conservation

Thursday December 10, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday December 10, 2020

Doug Ford takes an axe to greenbelt protections

First, Doug Ford big-footed environmental protections and local authority. Then he went home early, adjourning the legislature until February. Not a bad day’s work for Ford and friends.

November 13, 2020

Under the cover of COVID-19, the government is hacking and slashing the network of regulations and oversight that for years helped balance the preservation of Ontario’s environment with the interests of voracious development.

Think back to before Ford became leader of the not-progressive conservative party. He was recorded telling a roomful of his development industry friends that he would ensure Ontario’s cherished greenbelt would be opened to allow development.

In case you’ve forgotten, the outcry was immediate and very loud. So much so that Ford had to publicly retract his pledge, and reassure Ontarians that he would respect their will on the greenbelt.

But Ford never said he wouldn’t use a back door to accomplish the same objectives. This week, he demonstrated that he has done exactly that.

May 3, 2018

Schedule 6 may sound innocuous, but it is anything but. Passed this week as part of the government’s Bill 229 — a pandemic recovery bill for heaven’s sake — it neuters all of Ontario’s conservation authorities. Their mandate is now dramatically narrower, and a government minister will have the power to veto conservation authority decisions. 

Ontarians have been able to rely on conservation authorities for years to effectively manage and protect rivers, tributaries, wetlands, forests and local drinking water. CAs are not perfect, but they generally work, and they represent local and regional interests. No longer. 

In another alarming change, the Conservation Authorities Act has been amended to allow the provincial minister complete control over issuing permits, with or without input from CAs. And there is no appealing the decisions.

December 11, 2018

Not satisfied with hobbling conservation authorities, the government is also making increased use of Ministerial Zoning Orders. MZOs allow the provincial minister to override planning and zoning decisions, regardless of local government or public input. Again, the decisions cannot be appealed.

This destruction of local control has not gone unnoticed. Conservation authorities, mayors, the Association of Ontario Municipalities, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the World Wildlife Fund (Canada), Ontario Nature and Environmental Defence of Ontario have all spoken out strongly against the government’s centralization of control. Countless letters to the editor, columns and editorials have condemned the changes.

The government’s response was to double down and push the changes through, hidden deep in pandemic recovery omnibus legislation. 

All this is part of a disturbing big picture. Remember the Ontario Municipal Board, which provided a flawed method of appealing local planning decisions? The government replaced it with the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT) a developer-friendly organization that almost always rules on the side of unfettered development.

Then came MZOs, being used increasingly to authorize zoning and planning changes in the absence of local due process and input. Then came the gutting of conservation areas, with their crucial oversight, including of Ontario’s drinking water.

Does anyone else see a theme here? Ever since Doug Ford blew up Toronto city council to suit his personal whims, it has been clear he is not remotely interested in local decision-making authority. He wants Ontario open for business, regardless of environmental impact. And he’s getting his wish. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Friday November 13, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday November 13, 2020

Don’t give free rein to Ontario’s developers

Doug Ford is moving quickly but quietly to give Ontario’s developers the upper hand over Ontario’s environment.

November 22, 2019

For proof of this ominous change, check out how Premier Ford’s provincial government is stripping away the powers of Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities when it comes to approving new development in many of the province’s most vital natural areas.

Since mid-20th century, conservation authorities have been responsible not only for controlling floods but for protecting and restoring the land, water and natural habitats in this province. They’ve done a superb job, too, even if many developers consider them nothing more than red tape that slows or stops a money-making venture.

But in defiance of this long-held mandate, the Progressive Conservatives last week unveiled legislation that would curtail the conservation authorities’ ability to act as environmental guardians. And as if it was hoping the public wouldn’t notice what it was doing, the government slipped its proposals into its fat, omnibus budget bill.

The public, however, should take notice. What we’re witnessing is a direct threat to responsible environmental and land-use planning.

