best interest of the Conservation Authority be clarified in the Conservation Authorities Act; and
• The current training for CA Boards and municipalities with an emphasis on member roles, powers and responsibilities be reviewed.
Appointment of an Investigator
Transparency is of great importance to Quinte Conservation. For this reason, Quinte Conservation ensures that financial accountability clauses are included in Memorandums of Understanding, and undergo an annual financial statement audit. Additionally, Quinte has undergone one ‘Program Review’ for Source Water Protection. This review included a thorough review/audit of financial and technical reports for the program. With regard to investigations, it is assumed that given the costs of an investigation are to be borne by the Authority that some measures would be established to determine the reasons why an investigation may be initiated and whether or not concerns can be first addressed through a Board process.

Quinte Conservation recommends that:
• Measures are established to determine the reasons why an investigation may be initiated; and
• Measures are established to determine whether or not concerns can be first addressed through a Board process.

Thank you again, for providing the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act (ERO #013-5018 and Schedule 2 of Bill 108). Quinte Conservation would be pleased to discuss these and other opportunities for modernizing conservation authorities operations and governance. If you have any questions or concerns on these comments please do not hesitate to contact me at the contact information provided below.

Sincerely,

Quinte Conservation
613-968-3434
info@quinteconservation.ca