Conservation Authorities Act review

18 October 2015

Today, the Greenspace Alliance sent comments to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, in response to a Discussion Paper (EBR # 012-4509, posted July 20, 2015) reviewing the Conservation Authorities Act.

Key recommendations:

  • The right to appeal a Conservation Authority (CA) permit decision should not be exclusive to the proponent.
  • CAs could increase transparency, accountability and collaboration with the community.
  • The Province must restore core funding of CAs.
  • The Act should be amended to give CAs the authority to issue stop work orders.
  • CAs could play a larger role in the fight against invasive species.
  • The CAs in Eastern and Southeastern Ontario could be given a specific mandate to foster protection of the Algonquin-to-Adirondacks corridor.
  • CAs could be tasked with providing or supervising the environmental assessment of the impact of development proposals.

The full submission is here.

Additional resource material:

The Discussion Paper (1.5 MB)  |  Comments by Conservation Ontario (paper ; appendices – 1 MB)  |  A Summary of CO’s comments  |  Legislative proposals made by CO, 2001-2012

12 May 2016

In a next round, the Ministry has released another 20-page Discussion Paper (EBR 012-7583), listing its “Priorities for Renewal” and things the Ministry “could” do under each. 

9 September 2016

The Greenspace Alliance sent in a comment, responding to the three questions posed in the Discussion Paper and indicating what Actions it recommends under each of the five priorities identified by the Ministry.  Here is our submission.  It concurs with several of the Actions proposed by the Ministry and reiterates several of the recommendations of our October 2015 submission.

26 September 2016

The Ministry made a report (1.4 MB) available that summarizes the feedback received during five “stakeholder engagement sessions” held earlier this year.  The Greenspace Alliance was represented at the Ottawa session.  Our representative noted that the framework was imposed by the Ministry; specifically, a suggestion for a firmer science basis in law and practice did not make it into the report.  (We included the point in our submission.)