OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.
We also note that there is an intention to ensure public consultation included in conservation authority restructuring decisions. However, this appears to be specifically related to the amalgamation or expansion of conservation authorities.
OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.
We also note that there is an intention to ensure public consultation included in conservation authority restructuring decisions. However, this appears to be specifically related to the amalgamation or expansion of conservation authorities.
OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.
OPSEU is pleased to see that the ministry intends to “increase Indigenous, public and stakeholder outreach and engagement.” We would like to see this expanded to include “meaningful consultation” as well.
We also note that there is an intention to ensure public consultation included in conservation authority restructuring decisions. However, this appears to be specifically related to the amalgamation or expansion of conservation authorities.
OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.
OPSEU is pleased to see that the ministry intends to “increase Indigenous, public and stakeholder outreach and engagement.” We would like to see this expanded to include “meaningful consultation” as well.
We also note that there is an intention to ensure public consultation included in conservation authority restructuring decisions. However, this appears to be specifically related to the amalgamation or expansion of conservation authorities.
OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.
OPSEU applauds the move to enable MNRF to conduct program and operational reviews. We would recommend that this be extended to the carrying out of financial audits as well. We would also recommend that any such ordered audit, program or operational review be carried out by the ministry or the Auditor General, that the report be received by the minister, and that the report be made public.
In the case of the NPCA, having this process in place would have saved what has been almost a year of delay in getting a financial and operational audit of the conservation authority done. Municipalities and provincial politicians have been demanding that the NPCA be audited. At first, the NPCA refused to do an audit. Then they finally agreed to do an audit, but refused an offer by the Auditor General to do a free audit. Then they put out an RFP to private auditors which would report back to the NPCA. Then, after public pressure, they cancelled that RFP and agreed to approach the Auditor General and accept her offer. Unfortunately, the Auditor General now no longer has space in her schedule to carry it out.
This is why OPSEU is pleased to see the intention to allow the MNRF to carry out program and operational reviews, and we hope this will be extended to financial audits as well.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU is pleased to see that the ministry intends to “increase Indigenous, public and stakeholder outreach and engagement.” We would like to see this expanded to include “meaningful consultation” as well.
We also note that there is an intention to ensure public consultation included in conservation authority restructuring decisions. However, this appears to be specifically related to the amalgamation or expansion of conservation authorities.
OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.
OPSEU applauds the move to enable MNRF to conduct program and operational reviews. We would recommend that this be extended to the carrying out of financial audits as well. We would also recommend that any such ordered audit, program or operational review be carried out by the ministry or the Auditor General, that the report be received by the minister, and that the report be made public.
In the case of the NPCA, having this process in place would have saved what has been almost a year of delay in getting a financial and operational audit of the conservation authority done. Municipalities and provincial politicians have been demanding that the NPCA be audited. At first, the NPCA refused to do an audit. Then they finally agreed to do an audit, but refused an offer by the Auditor General to do a free audit. Then they put out an RFP to private auditors which would report back to the NPCA. Then, after public pressure, they cancelled that RFP and agreed to approach the Auditor General and accept her offer. Unfortunately, the Auditor General now no longer has space in her schedule to carry it out.
This is why OPSEU is pleased to see the intention to allow the MNRF to carry out program and operational reviews, and we hope this will be extended to financial audits as well.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU is pleased to see that the ministry intends to “increase Indigenous, public and stakeholder outreach and engagement.” We would like to see this expanded to include “meaningful consultation” as well.
We also note that there is an intention to ensure public consultation included in conservation authority restructuring decisions. However, this appears to be specifically related to the amalgamation or expansion of conservation authorities.
OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.
In Niagara, there has been an agreement in place for a decade between the NPCA and Niagara Region in which the NPCA carries out all Natural Heritage Reviews. It makes sense – the NPCA has the expertise, the ecologists, the biologists, and the experts needed to carry out these reviews. However, recently, the NPCA cut their Watershed Management Department in half, stating that some of the Natural Heritage Review work those staff were doing is Niagara Region’s responsibility.
It is OPSEU’s recommendation that conservation-related duties be carried out by conservation authorities to ensure that the staff with the expertise carry out the work, and that their mission be related to conservation rather than development.
OPSEU recommends: Enabling MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
OPSEU applauds the move to enable MNRF to conduct program and operational reviews. We would recommend that this be extended to the carrying out of financial audits as well. We would also recommend that any such ordered audit, program or operational review be carried out by the ministry or the Auditor General, that the report be received by the minister, and that the report be made public.
In the case of the NPCA, having this process in place would have saved what has been almost a year of delay in getting a financial and operational audit of the conservation authority done. Municipalities and provincial politicians have been demanding that the NPCA be audited. At first, the NPCA refused to do an audit. Then they finally agreed to do an audit, but refused an offer by the Auditor General to do a free audit. Then they put out an RFP to private auditors which would report back to the NPCA. Then, after public pressure, they cancelled that RFP and agreed to approach the Auditor General and accept her offer. Unfortunately, the Auditor General now no longer has space in her schedule to carry it out.
This is why OPSEU is pleased to see the intention to allow the MNRF to carry out program and operational reviews, and we hope this will be extended to financial audits as well.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU is pleased to see that the ministry intends to “increase Indigenous, public and stakeholder outreach and engagement.” We would like to see this expanded to include “meaningful consultation” as well.
We also note that there is an intention to ensure public consultation included in conservation authority restructuring decisions. However, this appears to be specifically related to the amalgamation or expansion of conservation authorities.
OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.
In Niagara, there has been an agreement in place for a decade between the NPCA and Niagara Region in which the NPCA carries out all Natural Heritage Reviews. It makes sense – the NPCA has the expertise, the ecologists, the biologists, and the experts needed to carry out these reviews. However, recently, the NPCA cut their Watershed Management Department in half, stating that some of the Natural Heritage Review work those staff were doing is Niagara Region’s responsibility.
It is OPSEU’s recommendation that conservation-related duties be carried out by conservation authorities to ensure that the staff with the expertise carry out the work, and that their mission be related to conservation rather than development.
OPSEU recommends: Enabling MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
OPSEU applauds the move to enable MNRF to conduct program and operational reviews. We would recommend that this be extended to the carrying out of financial audits as well. We would also recommend that any such ordered audit, program or operational review be carried out by the ministry or the Auditor General, that the report be received by the minister, and that the report be made public.
In the case of the NPCA, having this process in place would have saved what has been almost a year of delay in getting a financial and operational audit of the conservation authority done. Municipalities and provincial politicians have been demanding that the NPCA be audited. At first, the NPCA refused to do an audit. Then they finally agreed to do an audit, but refused an offer by the Auditor General to do a free audit. Then they put out an RFP to private auditors which would report back to the NPCA. Then, after public pressure, they cancelled that RFP and agreed to approach the Auditor General and accept her offer. Unfortunately, the Auditor General now no longer has space in her schedule to carry it out.
This is why OPSEU is pleased to see the intention to allow the MNRF to carry out program and operational reviews, and we hope this will be extended to financial audits as well.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU is pleased to see that the ministry intends to “increase Indigenous, public and stakeholder outreach and engagement.” We would like to see this expanded to include “meaningful consultation” as well.
We also note that there is an intention to ensure public consultation included in conservation authority restructuring decisions. However, this appears to be specifically related to the amalgamation or expansion of conservation authorities.
OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.
Unfortunately, when municipalities are responsible for carrying out conservation-related duties such as reviewing development applications for conservation-related issues, they have an inherent conflict of interest if their goal is to promote economic development. In Niagara region, many residents and local politicians have raised concerns that the NPCA has a pro-development agenda.
One example of conservation-related work is Natural Heritage Reviews. Natural heritage features basically include anything wet or green – wetlands, forests, rocky outcrops, etc. Currently, when someone wants to develop land, they have to go through a Natural Heritage Review first – in other words, their application is reviewed with the goal of ensuring that it will have as little negative impact on the land as possible.
Right now, conservation authorities are responsible for Natural Heritage Reviews that involve floodplains, wetlands, valleylands and slopes and dynamic beaches. Municipalities, on the other hand, are allowed to carry out Natural Heritage Reviews that involve woodlands and “significant” woodlands.
In Niagara, there has been an agreement in place for a decade between the NPCA and Niagara Region in which the NPCA carries out all Natural Heritage Reviews. It makes sense – the NPCA has the expertise, the ecologists, the biologists, and the experts needed to carry out these reviews. However, recently, the NPCA cut their Watershed Management Department in half, stating that some of the Natural Heritage Review work those staff were doing is Niagara Region’s responsibility.
It is OPSEU’s recommendation that conservation-related duties be carried out by conservation authorities to ensure that the staff with the expertise carry out the work, and that their mission be related to conservation rather than development.
OPSEU recommends: Enabling MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
OPSEU applauds the move to enable MNRF to conduct program and operational reviews. We would recommend that this be extended to the carrying out of financial audits as well. We would also recommend that any such ordered audit, program or operational review be carried out by the ministry or the Auditor General, that the report be received by the minister, and that the report be made public.
