Bill 229's implications worry Pelham's Regional Councillor Diana Huson
Ontario has 36 conservation authorities, which are responsible for the protection and restoration of land, water and natural habitat in their communities. Many people see them as indispensable, but the provincial government’s Ministry of the Environment, Recreation and Parks has taken steps to erode their power, which it says will improve the governance, oversight, and accountability of conservation authorities while respecting taxpayer dollars.
It is a controversial move. Niagara Regional Council, as well as elected councils in lower-tier-municipalities St. Catharines, Fort Erie, and Niagara-on-the-Lake passed motions last month opposing the provincial government’s changes to the Conservation Authorities Act, specifically Section 6 of Bill 229 (the Protect, Support, and Recover From COVID-19 Act). Included in the bill is the removal of citizen participants on conservation boards, replacing them with municipal politicians.
Nonetheless, the bill was recently rushed into law by the provincial legislature. Usually, extensive public consultation would be the norm prior to bill passage, but because the changes were part of an omnibus budget bill, critics argue that these discussions did not occur— at least not in a fulsome and transparent fashion.
Both Niagara Falls and Pelham Town councils had voted against motions to back the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) in its quest for support, which left Pelham’s Regional Councillor Diana Huson surprised and disappointed. She had personally delivered the appeal to Pelham Council at its regular meeting last Monday, accompanied by the NPCA’s relatively new CAO and secretary/treasurer, Chandra Sharma.
Huson said that one of her biggest concerns was the lack of opportunity for public input. The resolution she delivered requested the Town’s support in asking the province for more discussion prior to implementing the bill.
Sharma told Pelham council that conservation authorities have been told that these changes are being introduced because “the province wants to streamline and reduce red tape and bring greater accountability. Frankly and respectfully, we are wondering what this really means, because conservation authorities are already accountable to our regional partners who provide funding, through audited financial statements.”
The NPCA has had its share of bad press and controversy over the past few years, with charges of mismanagement and poor morale among staff. When the provincial auditor general investigated and recommended changes, the staffing model was revised, and the board was reshaped to include more citizens and fewer politicians. To an objective onlooker, things seem to have improved at the local authority.
Ward 1 Councillor Wayne Olson voted against the resolution put forward by the NPCA.
“I was looking for something more tailored to our needs in Pelham, that had much greater input from agriculture, and specifically the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I thought it was very late to be bringing that to us for consideration…we should have had more time to consider it,” he said, during the council meeting.
Olson wanted to see the existing legislation revisited.
“I think that any time a government agency has been in existence for over 60 years, there should be review and changes,” he said.
I think that any time a government agency has been in existence for over 60 years, there should be review and changes
Olson added that in his talks with local MPP Sam Oosterhoff, “he assured me that there was still time for consultations to take place. I think that the NPCA will play a vital role in the development of Niagara going forward, but I see nothing wrong with many parts of this bill.”
Mayor Marvin Junkin shared Olson’s perspective, saying he had “strong feelings” on the matter, that the “terms of reference need to be redefined,” and that the “government is resetting the mandate.”
Junkin, Olson, and Councillor Bob Hildebrandt didn’t support the resolution, which resulted in a tie vote. Because a tie vote is lost, the motion was defeated. Councillors Marianne Stewart, Lisa Haun, and John Wink voted in favour. Councillor Ron Kore, who could have broken the tie, was not present, continuing his leave of absence.
Ontario Greenbelt Council Chairman David Crombie and six other members of that council resigned in protest over the pending environmental reforms. Premier Doug Ford repeated his earlier claim that he would not touch the Greenbelt, and in fact plans to expand it. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Steve Clark said he was committed to working with the remaining council members, and announced $30 million for wetland restoration across Ontario, part of a partnership with Ducks Unlimited Canada.
In his resignation letter, Crombie wrote that the government’s changes are “not policy reform, but high-level bombing, and need to be resisted.”
In a letter sent to Minister of Municipal Affairs Steve Clark, Crombie said that recent actions taken by the government “have confirmed that we differ fundamentally on policy directions affecting the Greenbelt,” Ontario's 7200-km stretch of two million acres of protected farmland, forest, wetlands, rivers and lakes.
Speaking with the Voice after Pelham council’s decision not to support the NPCA, Huson said, “The changes that are happening now are worrisome…if, for some reason, the conservation authority denies a permit, then the developer can appeal the permit at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). If LPAT denies the appeal, the developer can now go direct to the provincial minister, and the minister can ignore everything that was said at the conservation authority and LPAT, and just issue the permit.”
Huson is concerned that there is going to be a high degree of arbitrariness introduced, with deals made behind closed doors, allowing developers and others to get their way, even though two levels of the process have denied them a permit.
It bothers Huson that the government changes ignore local context and input. She argues that the NPCA is comprised of people who have a scientific background, who don't arbitrarily deny a permit—in fact, she said that few permits are outright denied. Usually, they are approved with conditions.
“I guess the message it sends is that you don't need to work with the conservation authority, because there's a loophole that you can use to push through a development.”
Huson noted that when the Ontario Conservation Act was created in 1946, it was funded 50-50 between the province and the municipality, but today the province’s contribution is only 3 percent of the budget.
“That means municipalities have to pick up the slack in terms of the funding…and municipalities don't have as wide diversity in terms of their revenue generating options as does the province,” said Huson.
“So the reality is that local homeowners are really footing the bill via our property taxes.”
