By Mike Renzella
The Haldimand Press
Other CAs reviewing potential impacts to provide feedback to government
HALDIMAND—Ontario’s new More Homes Built Faster Act, announced last week, brings sweeping changes designed to accelerate Ontario’s development process over the next decade, including a reduction of each regional Conservation Authority’s (CA) role in the regulatory and permitting process of approving new developments.
Chandra Sharma, CAO for the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA), said NPCA is concerned with the changes: “There are several areas where we think it will impact the CA…. We are focused on evaluating and understanding the impacts a little further.”
CAs across the province are responding similarly, with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority passing a resolution asking for changes to the legislation, and Conservation Ontario releasing a statement on how the changes impact their work overall.
Sharma said NPCA understands the need for sustainable growth and have been working with a range of stakeholders in facilitating that, but “we need to balance growth with the environment and public safety.”
NPCA has three main areas of concern. The first relates to Ontario’s wetland evaluation system.
“We are removing the concept of wetland complexes … (and) wetlands that are reproductive habitat, or migration, or hibernation areas may not be considered,” said Sharma. “These wetlands could be relegated, or partially relegated.”
Based on early NPCA estimates, if the existing wetlands within their jurisdiction – including Haldimand, Niagara, and Hamilton – were re-evaluated with these changes, it could lead to a “major loss of wetlands.… We have 170 wetlands. Of these, 135 are evaluated as complexes. So, if you remove the complex out of the wetland … (it) may not qualify as a provincially significant wetland after evaluation. It can be opened up for development activity. That’s a major concern.”
Additionally, while CAs currently have a 120-metre ‘area of influence’ around wetlands, the new act changes that to just 30 metres.
The second major concern is the transfer of some regulatory responsibilities from CAs to municipalities, with those details still under review.
“Taking away regulatory responsibility from the CAs is going to have some long-term implications,” said Sharma. “Somebody has to do the work. It will either be downloaded to a municipal planner, or they would hire consultants to do that.”
“Ontario is known for its watershed approach. It is leading jurisdiction in all of Canada and even internationally,” she added, noting this could turn for the worse if this work is pushed to municipalities. “The natural ecosystem doesn’t function based on municipal boundaries.”
The third concern relates to the ability of CAs to enter into partnerships with municipal partners to “provide expertise, science, and approvals related to natural heritage and storm water manners.”
She said CA permits are based on “solid, technical information and 70 years of expertise … especially related to extreme weather and climate change. We try to understand the risk to property, infrastructure, and people in those areas.… Who is going to know the science and the data that informs the decisions that we make?”
Sharma noted that even smaller changes in the language of the act could have significant impacts.
“Terminology like ‘pollution’ and ‘conservation of lands’ within the regulation … those are being changed,” said Sharma. “The term ‘pollution’ is being replaced with ‘unstable soils and bedrock’.”
Sharma said the current definition – ‘any contaminant that has the potential to be created by development activity’ – is a “little broad” by design, allowing CAs to look at a “range of pollutants or sediments that can result from the activity closer to the natural hazards.”
She elaborated, “Through the permitting process we prevent any unwanted substances entering into the rock bodies and wetlands, impacting our natural areas and habitat. We’ll need time to study what the impacts of that will be.”
Also concerning to Sharma is the lack of transparency surrounding the changes, noting how NPCA found out when the Province publicly announced the act. She said they “worked really well with the Province over the past two years” regarding recent CA Act changes and believes “a similar approach will help going forward if we have an opportunity to … address some of the concerns.”
She called CA regulatory duties an important delegated provincial responsibility: “Although we think we can work on solutions together and assist municipalities, CAs strongly agree that the natural hazard-related responsibility, whether for minor or major permits, should remain with the CA.”
She concluded, “We are at a loss to understand the rationale behind some of the things. We are trying to reach out to the Province to see how we can better understand and work together to find solutions.”
The Press reached out to Haldimand’s two other CAs, the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Long Point Region Conservation Authority, for their thoughts on the changes.
While the LPRCA did not send a response prior to publication, Lisa Stocco, Manager of Strategic Communications and Environmental Education for GRCA sent the following reply.
“GRCA staff are reviewing the Environmental Registry of Ontario postings that have been released as a result of Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, and the proposed changes that are applicable to conservation authorities,” explained Stocco. “We are currently in the process of preparing a report on the applicable proposed changes with the November 24, 2022 commenting deadline for the GRCA Board’s Ad Hoc Conservation Authorities Act Regulations Committee.”
“The report will need to be reviewed and approved by the committee,” continued Stocco. “The report will be included in the agenda for the next GRCA Board meeting on November 25.”
To view NPCA’s full statement on the changes, visit their website. To view the Province’s More Homes Built Faster Act in full, visit
ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/
parliament-43/session-1/bill-23.