In the case of the NPCA, having this process in place would have saved what has been almost a year of delay in getting a financial and operational audit of the conservation authority done. Municipalities and provincial politicians have been demanding that the NPCA be audited. At first, the NPCA refused to do an audit. Then they finally agreed to do an audit, but refused an offer by the Auditor General to do a free audit. Then they put out an RFP to private auditors which would report back to the NPCA. Then, after public pressure, they cancelled that RFP and agreed to approach the Auditor General and accept her offer. Unfortunately, the Auditor General now no longer has space in her schedule to carry it out.
This is why OPSEU is pleased to see the intention to allow the MNRF to carry out program and operational reviews, and we hope this will be extended to financial audits as well.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU is pleased to see that the ministry intends to “increase Indigenous, public and stakeholder outreach and engagement.” We would like to see this expanded to include “meaningful consultation” as well.
We also note that there is an intention to ensure public consultation included in conservation authority restructuring decisions. However, this appears to be specifically related to the amalgamation or expansion of conservation authorities.
OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.
Unfortunately, when municipalities are responsible for carrying out conservation-related duties such as reviewing development applications for conservation-related issues, they have an inherent conflict of interest if their goal is to promote economic development. In Niagara region, many residents and local politicians have raised concerns that the NPCA has a pro-development agenda.
One example of conservation-related work is Natural Heritage Reviews. Natural heritage features basically include anything wet or green – wetlands, forests, rocky outcrops, etc. Currently, when someone wants to develop land, they have to go through a Natural Heritage Review first – in other words, their application is reviewed with the goal of ensuring that it will have as little negative impact on the land as possible.
Right now, conservation authorities are responsible for Natural Heritage Reviews that involve floodplains, wetlands, valleylands and slopes and dynamic beaches. Municipalities, on the other hand, are allowed to carry out Natural Heritage Reviews that involve woodlands and “significant” woodlands.
In Niagara, there has been an agreement in place for a decade between the NPCA and Niagara Region in which the NPCA carries out all Natural Heritage Reviews. It makes sense – the NPCA has the expertise, the ecologists, the biologists, and the experts needed to carry out these reviews. However, recently, the NPCA cut their Watershed Management Department in half, stating that some of the Natural Heritage Review work those staff were doing is Niagara Region’s responsibility.
It is OPSEU’s recommendation that conservation-related duties be carried out by conservation authorities to ensure that the staff with the expertise carry out the work, and that their mission be related to conservation rather than development.
OPSEU recommends: Enabling MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
OPSEU applauds the move to enable MNRF to conduct program and operational reviews. We would recommend that this be extended to the carrying out of financial audits as well. We would also recommend that any such ordered audit, program or operational review be carried out by the ministry or the Auditor General, that the report be received by the minister, and that the report be made public.
In the case of the NPCA, having this process in place would have saved what has been almost a year of delay in getting a financial and operational audit of the conservation authority done. Municipalities and provincial politicians have been demanding that the NPCA be audited. At first, the NPCA refused to do an audit. Then they finally agreed to do an audit, but refused an offer by the Auditor General to do a free audit. Then they put out an RFP to private auditors which would report back to the NPCA. Then, after public pressure, they cancelled that RFP and agreed to approach the Auditor General and accept her offer. Unfortunately, the Auditor General now no longer has space in her schedule to carry it out.
This is why OPSEU is pleased to see the intention to allow the MNRF to carry out program and operational reviews, and we hope this will be extended to financial audits as well.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU is pleased to see that the ministry intends to “increase Indigenous, public and stakeholder outreach and engagement.” We would like to see this expanded to include “meaningful consultation” as well.
We also note that there is an intention to ensure public consultation included in conservation authority restructuring decisions. However, this appears to be specifically related to the amalgamation or expansion of conservation authorities.
OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.
OPSEU recommends that the minister be responsible for appointing and, if necessary, removing board members from conservation authorities, with strong input and consultation with municipalities. In most cases, we understand that the practice would be that municipalities make recommendations and the ministry would approve those recommendations. But it would also ensure that the ministry has the power to block or remove an appointment if it is deemed necessary. The minister can also ensure that the candidates for appointment have conservation-related qualifications.
Making the minister ultimately responsible for conservation authority board appointments ensures that there will be that extra layer of accountability built into the process.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
Conservation authority board members make serious decisions about the protection of the watershed and our environment at the local level. The decisions they make about programs and operations directly affect the land they are entrusted to protect.
Along with “developing best management practices for the recruitment and selection of authority members including best practices for the appointment of non-elected individuals,” we would like the legislation to include the requirement that members have some background or expertise in conservation-related issues or work.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
The mandate of conservation authorities is to protect the environment and the land – to promote conservation. The goal of municipalities is often to encourage economic growth and development in their region. These are both important goals.
Unfortunately, when municipalities are responsible for carrying out conservation-related duties such as reviewing development applications for conservation-related issues, they have an inherent conflict of interest if their goal is to promote economic development. In Niagara region, many residents and local politicians have raised concerns that the NPCA has a pro-development agenda.
One example of conservation-related work is Natural Heritage Reviews. Natural heritage features basically include anything wet or green – wetlands, forests, rocky outcrops, etc. Currently, when someone wants to develop land, they have to go through a Natural Heritage Review first – in other words, their application is reviewed with the goal of ensuring that it will have as little negative impact on the land as possible.
Right now, conservation authorities are responsible for Natural Heritage Reviews that involve floodplains, wetlands, valleylands and slopes and dynamic beaches. Municipalities, on the other hand, are allowed to carry out Natural Heritage Reviews that involve woodlands and “significant” woodlands.
In Niagara, there has been an agreement in place for a decade between the NPCA and Niagara Region in which the NPCA carries out all Natural Heritage Reviews. It makes sense – the NPCA has the expertise, the ecologists, the biologists, and the experts needed to carry out these reviews. However, recently, the NPCA cut their Watershed Management Department in half, stating that some of the Natural Heritage Review work those staff were doing is Niagara Region’s responsibility.
It is OPSEU’s recommendation that conservation-related duties be carried out by conservation authorities to ensure that the staff with the expertise carry out the work, and that their mission be related to conservation rather than development.
OPSEU recommends: Enabling MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
OPSEU applauds the move to enable MNRF to conduct program and operational reviews. We would recommend that this be extended to the carrying out of financial audits as well. We would also recommend that any such ordered audit, program or operational review be carried out by the ministry or the Auditor General, that the report be received by the minister, and that the report be made public.
In the case of the NPCA, having this process in place would have saved what has been almost a year of delay in getting a financial and operational audit of the conservation authority done. Municipalities and provincial politicians have been demanding that the NPCA be audited. At first, the NPCA refused to do an audit. Then they finally agreed to do an audit, but refused an offer by the Auditor General to do a free audit. Then they put out an RFP to private auditors which would report back to the NPCA. Then, after public pressure, they cancelled that RFP and agreed to approach the Auditor General and accept her offer. Unfortunately, the Auditor General now no longer has space in her schedule to carry it out.
This is why OPSEU is pleased to see the intention to allow the MNRF to carry out program and operational reviews, and we hope this will be extended to financial audits as well.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU is pleased to see that the ministry intends to “increase Indigenous, public and stakeholder outreach and engagement.” We would like to see this expanded to include “meaningful consultation” as well.
We also note that there is an intention to ensure public consultation included in conservation authority restructuring decisions. However, this appears to be specifically related to the amalgamation or expansion of conservation authorities.
OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.
OPSEU recommends that the minister be responsible for appointing and, if necessary, removing board members from conservation authorities, with strong input and consultation with municipalities. In most cases, we understand that the practice would be that municipalities make recommendations and the ministry would approve those recommendations. But it would also ensure that the ministry has the power to block or remove an appointment if it is deemed necessary. The minister can also ensure that the candidates for appointment have conservation-related qualifications.
Making the minister ultimately responsible for conservation authority board appointments ensures that there will be that extra layer of accountability built into the process.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
Conservation authority board members make serious decisions about the protection of the watershed and our environment at the local level. The decisions they make about programs and operations directly affect the land they are entrusted to protect.
Along with “developing best management practices for the recruitment and selection of authority members including best practices for the appointment of non-elected individuals,” we would like the legislation to include the requirement that members have some background or expertise in conservation-related issues or work.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
The mandate of conservation authorities is to protect the environment and the land – to promote conservation. The goal of municipalities is often to encourage economic growth and development in their region. These are both important goals.
Unfortunately, when municipalities are responsible for carrying out conservation-related duties such as reviewing development applications for conservation-related issues, they have an inherent conflict of interest if their goal is to promote economic development. In Niagara region, many residents and local politicians have raised concerns that the NPCA has a pro-development agenda.
One example of conservation-related work is Natural Heritage Reviews. Natural heritage features basically include anything wet or green – wetlands, forests, rocky outcrops, etc. Currently, when someone wants to develop land, they have to go through a Natural Heritage Review first – in other words, their application is reviewed with the goal of ensuring that it will have as little negative impact on the land as possible.
Right now, conservation authorities are responsible for Natural Heritage Reviews that involve floodplains, wetlands, valleylands and slopes and dynamic beaches. Municipalities, on the other hand, are allowed to carry out Natural Heritage Reviews that involve woodlands and “significant” woodlands.
