[All] New provincial review of Conservation Authorities, wetlands and water

[Patrick Gilbride]

Hi All,



I thought this might be of interest to GREN and friends.



Sincerely,

Patrick

________________________



The provincial government is looking at narrowing the scope of Ontario's
conservation authorities, a move environmental groups say could have
significant negative consequences.

The government posted two proposals to the Environmental Registry late on
Friday. The sweeping changes would limit the authority of Ontario's 36
conservation authorities, which currently have a mandate to protect
wetlands and other bodies of water, protect property from flooding and
erosion and deliver on an educational objective.

The proposed amendments to the *Conservation Authorities Act* would see
conservation authorities — which are the second largest property holders in
Ontario, after the government — "focus and deliver on their core mandate,
and to improve governance," according to the preamble on the Environmental
Registry. Interested stakeholders have until May 20 to respond to the
proposal.

One amendment is on "modernizing conservation authority operations
<https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-5018>" while the other is on "focusing
conservation authority development permits on the protection of people and
property <https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-4992>."

The respective amendments would shift the mandate to "clearly define the
core mandatory programs and services provided by conservation authorities
to be, natural hazard protection and management, conservation and
management of conservation authority lands, drinking water source
protection," and "will make rules for development in hazardous areas more
consistent to support faster, more predictable and less costly approvals."
That omits an educational component and would also limit the authority
conservation authorities have to push back against real estate developments
that could affect sensitive areas.

*Laura Bowman*, a staff lawyer for environmental advocacy group Ecojustice,
described what she saw as the implications for the proposed amendments. "It
looks potentially like an attack on the jurisdiction of conservation
authorities," she told *QP Briefing*, adding that the details of the
proposed amendments are limited. She said the changes would largely affect
areas outside Toronto where there's farmland that isn't part of the
Greenbelt.

The language "suggests that they might be looking at getting rid of their
authority to turn down development applications that have their planning
approvals," she added, pointing out that conservation authorities can
currently shoot down developments on environmental grounds.



She was also skeptical at the language that suggested the *Act *is out of
date, saying that it was updated by the Liberal government in 2017. She
suggested another motive for the government to look at conservation
authorities.

"I think it's development pressure. There's no reason to amend the act
shortly after it's been amended except that some stakeholders, like
developers, maybe didn't get everything they wanted in the previous
consultation." Bowman added that she was encouraged by the government
looking at improving governance at conservation authorities.

*Tim Gray*, the executive director of the group Environmental Defence, also
issued a strong warning about the changes. "This looks like yet another
effort to make life easier for developers to build tract housing on
farmland," he said in a phone interview. "It's to try to back conservation
authorities out of the role that they have around development approvals.
That means you don't have qualified people looking at impacts on
watercourses, floodplains, wetlands, other natural heritage people you have
there on the landscape."

The government defended the proposal as part of its mandate to spur
economic development.

"We're trying to streamline the processes that are onerous and stand in the
way of sensible economic development," said Minister of Natural Resources
and Forestry *John Yakabuski*. "We're living in a province where we're
over-regulated. Too much duplication," he added. He proceeded to say that
the changes to conservation authorities are meant to focus their attention
on their core mandate, including flood protection. Asked to respond to the
idea that the changes could be developer-friendly at the expense of the
environment, Yakabuski said he looks forward to hearing feedback from the
comment period.

Opposition critics questioned why the government would limit the scope of
conservation authorities.

"On the face of it, I would say that they are getting ready to make the
world safer for developers," charged NDP MPP *Peter Tabuns*. "I think the
reality is they went after the Greenbelt twice and lost on it, and they
haven't given up on looking after their friends," he said, referring to a
pre-campaign video where the premier promised a room of donors to open up
the Greenbelt, and then provisions of Bill 66 which would have allowed that
to happen. The government backed down from the move after facing criticism.

Asked whether it's reasonable for the government to follow through on its
campaign promise of increasing housing supply, Tabuns said there's more to
the work of conservation authorities than that.

"It's a good idea to have more housing supply but you don't have to build
on critical habitat or encroach on wetlands to do it," he said. He went on
to describe the consequences as "more endangerment" of environmentally
sensitive wetlands areas and species habitat. "If you want a functioning
environment you have to preserve those elements around us," said Tabuns,
the former executive director of Greenpeace Canada.

Green Party Leader *Mike Schreiner *also expressed skepticism. "We know
that conservation authorities play a particularly important role in
preventing flooding and here we are facing a climate emergency where we see
increase flooding levels and this government wants to reduce oversight of
flooding. It makes absolutely no sense to me," the environmentally-minded
Guelph MPP said.

Schreiner also made the case that the amendments aren't a fiscally
responsible approach.

"The most fiscally responsible approach is to restrict development in
sensitive areas...in order to make sure we prevent flooding and the costs
associated with it."

The Ford government has reportedly taken an interest in conservation
authorities previously, with the *Star*reporting
<https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2019/02/04/chair-for-gta-conservation-authority-elected-after-behind-the-scenes-lobbying.html>
in
February that a PC MPP lobbied a board member of the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority to back former PC staffer *Jennifer Innis* to become
chair over the NDP-aligned *Maria Augimeri*. Innis won in an 11–10 vote.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20190412/c7fafd87/attachment.html>