Eastern Ontario conservation authorities, mayors request changes to Ontario's Bill 23

Ten local conservation authorities have sent a letter to the Ontario Government regarding Bill 23, asking the province to halt changes they say will diminish their role.

The letter, which has also been signed by dozens of concerned mayors and deputy mayors in eastern Ontario, says taxpayers will be on the hook for development costs if the bill goes through.

Raisin Region Conservation Authority (RRCA) near Cornwall, Ont. is one of the groups concerned about the proposed legislation, which aims to see 1.5 million homes built in Ontario over the next 10 years.

"It reduces the ability of conservation authorities to continue protecting people and property from natural hazards, such as flooding," said RRCA General Manager Richard Pilon. 

"Even though all the 36 conservation authorities are concerned with the proposed changes, 10 eastern conservation authorities got together and wrote a letter because in our case we think this bill does not work for eastern Ontario at all. That's why we got together," he said. 

Pilon noted other changes could include hampering their ability to protect wetlands, and passing on responsibilities related to natural hazards and resources to municipalities.

"It's sort of uncanny the timing of these proposed changes," Pilon said. "(There's) not a lot of time to react and it's done during a municipal election when new councils are being formed."

The letter, sent to Premier Doug Ford on Nov. 17, was signed by nearly 40 incoming, returning and outgoing mayors, including North Glengarry Deputy Mayor Carma Williams, who is also the Warden for the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry (SDG). 

"It looks like there's the possibility of something being moved from the responsibility of the conservation authority to local townships that could incur us extra costs," Williams told CTV News. "It could end up causing planning problems down the road in the future and, of course, conservation authorities are concerned with losing some of their responsibilities."

She says those costs could then be passed along to taxpayers, as smaller municipalities' don't have the ability to hire experts such as engineers and planners.

"We don't have the dollars for that. That would come directly out of the taxpayers' pocket," Williams said. "Those experts exist in the conservation authority and those powers should remain there."

"The taxpayers are already saddled with high enough costs on their end, and we're struggling to have growth pay for growth," Williams added. "We need those things like development charges and in lieu of parkland fees in order to be able to lay the infrastructure for future growth in our rural municipalities and this has the potential to threaten that."

Land is often donated to conservation authorities for preservation, Pilon noted, and he has already heard from potential donors who are worried that their land will not be protected in the future.

Pilon said conservation authorities were formed between 60 and 75 years ago on a watershed basis and because of problems with deforestation and flooding. 

"You look at Hurricane Hazel in 1954, 81 people died in Toronto. Municipalities got together and said we need to have agencies that are formed on a watershed basis, because water doesn't stop at municipal borders," Pilon said. "To make sure that development doesn't happen in flood plains, and make sure we don't do deforestation which causes flooding."

"It's surprising to me that the provincial government is proposing these changes at a time when climate change is actually causing more intense and frequent storms," Pilon said. 

"Conservation authorities, generally speaking, do not stand in the way of development," added Williams. "They want to make sure that its smart development which respects the environment and we want the same thing."

"Our planners across SDG are also very concerned and a letter has gone out from the SDG planners to the government in order to be able to express our concerns," she added. 

Pilon noted that most developers would rather work with the 36 conservation authorities, rather than 444 municipalities when building. 

"There might be pressure from some developers to get this through so they don't need to have rules, but the rules are in place for a good reason. It's to protect people and property from damages in the future," Pilon said. "Once you start the ball rolling it might be hard to stop."

While conservation authorities and municipalities say they are not opposed to new development, it has to be done correctly.

"I don't see the rush in getting this through," Pilon said. "I think we need to sit down and talk and make sure we all work together to protect future development."

"You know, you make a decision that you say is only going to apply to one level of government, the large cities for example, well it's easy for then those decisions to eventually creep into rural areas and may have entirely different impacts," Williams added. 

"I'm hoping for more dialogue, we really need that," she said. "We need government to listen to our concerns and perhaps make some changes."

Williams and Pilon said they have not heard back from the premier or MPP Steve Clark, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who tabled the bill. 

CTV News Ottawa requested comment from Clark, but did not hear back at the time of publishing.