In Niagara, there has been an agreement in place for a decade between the NPCA and Niagara Region in which the NPCA carries out all Natural Heritage Reviews. It makes sense – the NPCA has the expertise, the ecologists, the biologists, and the experts needed to carry out these reviews. However, recently, the NPCA cut their Watershed Management Department in half, stating that some of the Natural Heritage Review work those staff were doing is Niagara Region’s responsibility.
It is OPSEU’s recommendation that conservation-related duties be carried out by conservation authorities to ensure that the staff with the expertise carry out the work, and that their mission be related to conservation rather than development.
OPSEU recommends: Enabling MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
OPSEU applauds the move to enable MNRF to conduct program and operational reviews. We would recommend that this be extended to the carrying out of financial audits as well. We would also recommend that any such ordered audit, program or operational review be carried out by the ministry or the Auditor General, that the report be received by the minister, and that the report be made public.
In the case of the NPCA, having this process in place would have saved what has been almost a year of delay in getting a financial and operational audit of the conservation authority done. Municipalities and provincial politicians have been demanding that the NPCA be audited. At first, the NPCA refused to do an audit. Then they finally agreed to do an audit, but refused an offer by the Auditor General to do a free audit. Then they put out an RFP to private auditors which would report back to the NPCA. Then, after public pressure, they cancelled that RFP and agreed to approach the Auditor General and accept her offer. Unfortunately, the Auditor General now no longer has space in her schedule to carry it out.
This is why OPSEU is pleased to see the intention to allow the MNRF to carry out program and operational reviews, and we hope this will be extended to financial audits as well.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU is pleased to see that the ministry intends to “increase Indigenous, public and stakeholder outreach and engagement.” We would like to see this expanded to include “meaningful consultation” as well.
We also note that there is an intention to ensure public consultation included in conservation authority restructuring decisions. However, this appears to be specifically related to the amalgamation or expansion of conservation authorities.
OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.
In Section 1 of Conserving our Future: A modernized Conservation Authorities Act, there are several actions listed for strengthening accountability and oversight of conservation authorities, including allowing the province to do program and operational reviews. OPSEU applauds this layer of oversight, but we would like to see an enforcement mechanism included as well.
In Niagara, the NPCA has been scandal-plagued for the past two years. Municipalities, provincial politicians from all three parties, the local media and the general public have demanded that the NPCA be audited, and many have demanded that the province appoint a supervisor. Despite public outcry, the senior management of the NPCA has been able to continue to mismanage the authority with impunity. The province has stated that it is unable to appoint a supervisor because the legislation does not allow it.
The Conservation Authorities Act needs a mechanism that allows the minister to appoint a supervisor or administrator to take over operations at conservation authorities when the minister deems it necessary.
OPSEU recommends: Empowering MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities
Currently, municipalities appoint members to conservation authority boards. In most municipalities, this has worked well. However, this system does not allow the province to ensure that conservation authority board members are qualified to do their jobs. And it does not allow the province to step in when necessary to remove board members in those few cases where it is not working well.
OPSEU understands the importance of municipal input into the appointment of conservation authority board members. However, we also have learned through experience at the NPCA that it is impossible under the current system of appointments to hold conservation authority board members accountable.
OPSEU recommends that the minister be responsible for appointing and, if necessary, removing board members from conservation authorities, with strong input and consultation with municipalities. In most cases, we understand that the practice would be that municipalities make recommendations and the ministry would approve those recommendations. But it would also ensure that the ministry has the power to block or remove an appointment if it is deemed necessary. The minister can also ensure that the candidates for appointment have conservation-related qualifications.
Making the minister ultimately responsible for conservation authority board appointments ensures that there will be that extra layer of accountability built into the process.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
Conservation authority board members make serious decisions about the protection of the watershed and our environment at the local level. The decisions they make about programs and operations directly affect the land they are entrusted to protect.
Along with “developing best management practices for the recruitment and selection of authority members including best practices for the appointment of non-elected individuals,” we would like the legislation to include the requirement that members have some background or expertise in conservation-related issues or work.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
The mandate of conservation authorities is to protect the environment and the land – to promote conservation. The goal of municipalities is often to encourage economic growth and development in their region. These are both important goals.
Unfortunately, when municipalities are responsible for carrying out conservation-related duties such as reviewing development applications for conservation-related issues, they have an inherent conflict of interest if their goal is to promote economic development. In Niagara region, many residents and local politicians have raised concerns that the NPCA has a pro-development agenda.
One example of conservation-related work is Natural Heritage Reviews. Natural heritage features basically include anything wet or green – wetlands, forests, rocky outcrops, etc. Currently, when someone wants to develop land, they have to go through a Natural Heritage Review first – in other words, their application is reviewed with the goal of ensuring that it will have as little negative impact on the land as possible.
Right now, conservation authorities are responsible for Natural Heritage Reviews that involve floodplains, wetlands, valleylands and slopes and dynamic beaches. Municipalities, on the other hand, are allowed to carry out Natural Heritage Reviews that involve woodlands and “significant” woodlands.
In Niagara, there has been an agreement in place for a decade between the NPCA and Niagara Region in which the NPCA carries out all Natural Heritage Reviews. It makes sense – the NPCA has the expertise, the ecologists, the biologists, and the experts needed to carry out these reviews. However, recently, the NPCA cut their Watershed Management Department in half, stating that some of the Natural Heritage Review work those staff were doing is Niagara Region’s responsibility.
It is OPSEU’s recommendation that conservation-related duties be carried out by conservation authorities to ensure that the staff with the expertise carry out the work, and that their mission be related to conservation rather than development.
OPSEU recommends: Enabling MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
OPSEU applauds the move to enable MNRF to conduct program and operational reviews. We would recommend that this be extended to the carrying out of financial audits as well. We would also recommend that any such ordered audit, program or operational review be carried out by the ministry or the Auditor General, that the report be received by the minister, and that the report be made public.
In the case of the NPCA, having this process in place would have saved what has been almost a year of delay in getting a financial and operational audit of the conservation authority done. Municipalities and provincial politicians have been demanding that the NPCA be audited. At first, the NPCA refused to do an audit. Then they finally agreed to do an audit, but refused an offer by the Auditor General to do a free audit. Then they put out an RFP to private auditors which would report back to the NPCA. Then, after public pressure, they cancelled that RFP and agreed to approach the Auditor General and accept her offer. Unfortunately, the Auditor General now no longer has space in her schedule to carry it out.
This is why OPSEU is pleased to see the intention to allow the MNRF to carry out program and operational reviews, and we hope this will be extended to financial audits as well.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU is pleased to see that the ministry intends to “increase Indigenous, public and stakeholder outreach and engagement.” We would like to see this expanded to include “meaningful consultation” as well.
We also note that there is an intention to ensure public consultation included in conservation authority restructuring decisions. However, this appears to be specifically related to the amalgamation or expansion of conservation authorities.
OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.
In Section 1 of Conserving our Future: A modernized Conservation Authorities Act, there are several actions listed for strengthening accountability and oversight of conservation authorities, including allowing the province to do program and operational reviews. OPSEU applauds this layer of oversight, but we would like to see an enforcement mechanism included as well.
In Niagara, the NPCA has been scandal-plagued for the past two years. Municipalities, provincial politicians from all three parties, the local media and the general public have demanded that the NPCA be audited, and many have demanded that the province appoint a supervisor. Despite public outcry, the senior management of the NPCA has been able to continue to mismanage the authority with impunity. The province has stated that it is unable to appoint a supervisor because the legislation does not allow it.
The Conservation Authorities Act needs a mechanism that allows the minister to appoint a supervisor or administrator to take over operations at conservation authorities when the minister deems it necessary.
OPSEU recommends: Empowering MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities
Currently, municipalities appoint members to conservation authority boards. In most municipalities, this has worked well. However, this system does not allow the province to ensure that conservation authority board members are qualified to do their jobs. And it does not allow the province to step in when necessary to remove board members in those few cases where it is not working well.
OPSEU understands the importance of municipal input into the appointment of conservation authority board members. However, we also have learned through experience at the NPCA that it is impossible under the current system of appointments to hold conservation authority board members accountable.
OPSEU recommends that the minister be responsible for appointing and, if necessary, removing board members from conservation authorities, with strong input and consultation with municipalities. In most cases, we understand that the practice would be that municipalities make recommendations and the ministry would approve those recommendations. But it would also ensure that the ministry has the power to block or remove an appointment if it is deemed necessary. The minister can also ensure that the candidates for appointment have conservation-related qualifications.
Making the minister ultimately responsible for conservation authority board appointments ensures that there will be that extra layer of accountability built into the process.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
Conservation authority board members make serious decisions about the protection of the watershed and our environment at the local level. The decisions they make about programs and operations directly affect the land they are entrusted to protect.
Along with “developing best management practices for the recruitment and selection of authority members including best practices for the appointment of non-elected individuals,” we would like the legislation to include the requirement that members have some background or expertise in conservation-related issues or work.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
The mandate of conservation authorities is to protect the environment and the land – to promote conservation. The goal of municipalities is often to encourage economic growth and development in their region. These are both important goals.