The new legislation would end the conservation authorities’ role in offering an informed response to development applications and how those applications might impact sensitive natural environments. More power to decide the fate of a proposed development, however controversial, would be handed to the provincial Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

If, where it still had jurisdiction, a conservation authority refused to issue a permit or imposed conditions for a development, a disgruntled developer could appeal directly to the natural resources minister or the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. Until now, someone appealing a permit denial would have to go directly to the local conservation authority’s executive.

December 11, 2018

What the Ford government is doing is politicizing environmental and land-use planning. At the very least, its proposed changes to the Conservation Authorities Act raise the possibility a developer with a friend in government could one day win approval for a project over well-founded, local opposition.

This shouldn’t happen but the government intends to go even further. The province doesn’t want watershed management and conservation to remain core conservation authority programs, for which municipalities would have to pay. Instead, they would become voluntary programs a municipality could choose to support — or not. 

The Ford government seems to have a grudge against conservation authorities. Last year, it slashed its funding for the authorities by 50 per cent while telling them flood control must become their core mandate. Those shrunken budgets have made it harder for conservation authorities to plant trees, restore forests, and prevent soil erosion and water pollution, all jobs that make for a healthier environment.

May 3, 2018

If the new legislation passes, Ontario’s river valleys, flood plains, wetlands, Great Lakes shorelines — indeed, its water supplies — would be vulnerable to degradation in even more ways. It is also worth noting that the same government is increasingly resorting to ministerial zoning orders which allow it to permit development while bypassing the municipal planning process, environmental assessments and meaningful public consultation.

If Ford truly believes the current process for approving development is too cumbersome, he could streamline the rules, perhaps even imposing tighter deadlines for municipal governments and conservation authorities to respond to a project proposal.

But the interests of the economy, development and money have to be balanced with the interests of our environment. And where they can’t, the interests of the environment should prevail. Ontario should, as the song says, be “a place to grow.” But it should be place to grow for healthy environments, not just developers’ bank accounts. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

Saturday September 17, 2016

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð Saturday September 17, 2016 Conservation authority kills Webster's Falls shuttle Fierce opposition has prompted the Hamilton Conservation Authority to park a planned shuttle service to Webster's Falls on weekends and holidays, at least for this year. Chief administrative officer Chris Firth-Eagland said although the bus service can be activated with a month's notice, it's thus far had a hostile reaction, fuelling a "Scuttle This Shuttle" petition campaign. That's given the service's private partners cold feet on what staff hoped could be a solution to the traffic congestion that has plagued the popular Greensville park in recent years, he said. "They're quite concerned that the minute it doesn't work, they become then laughing stocks," Firth-Eagland told the conservation advisory board during a staff presentation on efforts to keep the park from being overrun by visitors. "We don't sense that the community wants us to do this at all," he said. "'War' has been used, that there will be war in response, and all those kinds of things. It's been very difficult for us.Ó Advisory board member Kristen Brittain, who lives in the area, said she's disappointed the shuttle won't get a trial run this year to see if it's viable or if people find ways to park in the area to avoid paying the $10 fee. "Those are outspoken people," she said of the more incendiary responses to the service, which was to run from Mizener's Antiques and Flea Market on Highway 5. "There are the quiet people that live there, too. I'm not a friend or foe (of the shuttle), but I'd be happy to at least give it a try.Ó Authority chair Robert Pasuta, councillor for the area, said he's hopeful new parking restrictions on weekends and holidays that were set to go before council for approval this week will help ease traffic tensions. (Source: Hamilton Spectator)Êhttp://www.thespec.com/news-story/6860667-conservation-authority-kills-webster-s-f

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday September 17, 2016

Conservation authority kills Webster’s Falls shuttle

Fierce opposition has prompted the Hamilton Conservation Authority to park a planned shuttle service to Webster’s Falls on weekends and holidays, at least for this year.

