A provincial bill which drains decision-making away from Ontario’s conservation authorities is on Barrie councillors’ hit list.
On Monday night, council passed a motion that Bill 229, the Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (see full details below) introduces several changes and new sections of the Conservation Authorities Act that could remove and/or significantly hinder their role in regulating development, permitting appeal processes and engaging in review and appeal of planning applications.
“It doesn’t reflect any of the discussions happening between the conservation authorities and the province up to that point,” said Coun. Clare Riepma. “It seems to me that this proposal is a bit like using a sledgehammer to swat a fly, and in this case the fly is sitting on a window. It proposes you can go directly to the minister to get your environmental permit.
“And in my view that’s very similar to… the MZO (Minister’s Zoning Order) in the planning world," he added. "I don’t think this process… is going to save the taxpayer any money, and it certainly isn’t protecting the environment.”
Coun. Gary Harvey disagreed; he is council’s representative on the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA).
“I’ve not seen conservation authorities changing the way they do business and focusing primarily on their core mandates,” he said. “Conservation authorities argue that Bill 229 will create more costs and delays, which is untrue. Some of these changes will actually streamline the processes, which in turn could actually save time and money.
“Our own NVCA, just this past week, almost a third of us on the board voted against this motion, not in its totality, but there’s certain pieces of the motion that we just cannot agree with,” Harvey said. “I’m in favour of conservation, however it’s apparent that some changes need to occur to be able to provide a good balance between conservation, municipalities and landowners.”
But the majority of councillors supported the motion. It asks that the province work with conservation authorities to address their concerns by repealing and/or amending changes to the Conservation Authority Act and the Planning Act, and delay any clauses affecting municipal concerns. The motion also asks the Ontario government to respect current relationships between conservation authorities and municipalities.
“There are some individuals and some developers who are constantly pressuring the conservation authorities to build on flood plains, to build on wetlands and the conservation authorities, to their credit, in my experience, always say ‘no’,” Deputy Mayor Barry Ward said.
“This legislation… allows the minister to overrule, to issue building permits, without the conservation authority’s approval. It allows the conservation authority’s decisions to be appealed to the minister and the minister can overturn them," he added.
“Anyone who thinks this legislation is being brought in to make it more difficult for developers, to build on wetlands or build on flood plains, uh-uh. The only reason it’s being brought in — let’s be realistic — is to make it easier for that to happen."
“I would certainly agree there is improvement needed in transparency some of their decision-making,” Mayor Jeff Lehman said of conservation authorities. “However, this bill goes way, way beyond that and that’s why we’ve seen so many cities, so many municipalities, including AMO (the Association of Municipalities of Ontario), pass similar (motions) to this.
“There need to be changes to conservation authorities, but what is being proposed is a sledgehammer to their mandate," Lehman added.
The NVCA has also released a statement on the issue: "These changes significantly limit the ability of conservation authorities to protect Ontario’s environment, ensure people and property are safe from natural hazards and to apply watershed-based decisions on development. Ultimately, these changes in many ways, remove much of conservation authorities’ ability to influence the overall health and protection of Ontario’s citizens and the environment."
“We really need to move the conservation authorities forward, rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water,” Riepma said.
Harvey took exception to that expression
“I don’t know who came up with that, but that’s quite a disturbing analogy of any discussion at this table, let alone throwing it into this conversation,” he said. “I just can’t fathom that someone’s come up with that analogy and think that it’s appropriate.”
But Lehman said it was a colloquial expression and not out of line.
“I’ve heard it so often I don’t really consider it that way,” he said.
Riepma said he would withdraw the expression if it offended Harvey.
But the sniping didn’t end there, and continued later.
“Just one thing… Schedule 6 is throwing out the champagne with the cork. How’s that?” said Coun. Keenan Aylwin.
“Always have to be a smart aleck at council, unfortunately, do we?” Harvey responded. “I’m getting tired of this.”
“I would like to bring this to a vote before we end up worrying about the way we’re talking to each other more than the issue on the floor,” Lehman said, “which does seem to happen more these days.”
The motion passed. If given final approval by city council at its Dec. 7 meeting, the motion would be sent to Barrie-area MPPs Andrea Khanjin and Doug Downey, Premier Doug Ford, and Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Jeff Yurek.
“We’re basically just writing another letter,” said Coun. Robert Thomson.
*****************************
Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures), 2020
Current status: Consideration by Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs
Schedule 6
Conservation Authorities Act
The Schedule amends the Conservation Authorities Act. The more significant amendments are described below.
Section 14 of the Act is amended to ensure that the members of a conservation authority that are appointed by participating municipalities are municipal councillors. The Minister is given the authority to appoint an additional member to a conservation authority to represent the agricultural sector.
The objects of a conservation authority described in section 20 of the Act are limited to the provision of programs and services required or permitted under sections 21.1, 21.1.1 and 21.1.2.
Section 21.1 requires an authority to provide mandatory programs and services that are prescribed by regulation and meet the requirements set out in that section.
Section 21.1.1 allows authorities to enter into agreements with participating municipalities to provide programs and services on behalf of the municipalities, subject to the regulations.
Section 21.1.2 would allow authorities to provide such other programs and services as it determines are advisable to further the purposes of the Act, subject to the regulations. An authority is required to enter into agreements with the participating municipalities in its jurisdiction if any municipal funding is needed to recover costs for the programs or services provided under section 21.1.2. A transition plan shall be developed by an authority to prepare for entering into agreements relating to the recovery of costs. All programs and services must be provided in accordance with any prescribed standards and requirements.
Section 21.2 of the Act allows a person who is charged a fee for a program or services provided by an authority to apply to the authority to reconsider the fee. Section 21.2 is amended to require the authority make a decision upon reconsideration of a fee within 30 days.
Further, the amendments allow a person to appeal the decision to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal or to bring the matter directly to the tribunal if the authority fails to render a decision within 30 days.
New sections 23.2 and 23.3 of the Act would allow the minister to take certain actions after reviewing a report on an investigation into an authority’s operations. The minister may order the authority to do anything to prevent or remedy non-compliance with the Act. The minister may also recommend that the Lieutenant Governor in Council appoint an administrator to take over the control and operations of the authority.
Subsection 28.1 (8) of the Act currently allows a person who applied to a conservation authority for a permit under subsection 28.1 (1) to appeal that decision to the minister if the authority has refused the permit or issued it subject to conditions. Subsection 28.1 (8) is repealed and replaced with provisions that allow the applicant to choose to seek a review of the authority’s decision by the minister or, if the minister does not conduct such a review, to appeal the decision to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal within 90 days after the decision is made. Furthermore, if the authority fails to make a decision with respect to an application within 120 days after the application is submitted, the applicant may appeal the application directly to the tribunal.
New section 28.1.1 of the Act allows the minister to order a conservation authority not to issue a permit to engage in an activity that, without the permit, would be prohibited under section 28 of the Act. After making such an order the minister may issue the permit instead of the conservation authority.
Section 28.3 of the Act is amended to allow a decision of a conservation authority to cancel a permit or to make another decision under subsection 28.3 (5) to be appealed by the permit holder to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.
Subsection 30.2 of the Act sets out circumstances in which an officer may enter land within the area of jurisdictions of an authority. Those circumstances are revised by Section 19 of the Schedule.
Section 30.4 of the Act is repealed. That section, which has not yet been proclaimed and which would have given officers the power to issue stop orders to persons carrying on activities that could contravene or are contravening the Act, is repealed.
The regulation making authority in Section 40 is re-enacted to reflect amendments in the Schedule.