Unfortunately, when municipalities are responsible for carrying out conservation-related duties such as reviewing development applications for conservation-related issues, they have an inherent conflict of interest if their goal is to promote economic development. In Niagara region, many residents and local politicians have raised concerns that the NPCA has a pro-development agenda.
One example of conservation-related work is Natural Heritage Reviews. Natural heritage features basically include anything wet or green – wetlands, forests, rocky outcrops, etc. Currently, when someone wants to develop land, they have to go through a Natural Heritage Review first – in other words, their application is reviewed with the goal of ensuring that it will have as little negative impact on the land as possible.
Right now, conservation authorities are responsible for Natural Heritage Reviews that involve floodplains, wetlands, valleylands and slopes and dynamic beaches. Municipalities, on the other hand, are allowed to carry out Natural Heritage Reviews that involve woodlands and “significant” woodlands.
In Niagara, there has been an agreement in place for a decade between the NPCA and Niagara Region in which the NPCA carries out all Natural Heritage Reviews. It makes sense – the NPCA has the expertise, the ecologists, the biologists, and the experts needed to carry out these reviews. However, recently, the NPCA cut their Watershed Management Department in half, stating that some of the Natural Heritage Review work those staff were doing is Niagara Region’s responsibility.
It is OPSEU’s recommendation that conservation-related duties be carried out by conservation authorities to ensure that the staff with the expertise carry out the work, and that their mission be related to conservation rather than development.
OPSEU recommends: Enabling MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
OPSEU applauds the move to enable MNRF to conduct program and operational reviews. We would recommend that this be extended to the carrying out of financial audits as well. We would also recommend that any such ordered audit, program or operational review be carried out by the ministry or the Auditor General, that the report be received by the minister, and that the report be made public.
In the case of the NPCA, having this process in place would have saved what has been almost a year of delay in getting a financial and operational audit of the conservation authority done. Municipalities and provincial politicians have been demanding that the NPCA be audited. At first, the NPCA refused to do an audit. Then they finally agreed to do an audit, but refused an offer by the Auditor General to do a free audit. Then they put out an RFP to private auditors which would report back to the NPCA. Then, after public pressure, they cancelled that RFP and agreed to approach the Auditor General and accept her offer. Unfortunately, the Auditor General now no longer has space in her schedule to carry it out.
This is why OPSEU is pleased to see the intention to allow the MNRF to carry out program and operational reviews, and we hope this will be extended to financial audits as well.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU is pleased to see that the ministry intends to “increase Indigenous, public and stakeholder outreach and engagement.” We would like to see this expanded to include “meaningful consultation” as well.
We also note that there is an intention to ensure public consultation included in conservation authority restructuring decisions. However, this appears to be specifically related to the amalgamation or expansion of conservation authorities.
OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.
While many of the province’s conservation authorities are running well, we have seen that there is little that can be done by the province when a conservation authority “goes rogue.” We believe Bill 139 has the potential to bring accountability and provincial oversight to conservation authorities when necessary.
OPSEU is pleased to offer the following recommendations for strengthening this proposed legislation. We believe the legislation should:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU recommends: Empowering the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
In Section 1 of Conserving our Future: A modernized Conservation Authorities Act, there are several actions listed for strengthening accountability and oversight of conservation authorities, including allowing the province to do program and operational reviews. OPSEU applauds this layer of oversight, but we would like to see an enforcement mechanism included as well.
In Niagara, the NPCA has been scandal-plagued for the past two years. Municipalities, provincial politicians from all three parties, the local media and the general public have demanded that the NPCA be audited, and many have demanded that the province appoint a supervisor. Despite public outcry, the senior management of the NPCA has been able to continue to mismanage the authority with impunity. The province has stated that it is unable to appoint a supervisor because the legislation does not allow it.
The Conservation Authorities Act needs a mechanism that allows the minister to appoint a supervisor or administrator to take over operations at conservation authorities when the minister deems it necessary.
OPSEU recommends: Empowering MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities
Currently, municipalities appoint members to conservation authority boards. In most municipalities, this has worked well. However, this system does not allow the province to ensure that conservation authority board members are qualified to do their jobs. And it does not allow the province to step in when necessary to remove board members in those few cases where it is not working well.
OPSEU understands the importance of municipal input into the appointment of conservation authority board members. However, we also have learned through experience at the NPCA that it is impossible under the current system of appointments to hold conservation authority board members accountable.
OPSEU recommends that the minister be responsible for appointing and, if necessary, removing board members from conservation authorities, with strong input and consultation with municipalities. In most cases, we understand that the practice would be that municipalities make recommendations and the ministry would approve those recommendations. But it would also ensure that the ministry has the power to block or remove an appointment if it is deemed necessary. The minister can also ensure that the candidates for appointment have conservation-related qualifications.
Making the minister ultimately responsible for conservation authority board appointments ensures that there will be that extra layer of accountability built into the process.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
Conservation authority board members make serious decisions about the protection of the watershed and our environment at the local level. The decisions they make about programs and operations directly affect the land they are entrusted to protect.
Along with “developing best management practices for the recruitment and selection of authority members including best practices for the appointment of non-elected individuals,” we would like the legislation to include the requirement that members have some background or expertise in conservation-related issues or work.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
The mandate of conservation authorities is to protect the environment and the land – to promote conservation. The goal of municipalities is often to encourage economic growth and development in their region. These are both important goals.
Unfortunately, when municipalities are responsible for carrying out conservation-related duties such as reviewing development applications for conservation-related issues, they have an inherent conflict of interest if their goal is to promote economic development. In Niagara region, many residents and local politicians have raised concerns that the NPCA has a pro-development agenda.
One example of conservation-related work is Natural Heritage Reviews. Natural heritage features basically include anything wet or green – wetlands, forests, rocky outcrops, etc. Currently, when someone wants to develop land, they have to go through a Natural Heritage Review first – in other words, their application is reviewed with the goal of ensuring that it will have as little negative impact on the land as possible.
Right now, conservation authorities are responsible for Natural Heritage Reviews that involve floodplains, wetlands, valleylands and slopes and dynamic beaches. Municipalities, on the other hand, are allowed to carry out Natural Heritage Reviews that involve woodlands and “significant” woodlands.
In Niagara, there has been an agreement in place for a decade between the NPCA and Niagara Region in which the NPCA carries out all Natural Heritage Reviews. It makes sense – the NPCA has the expertise, the ecologists, the biologists, and the experts needed to carry out these reviews. However, recently, the NPCA cut their Watershed Management Department in half, stating that some of the Natural Heritage Review work those staff were doing is Niagara Region’s responsibility.
It is OPSEU’s recommendation that conservation-related duties be carried out by conservation authorities to ensure that the staff with the expertise carry out the work, and that their mission be related to conservation rather than development.
OPSEU recommends: Enabling MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
OPSEU applauds the move to enable MNRF to conduct program and operational reviews. We would recommend that this be extended to the carrying out of financial audits as well. We would also recommend that any such ordered audit, program or operational review be carried out by the ministry or the Auditor General, that the report be received by the minister, and that the report be made public.
In the case of the NPCA, having this process in place would have saved what has been almost a year of delay in getting a financial and operational audit of the conservation authority done. Municipalities and provincial politicians have been demanding that the NPCA be audited. At first, the NPCA refused to do an audit. Then they finally agreed to do an audit, but refused an offer by the Auditor General to do a free audit. Then they put out an RFP to private auditors which would report back to the NPCA. Then, after public pressure, they cancelled that RFP and agreed to approach the Auditor General and accept her offer. Unfortunately, the Auditor General now no longer has space in her schedule to carry it out.
This is why OPSEU is pleased to see the intention to allow the MNRF to carry out program and operational reviews, and we hope this will be extended to financial audits as well.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU is pleased to see that the ministry intends to “increase Indigenous, public and stakeholder outreach and engagement.” We would like to see this expanded to include “meaningful consultation” as well.
We also note that there is an intention to ensure public consultation included in conservation authority restructuring decisions. However, this appears to be specifically related to the amalgamation or expansion of conservation authorities.
OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.
While many of the province’s conservation authorities are running well, we have seen that there is little that can be done by the province when a conservation authority “goes rogue.” We believe Bill 139 has the potential to bring accountability and provincial oversight to conservation authorities when necessary.
OPSEU is pleased to offer the following recommendations for strengthening this proposed legislation. We believe the legislation should:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU recommends: Empowering the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
In Section 1 of Conserving our Future: A modernized Conservation Authorities Act, there are several actions listed for strengthening accountability and oversight of conservation authorities, including allowing the province to do program and operational reviews. OPSEU applauds this layer of oversight, but we would like to see an enforcement mechanism included as well.
In Niagara, the NPCA has been scandal-plagued for the past two years. Municipalities, provincial politicians from all three parties, the local media and the general public have demanded that the NPCA be audited, and many have demanded that the province appoint a supervisor. Despite public outcry, the senior management of the NPCA has been able to continue to mismanage the authority with impunity. The province has stated that it is unable to appoint a supervisor because the legislation does not allow it.
