The Ford government could soon hand itself the final say over developments in ecologically sensitive areas.
Last Monday, PC changes to the Conservation Authorities Act came into force, including new powers to take over the permitting process from conservation authorities.
On Friday, the government posted a new proposed regulation that details how Natural Resources and Forestry Minister Graydon Smith can use those powers. If the regulation is adopted, he will be able to assume control of permitting processes for projects of "provincial interest" — a definition that captures all types of housing, hospitals, highways and office buildings. The full list is as follows:
- Housing (community, affordable and market-based)
- Community services (health, long-term care, education, recreation, socio-cultural, security and safety, environment)
- Transportation infrastructure
- Buildings that facilitate economic development or employment
- Mixed-use developments
The minister would be able to take over the permitting process on his own or in response to a developer request. Developers would have to make their case for why the project is in the provincial interest.
Smith said he wouldn't use the new powers willy-nilly.
"I don't see this as something that will be required all the time," he said. "And we'll be bringing out some goalposts around that quite soon."
The minister said he's heard from many people "frustrated" by some conservation authorities' decision-making processes.
"But what we want to make sure we can do is continue to keep people safe, make sure that conservation authorities can fill their role, while at the same time making sure that if there are questions or concerns around decisions that have, obviously, some really significant variables to them, and a significant consequence, that we would put a second set of eyes on them," he said.
The new regulation would make sure developers use the "appropriate permitting channel," the Environmental Registry of Ontario posting reads.
"Efficiently navigating the permitting process is expected to help save proponents time and resources," the ministry wrote.
Often, developers dealing with "red tape" means conservation authorities are doing their job, Environmental Defence lawyer Phil Pothen said.
The new changes "would not impose any meaningful limit on the minister's powers to directly permit activities that could cause flooding, landslides, erosion or endanger people," Pothen said.
Pothen said he was particularly concerned about allowing developers to go over conservation authorities' heads to the government if their project is denied. Conservation authorities could water down their own decisions to avoid being ignored altogether, he said.
"They might be worried that if they say no, or if they develop a reputation of stringently enforcing the rules, developers will apply directly to the minister, and that would be very dangerous," he said.
Conservation Halton CEO Hassaan Basit said he's still looking at the regulation, but that it "seems very broad."
NDP Leader Marit Stiles connected the changes to the government's biggest environmental scandal.
"I think this is possibly Greenbelt 2.0," she said. "Last week, I was visiting with folks in Milton, who are opposing a quarry there. I've heard from many others across this province who are deeply concerned ... with these changes and what it's going to mean for the protection of wetlands, green spaces."
Green Leader Mike Schreiner said conservation authorities have done a great job of protecting Ontarians with "science- and evidence-based decisions."
"It's incredibly dangerous to have the province step in and say, 'You know what, we're going to potentially allow building in unsafe and inappropriate areas, especially on floodplains,'" he said.
The Ford government has a long history of weakening conservation authorities' powers. Recent changes include lowering the minimum buffer distance between development lands and wetlands from 120 metres to 30 metres and exempting some smaller projects from oversight altogether.
"It's hard to exaggerate the seriousness of the danger arising as a result of all of these changes together," Pothen said. "You combine being able to fill in a wetland, because it's no longer counted as a wetland, with ministers being able to override the safety regulations, and we have clear issues."