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator - Thursday May 12, 2016 Want to visit Webster's Falls? Be ready to pay $15 The Hamilton Conservation Authority has hiked its fees at Spencer Gorge/Webster Falls Conservation Area in an effort to curb the influx of weekend visitors. "The local environment is taking a pounding," said chief administrative officer Chris Firth-Eagland who estimates the park has seen more than 3,000 people atÊa time during a peak weekend Ñ the park's estimated capacity. He said conservative estimates suggest the park had 140,000 visitors in 2015, up from about 80,000 two years earlier. The increased human activity not onlyÊendangers a fragile ecosystem, including century old trees, "sensitive plant regimes," and bird species like the recently departed Louisiana Waterthrush, it hasÊalso created traffic and parking issues for locals. "The place is gridlocked when the leaves change colours," said Firth-Eagland.Ê As one step in the solution, said Firth-Eagland, the HCA has aligned its pricing to be similar to prominent HCA attractions like Christie Lake, Dundas Valley,ÊValens Lake and Fifty Point. As of May 21, visitors will pay a $10 parking fee and $5 per person to gain access to the Spencer Gorge/Webster Falls park. TheÊrevised fee schedule also applies to the Tew Falls parking area and site. Between May 21 and Oct. 31, HCA membership passes will not gain free admittance on weekends. In all other HCA conservation areas the membershipÊpasses will remain valid on weekends and admittance fees appear to remain unchanged. The City of Waterfalls Initiatives founder Chris Ecklund says the move by the HCA wasn't surprising. "For the waterfall initiative as a whole, the Number 1 complaint is the cost of admission to the HCA properties in general," said Ecklund. "We have peopleÊsaying they can't afford it because they're on a fixed income. "This cost is insanity.Ó (Source: Hamilton Spectator) http://www.thespec.com/news-story/65479

May 12, 2016

Chief administrative officer Chris Firth-Eagland said although the bus service can be activated with a month’s notice, it’s thus far had a hostile reaction, fuelling a “Scuttle This Shuttle” petition campaign.

That’s given the service’s private partners cold feet on what staff hoped could be a solution to the traffic congestion that has plagued the popular Greensville park in recent years, he said.

“They’re quite concerned that the minute it doesn’t work, they become then laughing stocks,” Firth-Eagland told the conservation advisory board during a staff presentation on efforts to keep the park from being overrun by visitors.

“We don’t sense that the community wants us to do this at all,” he said.

“‘War’ has been used, that there will be war in response, and all those kinds of things. It’s been very difficult for us.”

Advisory board member Kristen Brittain, who lives in the area, said she’s disappointed the shuttle won’t get a trial run this year to see if it’s viable or if people find ways to park in the area to avoid paying the $10 fee.

“Those are outspoken people,” she said of the more incendiary responses to the service, which was to run from Mizener’s Antiques and Flea Market on Highway 5.

“There are the quiet people that live there, too. I’m not a friend or foe (of the shuttle), but I’d be happy to at least give it a try.”

Authority chair Robert Pasuta, councillor for the area, said he’s hopeful new parking restrictions on weekends and holidays that were set to go before council for approval this week will help ease traffic tensions. (Source: Hamilton Spectator)

 

Thursday August 25, 2016

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð Thursday August 25, 2016 New permit for Nestle water-taking at low rate 'inappropriate': Wynne Bottled water companies in Ontario may soon have to pay more and take less water as public outcry over revelations that the province charges them just $3.71 for every million litres triggered a government review. There is a difference between taking water for agricultural or industrial use and taking it to sell bottled water, Premier Kathleen Wynne said Wednesday. Some of the conditions of the permits for bottled water use are outdated, she said. "There's the issue of the quantity of water that's taken, there's the issue of the cost of that water," Wynne said. "Also, there's an issue around the timing. As we all know, it's been a dry summer and so I think we need to look at what are the right triggers in place in terms of quantities that are allowable given the conditions.Ó Wynne has asked Environment Minister Glen Murray to review permit conditions for bottled water companies. It will look at whether there is a sufficient price on removing water, he said. "I think for some of the folks that are removing it and taking it away, that they got a really sweet deal," he said. "Maybe too sweet a deal.Ó Environmental group Wellington Water Watchers is urging Ontario not to renew a permit for Nestle Waters in Aberfoyle, Ont., that expired on July 31. It's upset that the company has been allowed to keep extracting water from a local well in the midst of a severe drought in the province. A water-taking permit remains in force if a renewal application is made at least 90 days before it expires. "Quite frankly, that window gives us an opportunity to look at what should change, rather than issuing a new permit under the same parameters as the former permit, which I think would not be appropriate," Wynne said. Times have changed, she said. "Thirty years ago, we wouldn't have envisioned an industry that took water a

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday August 25, 2016

New permit for Nestle water-taking at low rate ‘inappropriate’: Wynne

Bottled water companies in Ontario may soon have to pay more and take less water as public outcry over revelations that the province charges them just $3.71 for every million litres triggered a government review.