The Conservation Authorities Act needs a mechanism that allows the minister to appoint a supervisor or administrator to take over operations at conservation authorities when the minister deems it necessary.
OPSEU recommends: Empowering MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities
Currently, municipalities appoint members to conservation authority boards. In most municipalities, this has worked well. However, this system does not allow the province to ensure that conservation authority board members are qualified to do their jobs. And it does not allow the province to step in when necessary to remove board members in those few cases where it is not working well.
OPSEU understands the importance of municipal input into the appointment of conservation authority board members. However, we also have learned through experience at the NPCA that it is impossible under the current system of appointments to hold conservation authority board members accountable.
OPSEU recommends that the minister be responsible for appointing and, if necessary, removing board members from conservation authorities, with strong input and consultation with municipalities. In most cases, we understand that the practice would be that municipalities make recommendations and the ministry would approve those recommendations. But it would also ensure that the ministry has the power to block or remove an appointment if it is deemed necessary. The minister can also ensure that the candidates for appointment have conservation-related qualifications.
Making the minister ultimately responsible for conservation authority board appointments ensures that there will be that extra layer of accountability built into the process.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
Conservation authority board members make serious decisions about the protection of the watershed and our environment at the local level. The decisions they make about programs and operations directly affect the land they are entrusted to protect.
Along with “developing best management practices for the recruitment and selection of authority members including best practices for the appointment of non-elected individuals,” we would like the legislation to include the requirement that members have some background or expertise in conservation-related issues or work.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
The mandate of conservation authorities is to protect the environment and the land – to promote conservation. The goal of municipalities is often to encourage economic growth and development in their region. These are both important goals.
Unfortunately, when municipalities are responsible for carrying out conservation-related duties such as reviewing development applications for conservation-related issues, they have an inherent conflict of interest if their goal is to promote economic development. In Niagara region, many residents and local politicians have raised concerns that the NPCA has a pro-development agenda.
One example of conservation-related work is Natural Heritage Reviews. Natural heritage features basically include anything wet or green – wetlands, forests, rocky outcrops, etc. Currently, when someone wants to develop land, they have to go through a Natural Heritage Review first – in other words, their application is reviewed with the goal of ensuring that it will have as little negative impact on the land as possible.
Right now, conservation authorities are responsible for Natural Heritage Reviews that involve floodplains, wetlands, valleylands and slopes and dynamic beaches. Municipalities, on the other hand, are allowed to carry out Natural Heritage Reviews that involve woodlands and “significant” woodlands.
In Niagara, there has been an agreement in place for a decade between the NPCA and Niagara Region in which the NPCA carries out all Natural Heritage Reviews. It makes sense – the NPCA has the expertise, the ecologists, the biologists, and the experts needed to carry out these reviews. However, recently, the NPCA cut their Watershed Management Department in half, stating that some of the Natural Heritage Review work those staff were doing is Niagara Region’s responsibility.
It is OPSEU’s recommendation that conservation-related duties be carried out by conservation authorities to ensure that the staff with the expertise carry out the work, and that their mission be related to conservation rather than development.
OPSEU recommends: Enabling MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
OPSEU applauds the move to enable MNRF to conduct program and operational reviews. We would recommend that this be extended to the carrying out of financial audits as well. We would also recommend that any such ordered audit, program or operational review be carried out by the ministry or the Auditor General, that the report be received by the minister, and that the report be made public.
In the case of the NPCA, having this process in place would have saved what has been almost a year of delay in getting a financial and operational audit of the conservation authority done. Municipalities and provincial politicians have been demanding that the NPCA be audited. At first, the NPCA refused to do an audit. Then they finally agreed to do an audit, but refused an offer by the Auditor General to do a free audit. Then they put out an RFP to private auditors which would report back to the NPCA. Then, after public pressure, they cancelled that RFP and agreed to approach the Auditor General and accept her offer. Unfortunately, the Auditor General now no longer has space in her schedule to carry it out.
This is why OPSEU is pleased to see the intention to allow the MNRF to carry out program and operational reviews, and we hope this will be extended to financial audits as well.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU is pleased to see that the ministry intends to “increase Indigenous, public and stakeholder outreach and engagement.” We would like to see this expanded to include “meaningful consultation” as well.
We also note that there is an intention to ensure public consultation included in conservation authority restructuring decisions. However, this appears to be specifically related to the amalgamation or expansion of conservation authorities.
OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.
Our submission today will focus on the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. We commend Ontario for attempting to address the need for stronger oversight of conservation authorities in Ontario.
As members of all three parties have noted in the legislature, there are serious problems at the NPCA. Issues that have been raised by community stakeholders and the media include poor management of staff, financial mismanagement, questionable hiring, firing and reorganizing practices, and a pro-development bias on the part of senior management and some Board members.
While many of the province’s conservation authorities are running well, we have seen that there is little that can be done by the province when a conservation authority “goes rogue.” We believe Bill 139 has the potential to bring accountability and provincial oversight to conservation authorities when necessary.
OPSEU is pleased to offer the following recommendations for strengthening this proposed legislation. We believe the legislation should:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU recommends: Empowering the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
In Section 1 of Conserving our Future: A modernized Conservation Authorities Act, there are several actions listed for strengthening accountability and oversight of conservation authorities, including allowing the province to do program and operational reviews. OPSEU applauds this layer of oversight, but we would like to see an enforcement mechanism included as well.
In Niagara, the NPCA has been scandal-plagued for the past two years. Municipalities, provincial politicians from all three parties, the local media and the general public have demanded that the NPCA be audited, and many have demanded that the province appoint a supervisor. Despite public outcry, the senior management of the NPCA has been able to continue to mismanage the authority with impunity. The province has stated that it is unable to appoint a supervisor because the legislation does not allow it.
The Conservation Authorities Act needs a mechanism that allows the minister to appoint a supervisor or administrator to take over operations at conservation authorities when the minister deems it necessary.
OPSEU recommends: Empowering MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities
Currently, municipalities appoint members to conservation authority boards. In most municipalities, this has worked well. However, this system does not allow the province to ensure that conservation authority board members are qualified to do their jobs. And it does not allow the province to step in when necessary to remove board members in those few cases where it is not working well.
OPSEU understands the importance of municipal input into the appointment of conservation authority board members. However, we also have learned through experience at the NPCA that it is impossible under the current system of appointments to hold conservation authority board members accountable.
OPSEU recommends that the minister be responsible for appointing and, if necessary, removing board members from conservation authorities, with strong input and consultation with municipalities. In most cases, we understand that the practice would be that municipalities make recommendations and the ministry would approve those recommendations. But it would also ensure that the ministry has the power to block or remove an appointment if it is deemed necessary. The minister can also ensure that the candidates for appointment have conservation-related qualifications.
Making the minister ultimately responsible for conservation authority board appointments ensures that there will be that extra layer of accountability built into the process.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
Conservation authority board members make serious decisions about the protection of the watershed and our environment at the local level. The decisions they make about programs and operations directly affect the land they are entrusted to protect.
Along with “developing best management practices for the recruitment and selection of authority members including best practices for the appointment of non-elected individuals,” we would like the legislation to include the requirement that members have some background or expertise in conservation-related issues or work.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
The mandate of conservation authorities is to protect the environment and the land – to promote conservation. The goal of municipalities is often to encourage economic growth and development in their region. These are both important goals.
Unfortunately, when municipalities are responsible for carrying out conservation-related duties such as reviewing development applications for conservation-related issues, they have an inherent conflict of interest if their goal is to promote economic development. In Niagara region, many residents and local politicians have raised concerns that the NPCA has a pro-development agenda.
One example of conservation-related work is Natural Heritage Reviews. Natural heritage features basically include anything wet or green – wetlands, forests, rocky outcrops, etc. Currently, when someone wants to develop land, they have to go through a Natural Heritage Review first – in other words, their application is reviewed with the goal of ensuring that it will have as little negative impact on the land as possible.
Right now, conservation authorities are responsible for Natural Heritage Reviews that involve floodplains, wetlands, valleylands and slopes and dynamic beaches. Municipalities, on the other hand, are allowed to carry out Natural Heritage Reviews that involve woodlands and “significant” woodlands.
In Niagara, there has been an agreement in place for a decade between the NPCA and Niagara Region in which the NPCA carries out all Natural Heritage Reviews. It makes sense – the NPCA has the expertise, the ecologists, the biologists, and the experts needed to carry out these reviews. However, recently, the NPCA cut their Watershed Management Department in half, stating that some of the Natural Heritage Review work those staff were doing is Niagara Region’s responsibility.
It is OPSEU’s recommendation that conservation-related duties be carried out by conservation authorities to ensure that the staff with the expertise carry out the work, and that their mission be related to conservation rather than development.
OPSEU recommends: Enabling MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
OPSEU applauds the move to enable MNRF to conduct program and operational reviews. We would recommend that this be extended to the carrying out of financial audits as well. We would also recommend that any such ordered audit, program or operational review be carried out by the ministry or the Auditor General, that the report be received by the minister, and that the report be made public.
