Thank you for the…

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s proposal to amend the Conservation Authorities Act. I am writing to you in response to Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act.

I understand and agree that there is a housing supply and affordability issue in Ontario that needs to be pragmatically addressed, and therefore support the government’s commitment to reducing unnecessary barriers to development and streamlining processes. That said, I have several concerns and recommendations with the proposed amendments and therefore offer the following comments for your consideration in amending the Conservation Authorities (CA) Act and any associated documents.

Ontario Wetland Evaluation System Classification Changes

Wetlands play a critical role in a healthy, functional environment. Changing the classification system will mean further wetland loss and may result in serious flooding, putting the safety of communities at risk. Wetlands are a natural, cost-effective strategy for protecting downstream properties from floods, adapting to climate change, and retaining water to lessen drought impacts. By changing the classification system, existing Provincially Significant Wetlands could lose their status and un-evaluated wetlands are unlikely to meet the standard for additional protection. This could lead to wetlands being filled in, resulting in loss of habitat and numerous species, decreased storage area for water resulting in decreased flood storage but increased potential for erosion, and poorer water quality. These losses will have detrimental effects on tourism and recreation industries. Loss of wetlands will also result in the necessity of more stormwater ponds which require more maintenance and monitoring than wetlands. The government must be prudent when considering changes like offsetting, which could negatively affect the ability of wetlands to reduce flooding and confuse roles in wetland management and protection between municipalities and CAs.

I recommend that:

· The province re-engage the multi-stakeholder Conservation Authority Working Group and work with the working group to determine the unintentional negative implications of these proposed changes, and develop better alternatives, prior to proceeding with current proposed amendments.

Potential Loss of CA Lands

Minister of Natural Resources Graydon Smith has told media outlets that conservation authorities are “the second largest landowner after the Crown” and have been asked to “evaluate” their land in order to identify areas for housing development. In most instances, these lands have been acquired for specific purposes; typically, lands are purchased to protect the public from flooding and erosion or the lands are left through estate donations to the Conservation Authority by members of the public who wished their private lands

stay natural. The development of these natural spaces will have numerous negative implications on the natural environment and a community’s ability to adapt to climate change. Further, the local tourism and recreation industries that rely on these spaces will feel the effects as will individuals of the public of who could experience negative social, mental & physical health impacts.

I recommend that:

· The province focus efforts on building up urban areas instead of urban sprawl outwards;

· Municipal Official Plans continue to be followed as written; and

· Lands identified as natural hazards be maintained as open space.

Prohibition of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Review Agreements

It is unclear how this proposed change will benefit taxpayers. Conservation Authorities have demonstrated for decades these services can be delivered efficiently, without lengthening the approval process, and is a cost-savings measure for municipalities who can share the cost of this review amongst all CA member-municipalities, rather than hiring staff at each municipality. As proposed, the consequence appears to be either an increase in taxes as municipalities hire additional staff, a longer review process resulting from municipalities coordinating with neighboring municipalities, the cost of consultants needed for peer-review and the loss of land use plan review and comments provided on a watershed basis. Although the logistics of how this change will occur are unclear, one thing for certain is that this proposed change will also likely result in loss of jobs: Many staff at Conservation Authorities across the province will no longer be required. While currently unclear, if these reviews are no longer required, further job losses can be anticipated for municipal staff, engineers, and consultants who prepare various reports. Another negative implication of this proposed amendment is that studies, such as Environmental Impact Statements, now required to be completed by qualified consultants, could be overlooked or that staff at the municipal level will not have the expertise or capacity to review and comment on report submissions. It is important to note that Conservation Authorities support smart development.

I recommend that:

· Municipalities should retain the option to enter into MOUs with CAs, with clearly defined terms, timelines and performance measures, as allowed under Section 21.1.1 (1) of the CA Act;

· Development should be limited to municipal urban boundaries; and

· The Province re-engage the multi-stakeholder Conservation Authority Working Group and work with the working group to determine the unintentional negative implications of these proposed changes, and to develop guidance for commenting where a CA has entered into an agreement or MOU.

Low Risk Development Permit Exemptions

It is currently unclear how the proposed exemption of a permit requirement for low-risk development will benefit the people of Ontario. Details are lacking to determine whether the purpose is to transfer this permit responsibility from CAs to municipalities or whether development considered ‘low-risk’ will be exempt from requiring a permit all together. As currently proposed, this amendment results in a lack of protection for the people of Ontario and a lack of watershed oversight. I feel it is important to mention that CAs do not exist to hinder development, rather their role is to protect the people of Ontario and their properties. Therefore CAs ensure development is done in a manner to afford this protection. This proposed amendment has many negative implications for the people of Ontario as it quashes the core function of a CA and fragments the CA role in protecting the people of Ontario from natural hazards.

I recommend that:

· This proposed amendment be repealed to keep all hazard-related responsibilities with the CA.

Fee Freezing

The details of the proposed amendments remain unclear at this time. It is important to note that current fees were established according to provincial direction, and were intended to recover costs, so as to decrease municipal levies. Freezing fees will impose additional costs to municipalities, meaning taxpayers will end up paying these development costs. Another negative implication of this proposed change is created when fee revenues are used to pay wages. Without a cost recovery system in place, the staff compliment required to perform application reviews becomes unaffordable to CA’s as fee revenues would be used, in part, to pay wages. This will ultimately slow down the approvals process in these times of increased development.

I recommend that:

· This proposed amendment be repealed to allow CAs to charge fees according to their internal cost-based analyses; or

· This proposal be further amended to require CAs to demonstrate fees do not exceed the cost to deliver the program and have the ability to freeze fees when cost recovery exceeds 100 percent.

To ensure the most effective implementation of this Bill, I believe it is crucial that the government halts the proposed changes and meet with CAs to clarify and consider more effective alternatives. This consultation is imperative to safeguard the best possible outcomes for the people of Ontario.

Thank you