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð Thursday June 23, 2016 Waukesha, Wis., plan to tap into Lake Michigan called 'wrong decision' Leamington, Ont., Mayor John Paterson is irate after a group of eight U.S. governors voted Tuesday to allow a small Wisconsin town to draw its drinking water from Lake Michigan. A panel representing governors of the eight states adjoining the Great Lakes unanimously approved a proposal from Waukesha, Wis., which is under a court order to find a solution to radium contamination of its groundwater wells. The city says the project will cost $265 million Cdn for engineering studies, pipelines and other infrastructure.Waukesha is only 27 kilometres from the lake but just outside the Great Lakes watershed. That required the city of about 72,000 to get special permission under the compact, which prohibits most diversions of water across the watershed boundary. Paterson immediately took to Twitter to denounce the decision. His peninsula town, the self-proclaimed Tomato Capital of Canada and home to hundreds of greenhouses, is surrounded by Lake Erie. "This should not be allowed," Paterson told CBC News. "I'm really disappointed it happened. That was unexpected. I actually thought the governor of Michigan was going to side with us. He even bailed.Ó The Michigan Senate adopted a resolution last month opposing Waukesha's request. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder went against that and voted in favour of Waukesha's plan Tuesday. A 2008 pact established a potential exception for communities within counties that straddle the line. Waukesha is the first to request water under that provision. "There are a lot of emotions and politics surrounding this issue, but voting yes Ñ in co-operation with our Great Lakes neighbours Ñ is the best way to conserve one of our greatest natural resources," Snyder said. Snyder also took to social media, to defend his decision.(Source: CBC News) Canada, USA, United States, Great Lakes, water, di

June 23, 2016

There is a difference between taking water for agricultural or industrial use and taking it to sell bottled water, Premier Kathleen Wynne said Wednesday. Some of the conditions of the permits for bottled water use are outdated, she said.

“There’s the issue of the quantity of water that’s taken, there’s the issue of the cost of that water,” Wynne said.

“Also, there’s an issue around the timing. As we all know, it’s been a dry summer and so I think we need to look at what are the right triggers in place in terms of quantities that are allowable given the conditions.”

Wynne has asked Environment Minister Glen Murray to review permit conditions for bottled water companies. It will look at whether there is a sufficient price on removing water, he said.

“I think for some of the folks that are removing it and taking it away, that they got a really sweet deal,” he said. “Maybe too sweet a deal.”

Environmental group Wellington Water Watchers is urging Ontario not to renew a permit for Nestle Waters in Aberfoyle, Ont., that expired on July 31. It’s upset that the company has been allowed to keep extracting water from a local well in the midst of a severe drought in the province.

A water-taking permit remains in force if a renewal application is made at least 90 days before it expires.

“Quite frankly, that window gives us an opportunity to look at what should change, rather than issuing a new permit under the same parameters as the former permit, which I think would not be appropriate,” Wynne said.

Times have changed, she said.

“Thirty years ago, we wouldn’t have envisioned an industry that took water and put it in plastic bottles so that people could carry it around,” Wynne said.

“I mean, we didn’t drink water from plastic bottles 30 years ago. We turned on the tap and the fact is our tap water in Ontario is among the best in the world.”

Nestle Canada has two permits to take up to 4.7 million litres of water every day for bottling. Other bottled water companies with large water-taking permits in Ontario include Gold Mountain Springs, Gott Enterprises and St. Joseph Natural Spring Water. (Source: CTV News)

2016-08-25tearsheet