In the case of the NPCA, having this process in place would have saved what has been almost a year of delay in getting a financial and operational audit of the conservation authority done. Municipalities and provincial politicians have been demanding that the NPCA be audited. At first, the NPCA refused to do an audit. Then they finally agreed to do an audit, but refused an offer by the Auditor General to do a free audit. Then they put out an RFP to private auditors which would report back to the NPCA. Then, after public pressure, they cancelled that RFP and agreed to approach the Auditor General and accept her offer. Unfortunately, the Auditor General now no longer has space in her schedule to carry it out.
This is why OPSEU is pleased to see the intention to allow the MNRF to carry out program and operational reviews, and we hope this will be extended to financial audits as well.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU is pleased to see that the ministry intends to “increase Indigenous, public and stakeholder outreach and engagement.” We would like to see this expanded to include “meaningful consultation” as well.
We also note that there is an intention to ensure public consultation included in conservation authority restructuring decisions. However, this appears to be specifically related to the amalgamation or expansion of conservation authorities.
OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.
Our submission today will focus on the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. We commend Ontario for attempting to address the need for stronger oversight of conservation authorities in Ontario.
As members of all three parties have noted in the legislature, there are serious problems at the NPCA. Issues that have been raised by community stakeholders and the media include poor management of staff, financial mismanagement, questionable hiring, firing and reorganizing practices, and a pro-development bias on the part of senior management and some Board members.
While many of the province’s conservation authorities are running well, we have seen that there is little that can be done by the province when a conservation authority “goes rogue.” We believe Bill 139 has the potential to bring accountability and provincial oversight to conservation authorities when necessary.
OPSEU is pleased to offer the following recommendations for strengthening this proposed legislation. We believe the legislation should:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU recommends: Empowering the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
In Section 1 of Conserving our Future: A modernized Conservation Authorities Act, there are several actions listed for strengthening accountability and oversight of conservation authorities, including allowing the province to do program and operational reviews. OPSEU applauds this layer of oversight, but we would like to see an enforcement mechanism included as well.
In Niagara, the NPCA has been scandal-plagued for the past two years. Municipalities, provincial politicians from all three parties, the local media and the general public have demanded that the NPCA be audited, and many have demanded that the province appoint a supervisor. Despite public outcry, the senior management of the NPCA has been able to continue to mismanage the authority with impunity. The province has stated that it is unable to appoint a supervisor because the legislation does not allow it.
The Conservation Authorities Act needs a mechanism that allows the minister to appoint a supervisor or administrator to take over operations at conservation authorities when the minister deems it necessary.
OPSEU recommends: Empowering MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities
Currently, municipalities appoint members to conservation authority boards. In most municipalities, this has worked well. However, this system does not allow the province to ensure that conservation authority board members are qualified to do their jobs. And it does not allow the province to step in when necessary to remove board members in those few cases where it is not working well.
OPSEU understands the importance of municipal input into the appointment of conservation authority board members. However, we also have learned through experience at the NPCA that it is impossible under the current system of appointments to hold conservation authority board members accountable.
OPSEU recommends that the minister be responsible for appointing and, if necessary, removing board members from conservation authorities, with strong input and consultation with municipalities. In most cases, we understand that the practice would be that municipalities make recommendations and the ministry would approve those recommendations. But it would also ensure that the ministry has the power to block or remove an appointment if it is deemed necessary. The minister can also ensure that the candidates for appointment have conservation-related qualifications.
Making the minister ultimately responsible for conservation authority board appointments ensures that there will be that extra layer of accountability built into the process.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
Conservation authority board members make serious decisions about the protection of the watershed and our environment at the local level. The decisions they make about programs and operations directly affect the land they are entrusted to protect.
Along with “developing best management practices for the recruitment and selection of authority members including best practices for the appointment of non-elected individuals,” we would like the legislation to include the requirement that members have some background or expertise in conservation-related issues or work.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
The mandate of conservation authorities is to protect the environment and the land – to promote conservation. The goal of municipalities is often to encourage economic growth and development in their region. These are both important goals.
Unfortunately, when municipalities are responsible for carrying out conservation-related duties such as reviewing development applications for conservation-related issues, they have an inherent conflict of interest if their goal is to promote economic development. In Niagara region, many residents and local politicians have raised concerns that the NPCA has a pro-development agenda.
One example of conservation-related work is Natural Heritage Reviews. Natural heritage features basically include anything wet or green – wetlands, forests, rocky outcrops, etc. Currently, when someone wants to develop land, they have to go through a Natural Heritage Review first – in other words, their application is reviewed with the goal of ensuring that it will have as little negative impact on the land as possible.
Right now, conservation authorities are responsible for Natural Heritage Reviews that involve floodplains, wetlands, valleylands and slopes and dynamic beaches. Municipalities, on the other hand, are allowed to carry out Natural Heritage Reviews that involve woodlands and “significant” woodlands.
In Niagara, there has been an agreement in place for a decade between the NPCA and Niagara Region in which the NPCA carries out all Natural Heritage Reviews. It makes sense – the NPCA has the expertise, the ecologists, the biologists, and the experts needed to carry out these reviews. However, recently, the NPCA cut their Watershed Management Department in half, stating that some of the Natural Heritage Review work those staff were doing is Niagara Region’s responsibility.
It is OPSEU’s recommendation that conservation-related duties be carried out by conservation authorities to ensure that the staff with the expertise carry out the work, and that their mission be related to conservation rather than development.
OPSEU recommends: Enabling MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
OPSEU applauds the move to enable MNRF to conduct program and operational reviews. We would recommend that this be extended to the carrying out of financial audits as well. We would also recommend that any such ordered audit, program or operational review be carried out by the ministry or the Auditor General, that the report be received by the minister, and that the report be made public.
In the case of the NPCA, having this process in place would have saved what has been almost a year of delay in getting a financial and operational audit of the conservation authority done. Municipalities and provincial politicians have been demanding that the NPCA be audited. At first, the NPCA refused to do an audit. Then they finally agreed to do an audit, but refused an offer by the Auditor General to do a free audit. Then they put out an RFP to private auditors which would report back to the NPCA. Then, after public pressure, they cancelled that RFP and agreed to approach the Auditor General and accept her offer. Unfortunately, the Auditor General now no longer has space in her schedule to carry it out.
This is why OPSEU is pleased to see the intention to allow the MNRF to carry out program and operational reviews, and we hope this will be extended to financial audits as well.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU is pleased to see that the ministry intends to “increase Indigenous, public and stakeholder outreach and engagement.” We would like to see this expanded to include “meaningful consultation” as well.
We also note that there is an intention to ensure public consultation included in conservation authority restructuring decisions. However, this appears to be specifically related to the amalgamation or expansion of conservation authorities.
OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.
The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) is pleased to offer this submission to the Standing Committee on Social Policy in response to Bill 139, An Act to enact the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017 and the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre Act, 2017 and to amend the Planning Act, the Conservation Authorities Act and various other Acts.
OPSEU represents more than 130,000 members throughout the province in the Ontario Public Service, the broader public service, at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, and in the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology. OPSEU also represents the unionized staff at the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA). For this submission, we have consulted our leadership in the Municipalities sector, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), and the local leadership at the NPCA.
Our submission today will focus on the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. We commend Ontario for attempting to address the need for stronger oversight of conservation authorities in Ontario.
As members of all three parties have noted in the legislature, there are serious problems at the NPCA. Issues that have been raised by community stakeholders and the media include poor management of staff, financial mismanagement, questionable hiring, firing and reorganizing practices, and a pro-development bias on the part of senior management and some Board members.
While many of the province’s conservation authorities are running well, we have seen that there is little that can be done by the province when a conservation authority “goes rogue.” We believe Bill 139 has the potential to bring accountability and provincial oversight to conservation authorities when necessary.
OPSEU is pleased to offer the following recommendations for strengthening this proposed legislation. We believe the legislation should:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU recommends: Empowering the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
In Section 1 of Conserving our Future: A modernized Conservation Authorities Act, there are several actions listed for strengthening accountability and oversight of conservation authorities, including allowing the province to do program and operational reviews. OPSEU applauds this layer of oversight, but we would like to see an enforcement mechanism included as well.
In Niagara, the NPCA has been scandal-plagued for the past two years. Municipalities, provincial politicians from all three parties, the local media and the general public have demanded that the NPCA be audited, and many have demanded that the province appoint a supervisor. Despite public outcry, the senior management of the NPCA has been able to continue to mismanage the authority with impunity. The province has stated that it is unable to appoint a supervisor because the legislation does not allow it.
The Conservation Authorities Act needs a mechanism that allows the minister to appoint a supervisor or administrator to take over operations at conservation authorities when the minister deems it necessary.
OPSEU recommends: Empowering MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities
Currently, municipalities appoint members to conservation authority boards. In most municipalities, this has worked well. However, this system does not allow the province to ensure that conservation authority board members are qualified to do their jobs. And it does not allow the province to step in when necessary to remove board members in those few cases where it is not working well.
OPSEU understands the importance of municipal input into the appointment of conservation authority board members. However, we also have learned through experience at the NPCA that it is impossible under the current system of appointments to hold conservation authority board members accountable.
