GTA mayors want housing bill ‘paused’

Ford government asked to halt parts of legislation over confusion on natural disaster protections

Homeowners in Ontario could face greater risk from natural disasters like flooding and erosion under the province’s new housing bill, which removes environmental oversight at key stages in the planning of new developments, conservation authorities say.

But the province says the “core mandate” of the authorities to warn about flooding and erosion hazards hasn’t changed.

Meanwhile, some GTA mayors are asking for a “pause” on the new bill to sort out the apparent confusion.

As part of its omnibus housing bill, which is intended to spur construction and help address the housing shortage, the province also unveiled changes last week to the Conservation Authorities Act.

The legislation appears to limit what the province’s 36 conservation authorities can offer their expertise on and their role in the planning process.

“It seems like they are trying to stop us from commenting on municipal planning applications altogether,” said John MacKenzie, the chief executive officer of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA).

“If the government is successful in removing TRCA from these processes, this substantially increases the risk that development decisions will be made that put the lives of Ontarians, their properties, and critical infrastructure at risk, including new housing proposals in flood vulnerable areas.”

On Monday, the mayors of Oakville, Milton and Burlington sent a letter to the province, asking the province to temporarily halt the implementation of parts of the housing bill, in order to clarify what exactly they will mean for environmental protection and oversight.

“We believe it is critical that the government presses pause on the proposed changes … and meet with us to clarify and consider more effective alternatives,” wrote the mayors, who are also on the board for Conservation Halton.

In the past, in addition to flood assessment, conservation authorities would offer expertise on a host of topics including: ecology, wetlands, biodiversity, or natural heritage for a new project — if there was an agreement between the municipality and conservation authority. This would happen early in the planning process and could result in strategies to reduce impacts to the environment.

But the changes to the legislation introduced last week appear to suggest a conservation authority’s input would only be required once much of the work on a development has already been done. And a municipality wouldn’t be allowed to enter into such an agreement with a conservation authority — even if it wanted to.

“The way the legislation is currently written, we would only be coming in at the end to look at the flood plain,” said Angela Coleman, general manager of Conservation

Ontario. “How do you look at the flood plain if you are looking at just one project on its own, and not looking at anything upstream or downstream?”

The province, meanwhile, says the authorities will still be able to “comment on development proposals to reduce the potential risks from natural hazards like flooding and erosion.”

“The changes proposed by our government will focus conservation authorities on their intended purpose to protect people and property from the impacts of natural hazards,” said Richard Mullins, a spokesperson for Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

The province says that “municipalities will continue to be able to work with their local conservation authorities to develop and deliver local natural resource programs and services to respond to local needs and priorities.”

This is the second time Doug Ford’s government has sought to curtail the role of conservation authorities in the planning process.

Among the changes brought in 2020 was removing the ability of conservation authorities to weigh in on every application. Instead, a municipality would have to sign a deal with a local authority if it required additional environmental expertise on a project.

Without the staff or the budget for in-house environmental experts, all of the GTA’s municipalities have entered into agreements with TRCA to provide these services, said MacKenzie.

Soon after, the province formed a working group with conservation authorities, stakeholders and municipalities to address many of the goals reintroduced in last week’s legislation, including “mandate creep,” said Hassaan Basit, CEO of Conservation Halton.

The new regulations they developed over the past two years were introduced this March, which makes the further restrictions in the new bill hard to comprehend, he said.

“I’m confused because we were allies, and we delivered transformative change, and we helped the government go in the direction they wanted us to,” said Basit, who was the chair of the working group. “This time around, we weren’t engaged at all.”

The province has also asked the conservation authorities to “identify conservation authority owned or controlled lands that could support housing development.”

According to the province, conservation authorities own 145,000 hectares of land, making them the second-largest landowner in Ontario after the province.

But Basit says that conservation authorities had already been making an inventory as one of the requirements of the working group.

Does that mean a development in the future could potentially be built on a wetlands or a forest?

“I sure hope not,” said MacKenzie. “Most of our real estate portfolio has been acquired for flood protection purpose, or conservation purposes.”

We believe it is critical that the government presses pause on the proposed changes … and meet with us to clarify and consider more effective alternatives.

MAYORS OF OAKVILLE, MILTON AND BURLINGTON IN LETTER TO ONTARIO GOVERNMENT