OPSEU recommends that the minister be responsible for appointing and, if necessary, removing board members from conservation authorities, with strong input and consultation with municipalities. In most cases, we understand that the practice would be that municipalities make recommendations and the ministry would approve those recommendations. But it would also ensure that the ministry has the power to block or remove an appointment if it is deemed necessary. The minister can also ensure that the candidates for appointment have conservation-related qualifications.
Making the minister ultimately responsible for conservation authority board appointments ensures that there will be that extra layer of accountability built into the process.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
Conservation authority board members make serious decisions about the protection of the watershed and our environment at the local level. The decisions they make about programs and operations directly affect the land they are entrusted to protect.
Along with “developing best management practices for the recruitment and selection of authority members including best practices for the appointment of non-elected individuals,” we would like the legislation to include the requirement that members have some background or expertise in conservation-related issues or work.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
The mandate of conservation authorities is to protect the environment and the land – to promote conservation. The goal of municipalities is often to encourage economic growth and development in their region. These are both important goals.
Unfortunately, when municipalities are responsible for carrying out conservation-related duties such as reviewing development applications for conservation-related issues, they have an inherent conflict of interest if their goal is to promote economic development. In Niagara region, many residents and local politicians have raised concerns that the NPCA has a pro-development agenda.
One example of conservation-related work is Natural Heritage Reviews. Natural heritage features basically include anything wet or green – wetlands, forests, rocky outcrops, etc. Currently, when someone wants to develop land, they have to go through a Natural Heritage Review first – in other words, their application is reviewed with the goal of ensuring that it will have as little negative impact on the land as possible.
Right now, conservation authorities are responsible for Natural Heritage Reviews that involve floodplains, wetlands, valleylands and slopes and dynamic beaches. Municipalities, on the other hand, are allowed to carry out Natural Heritage Reviews that involve woodlands and “significant” woodlands.
In Niagara, there has been an agreement in place for a decade between the NPCA and Niagara Region in which the NPCA carries out all Natural Heritage Reviews. It makes sense – the NPCA has the expertise, the ecologists, the biologists, and the experts needed to carry out these reviews. However, recently, the NPCA cut their Watershed Management Department in half, stating that some of the Natural Heritage Review work those staff were doing is Niagara Region’s responsibility.
It is OPSEU’s recommendation that conservation-related duties be carried out by conservation authorities to ensure that the staff with the expertise carry out the work, and that their mission be related to conservation rather than development.
OPSEU recommends: Enabling MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
OPSEU applauds the move to enable MNRF to conduct program and operational reviews. We would recommend that this be extended to the carrying out of financial audits as well. We would also recommend that any such ordered audit, program or operational review be carried out by the ministry or the Auditor General, that the report be received by the minister, and that the report be made public.
In the case of the NPCA, having this process in place would have saved what has been almost a year of delay in getting a financial and operational audit of the conservation authority done. Municipalities and provincial politicians have been demanding that the NPCA be audited. At first, the NPCA refused to do an audit. Then they finally agreed to do an audit, but refused an offer by the Auditor General to do a free audit. Then they put out an RFP to private auditors which would report back to the NPCA. Then, after public pressure, they cancelled that RFP and agreed to approach the Auditor General and accept her offer. Unfortunately, the Auditor General now no longer has space in her schedule to carry it out.
This is why OPSEU is pleased to see the intention to allow the MNRF to carry out program and operational reviews, and we hope this will be extended to financial audits as well.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU is pleased to see that the ministry intends to “increase Indigenous, public and stakeholder outreach and engagement.” We would like to see this expanded to include “meaningful consultation” as well.
We also note that there is an intention to ensure public consultation included in conservation authority restructuring decisions. However, this appears to be specifically related to the amalgamation or expansion of conservation authorities.
OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.
The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) is pleased to offer this submission to the Standing Committee on Social Policy in response to Bill 139, An Act to enact the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017 and the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre Act, 2017 and to amend the Planning Act, the Conservation Authorities Act and various other Acts.
OPSEU represents more than 130,000 members throughout the province in the Ontario Public Service, the broader public service, at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, and in the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology. OPSEU also represents the unionized staff at the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA). For this submission, we have consulted our leadership in the Municipalities sector, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), and the local leadership at the NPCA.
Our submission today will focus on the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. We commend Ontario for attempting to address the need for stronger oversight of conservation authorities in Ontario.
As members of all three parties have noted in the legislature, there are serious problems at the NPCA. Issues that have been raised by community stakeholders and the media include poor management of staff, financial mismanagement, questionable hiring, firing and reorganizing practices, and a pro-development bias on the part of senior management and some Board members.
While many of the province’s conservation authorities are running well, we have seen that there is little that can be done by the province when a conservation authority “goes rogue.” We believe Bill 139 has the potential to bring accountability and provincial oversight to conservation authorities when necessary.
OPSEU is pleased to offer the following recommendations for strengthening this proposed legislation. We believe the legislation should:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU recommends: Empowering the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
In Section 1 of Conserving our Future: A modernized Conservation Authorities Act, there are several actions listed for strengthening accountability and oversight of conservation authorities, including allowing the province to do program and operational reviews. OPSEU applauds this layer of oversight, but we would like to see an enforcement mechanism included as well.
In Niagara, the NPCA has been scandal-plagued for the past two years. Municipalities, provincial politicians from all three parties, the local media and the general public have demanded that the NPCA be audited, and many have demanded that the province appoint a supervisor. Despite public outcry, the senior management of the NPCA has been able to continue to mismanage the authority with impunity. The province has stated that it is unable to appoint a supervisor because the legislation does not allow it.
The Conservation Authorities Act needs a mechanism that allows the minister to appoint a supervisor or administrator to take over operations at conservation authorities when the minister deems it necessary.
OPSEU recommends: Empowering MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities
Currently, municipalities appoint members to conservation authority boards. In most municipalities, this has worked well. However, this system does not allow the province to ensure that conservation authority board members are qualified to do their jobs. And it does not allow the province to step in when necessary to remove board members in those few cases where it is not working well.
OPSEU understands the importance of municipal input into the appointment of conservation authority board members. However, we also have learned through experience at the NPCA that it is impossible under the current system of appointments to hold conservation authority board members accountable.
OPSEU recommends that the minister be responsible for appointing and, if necessary, removing board members from conservation authorities, with strong input and consultation with municipalities. In most cases, we understand that the practice would be that municipalities make recommendations and the ministry would approve those recommendations. But it would also ensure that the ministry has the power to block or remove an appointment if it is deemed necessary. The minister can also ensure that the candidates for appointment have conservation-related qualifications.
Making the minister ultimately responsible for conservation authority board appointments ensures that there will be that extra layer of accountability built into the process.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
Conservation authority board members make serious decisions about the protection of the watershed and our environment at the local level. The decisions they make about programs and operations directly affect the land they are entrusted to protect.
Along with “developing best management practices for the recruitment and selection of authority members including best practices for the appointment of non-elected individuals,” we would like the legislation to include the requirement that members have some background or expertise in conservation-related issues or work.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
The mandate of conservation authorities is to protect the environment and the land – to promote conservation. The goal of municipalities is often to encourage economic growth and development in their region. These are both important goals.
Unfortunately, when municipalities are responsible for carrying out conservation-related duties such as reviewing development applications for conservation-related issues, they have an inherent conflict of interest if their goal is to promote economic development. In Niagara region, many residents and local politicians have raised concerns that the NPCA has a pro-development agenda.
One example of conservation-related work is Natural Heritage Reviews. Natural heritage features basically include anything wet or green – wetlands, forests, rocky outcrops, etc. Currently, when someone wants to develop land, they have to go through a Natural Heritage Review first – in other words, their application is reviewed with the goal of ensuring that it will have as little negative impact on the land as possible.
Right now, conservation authorities are responsible for Natural Heritage Reviews that involve floodplains, wetlands, valleylands and slopes and dynamic beaches. Municipalities, on the other hand, are allowed to carry out Natural Heritage Reviews that involve woodlands and “significant” woodlands.
In Niagara, there has been an agreement in place for a decade between the NPCA and Niagara Region in which the NPCA carries out all Natural Heritage Reviews. It makes sense – the NPCA has the expertise, the ecologists, the biologists, and the experts needed to carry out these reviews. However, recently, the NPCA cut their Watershed Management Department in half, stating that some of the Natural Heritage Review work those staff were doing is Niagara Region’s responsibility.
It is OPSEU’s recommendation that conservation-related duties be carried out by conservation authorities to ensure that the staff with the expertise carry out the work, and that their mission be related to conservation rather than development.
OPSEU recommends: Enabling MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
OPSEU applauds the move to enable MNRF to conduct program and operational reviews. We would recommend that this be extended to the carrying out of financial audits as well. We would also recommend that any such ordered audit, program or operational review be carried out by the ministry or the Auditor General, that the report be received by the minister, and that the report be made public.
In the case of the NPCA, having this process in place would have saved what has been almost a year of delay in getting a financial and operational audit of the conservation authority done. Municipalities and provincial politicians have been demanding that the NPCA be audited. At first, the NPCA refused to do an audit. Then they finally agreed to do an audit, but refused an offer by the Auditor General to do a free audit. Then they put out an RFP to private auditors which would report back to the NPCA. Then, after public pressure, they cancelled that RFP and agreed to approach the Auditor General and accept her offer. Unfortunately, the Auditor General now no longer has space in her schedule to carry it out.
This is why OPSEU is pleased to see the intention to allow the MNRF to carry out program and operational reviews, and we hope this will be extended to financial audits as well.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU is pleased to see that the ministry intends to “increase Indigenous, public and stakeholder outreach and engagement.” We would like to see this expanded to include “meaningful consultation” as well.
We also note that there is an intention to ensure public consultation included in conservation authority restructuring decisions. However, this appears to be specifically related to the amalgamation or expansion of conservation authorities.
OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.
OPSEU has been strongly advocating for the staff of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) all year long. Our members are conservation experts who work for the conservation authority.
OPSEU is now taking our members' issues to Queen's Park. Bill 139 aims in part to modernize the Conservation Authorities Act. OPSEU has provided recommendations to strengthen this legislation in the following submission to the Standing Committee on Social Policy at Queen's Park.
Bringing accountability and provincial oversight to conservation authorities
A submission to the Standing Committee on Social Policy from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union regarding Bill 139, An Act to enact the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017 and the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre Act, 2017 and to amend the Planning Act, the Conservation Authorities Act and various other Acts.
October 18, 2017
Introduction
The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) is pleased to offer this submission to the Standing Committee on Social Policy in response to Bill 139, An Act to enact the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017 and the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre Act, 2017 and to amend the Planning Act, the Conservation Authorities Act and various other Acts.
OPSEU represents more than 130,000 members throughout the province in the Ontario Public Service, the broader public service, at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, and in the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology. OPSEU also represents the unionized staff at the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA). For this submission, we have consulted our leadership in the Municipalities sector, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), and the local leadership at the NPCA.
Our submission today will focus on the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. We commend Ontario for attempting to address the need for stronger oversight of conservation authorities in Ontario.
As members of all three parties have noted in the legislature, there are serious problems at the NPCA. Issues that have been raised by community stakeholders and the media include poor management of staff, financial mismanagement, questionable hiring, firing and reorganizing practices, and a pro-development bias on the part of senior management and some Board members.
While many of the province’s conservation authorities are running well, we have seen that there is little that can be done by the province when a conservation authority “goes rogue.” We believe Bill 139 has the potential to bring accountability and provincial oversight to conservation authorities when necessary.
OPSEU is pleased to offer the following recommendations for strengthening this proposed legislation. We believe the legislation should:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU recommends: Empowering the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
In Section 1 of Conserving our Future: A modernized Conservation Authorities Act, there are several actions listed for strengthening accountability and oversight of conservation authorities, including allowing the province to do program and operational reviews. OPSEU applauds this layer of oversight, but we would like to see an enforcement mechanism included as well.
In Niagara, the NPCA has been scandal-plagued for the past two years. Municipalities, provincial politicians from all three parties, the local media and the general public have demanded that the NPCA be audited, and many have demanded that the province appoint a supervisor. Despite public outcry, the senior management of the NPCA has been able to continue to mismanage the authority with impunity. The province has stated that it is unable to appoint a supervisor because the legislation does not allow it.
The Conservation Authorities Act needs a mechanism that allows the minister to appoint a supervisor or administrator to take over operations at conservation authorities when the minister deems it necessary.
OPSEU recommends: Empowering MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities
Currently, municipalities appoint members to conservation authority boards. In most municipalities, this has worked well. However, this system does not allow the province to ensure that conservation authority board members are qualified to do their jobs. And it does not allow the province to step in when necessary to remove board members in those few cases where it is not working well.
OPSEU understands the importance of municipal input into the appointment of conservation authority board members. However, we also have learned through experience at the NPCA that it is impossible under the current system of appointments to hold conservation authority board members accountable.
OPSEU recommends that the minister be responsible for appointing and, if necessary, removing board members from conservation authorities, with strong input and consultation with municipalities. In most cases, we understand that the practice would be that municipalities make recommendations and the ministry would approve those recommendations. But it would also ensure that the ministry has the power to block or remove an appointment if it is deemed necessary. The minister can also ensure that the candidates for appointment have conservation-related qualifications.
Making the minister ultimately responsible for conservation authority board appointments ensures that there will be that extra layer of accountability built into the process.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
Conservation authority board members make serious decisions about the protection of the watershed and our environment at the local level. The decisions they make about programs and operations directly affect the land they are entrusted to protect.
Along with “developing best management practices for the recruitment and selection of authority members including best practices for the appointment of non-elected individuals,” we would like the legislation to include the requirement that members have some background or expertise in conservation-related issues or work.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
The mandate of conservation authorities is to protect the environment and the land – to promote conservation. The goal of municipalities is often to encourage economic growth and development in their region. These are both important goals.
Unfortunately, when municipalities are responsible for carrying out conservation-related duties such as reviewing development applications for conservation-related issues, they have an inherent conflict of interest if their goal is to promote economic development. In Niagara region, many residents and local politicians have raised concerns that the NPCA has a pro-development agenda.
One example of conservation-related work is Natural Heritage Reviews. Natural heritage features basically include anything wet or green – wetlands, forests, rocky outcrops, etc. Currently, when someone wants to develop land, they have to go through a Natural Heritage Review first – in other words, their application is reviewed with the goal of ensuring that it will have as little negative impact on the land as possible.
Right now, conservation authorities are responsible for Natural Heritage Reviews that involve floodplains, wetlands, valleylands and slopes and dynamic beaches. Municipalities, on the other hand, are allowed to carry out Natural Heritage Reviews that involve woodlands and “significant” woodlands.
In Niagara, there has been an agreement in place for a decade between the NPCA and Niagara Region in which the NPCA carries out all Natural Heritage Reviews. It makes sense – the NPCA has the expertise, the ecologists, the biologists, and the experts needed to carry out these reviews. However, recently, the NPCA cut their Watershed Management Department in half, stating that some of the Natural Heritage Review work those staff were doing is Niagara Region’s responsibility.
It is OPSEU’s recommendation that conservation-related duties be carried out by conservation authorities to ensure that the staff with the expertise carry out the work, and that their mission be related to conservation rather than development.
OPSEU recommends: Enabling MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry or the Auditor General.
OPSEU applauds the move to enable MNRF to conduct program and operational reviews. We would recommend that this be extended to the carrying out of financial audits as well. We would also recommend that any such ordered audit, program or operational review be carried out by the ministry or the Auditor General, that the report be received by the minister, and that the report be made public.
In the case of the NPCA, having this process in place would have saved what has been almost a year of delay in getting a financial and operational audit of the conservation authority done. Municipalities and provincial politicians have been demanding that the NPCA be audited. At first, the NPCA refused to do an audit. Then they finally agreed to do an audit, but refused an offer by the Auditor General to do a free audit. Then they put out an RFP to private auditors which would report back to the NPCA. Then, after public pressure, they cancelled that RFP and agreed to approach the Auditor General and accept her offer. Unfortunately, the Auditor General now no longer has space in her schedule to carry it out.
This is why OPSEU is pleased to see the intention to allow the MNRF to carry out program and operational reviews, and we hope this will be extended to financial audits as well.
OPSEU recommends: Ensuring that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
OPSEU is pleased to see that the ministry intends to “increase Indigenous, public and stakeholder outreach and engagement.” We would like to see this expanded to include “meaningful consultation” as well.
We also note that there is an intention to ensure public consultation included in conservation authority restructuring decisions. However, this appears to be specifically related to the amalgamation or expansion of conservation authorities.
OPSEU recommends that the legislation ensure that the public be consulted on all major decisions taken by conservation authorities. Recent examples that come to mind from the NPCA include a restructuring decision that resulted in the layoff of half of the NPCA’s Watershed Management Department – this was done behind closed doors without public consultation. Another example is that the NPCA held secret meetings with Niagara Region regarding an MOU that significantly changes how conservation work is carried out.
We hope that it will be made clear in the legislation that all significant decisions that affect restructuring or major operational decisions must include meaningful public consultation first.
Conclusion
OPSEU appreciates the opportunity to share our recommendations with the Standing Committee on Social Policy:
- Empower MNRF to appoint a supervisor to oversee operations of conservation authorities when necessary.
- Empower MNRF to appoint and remove conservation authority board members, in consultation with municipalities.
- Ensure that conservation authority board members have some background or expertise in conservation issues.
- Ensure that conservation-related duties related to land and water are the responsibility of conservation authorities and not municipalities.
- Enable MNRF to order financial audits of conservation authorities, carried out by either the ministry of the Auditor General.
- Ensure that conservation authorities carry out meaningful consultation with the public on major decisions.
Our members, as well as the general public in Niagara Region have a direct interest in the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. While we realize that most conservation authorities have been operating well, we hope that these changes will result in more public accountability and provincial oversight for the NPCA, while allowing all conservation authorities the ability to continue to do the excellent conservation work they do.