PCs have stripped conservation authorities of the power to protect us from the worst impacts of climate change

“I’ve worked with communities on their worst days. The day infrastructure fails. The day the flood hits. The day there is a loss of property, (or worse, life). I’ve worked with people facing environmental emergencies: drinking water contamination; floods with people displaced from their homes; landslides where infrastructure slides away; and legacy development that floods, shifts, and sinks.”

Just two months into her role as the general manager of Conservation Ontario, Angela Coleman found herself in a dilemma—responding to the Progressive Conservative government’s push to fast-track development by limiting oversight provided by Conservation Authorities (CAs).

A lawyer with over two decades of experience working closely with communities and municipalities before joining Conservation Ontario, Coleman described herself as a practical person who took on the job knowing that “sound advice and a reasoned approach is necessary to speed development approvals without: undue cost; delays; or harm to the natural environment or public safety.”

This measured approach, however, was being put to the test. As Doug Ford’s government pushed forward with its ambitious housing agenda, Coleman warned that cutting Conservation Authorities out of the process could have lasting consequences.

“In my experience, decision makers do not intend to put people and property at risk. Further, most people do not expect nor believe the worst can happen: it can and does,” Coleman said during a Standing Committee session on Heritage, Infrastructure, and Cultural Policy while discussing Bill 23.

On November 28, 2022, Bill 23, dubbed the More Homes Built Faster Act, was passed less than a month after being introduced in October as part of the PC’s Housing Supply Action Plan. The legislation aimed to fast-track development, streamline housing approvals, and, in Doug Ford’s words, make it “easier to build the right type of housing in the right place.” 

It was a key step toward fulfilling the PCs’ 2022 campaign pledge to construct 1.5 million new homes by 2031.

But this promise came at a cost—repealing 36 regulations that allowed CAs to directly oversee the development process, resulting in negative consequences for nine key environmental and development-related statutes.

The consequences of Bill 23 have become evident in the GTA, particularly in Peel, where chronic underfunding had already left flood infrastructure and relief programs struggling to keep up.

In 2024, Mississauga was hit by two back-to-back “once-in-a-century” storms in July and August, dumping a staggering 497 millimetres of rain over just two months. Basements filled with water, roads and highways turned into rivers, and entire neighbourhoods were left dealing with the aftermath.

The devastation wasn’t limited to Mississauga. Intense flash flooding between July 15-16 battered Toronto and other parts of southern Ontario, causing an estimated $940 million in insured damages, according to initial assessments from Catastrophe Indices and Quantification Inc. (CatIQ), as reported by the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

The PC government rejected claims about the role of conservation authorities being undermined by the legislation.

In reality, Bill 23 eliminated the need for CA permits related to water-taking, interference with rivers, streams, wetlands, creeks, flood control, and erosion, undermining their ability to regulate or block developments approved under the Planning Act that could harm critical ecosystems.

Coleman warned that the Bill “separates the protection of wetlands and other green features from natural hazard planning,” stripping away critical safeguards. 

These natural features, she explained, “slow floodwaters and flows” and serve as vital buffers against extreme weather events.

The Bill prevented CAs from considering “pollution” or “conservation” when issuing permits, weakening their role in safeguarding the environment.

Comment received by Ontario’s government regarding Bill 23 that addresses the proposal to remove the “Pollution” and “Conservation of Land” tests.

(Government of Ontario)

It prohibited CAs from partnering with municipalities to review planning proposals, cutting off valuable expert advice on environmental and natural heritage issues.

Without proper oversight, many municipalities—especially those lacking specialized expertise—could struggle to assess these risks on their own, increasing their liability and exposure to disaster, Coleman reminded the government in the letter.

This wasn’t the first time the PCs stripped powers away from conservation authorities.

In 2020, as part of Bill 229, amendments were made to the Conservation Authorities Act, restricting their ability to provide input on matters beyond mandatory programs, such as natural heritage, unless a municipal agreement was in place.

Both Bill 229 and Bill 23 shared something in common: weakening conservation authority powers and granting the minister of natural resources the authority to approve development applications, a move widely seen as an effort to loosen development restrictions in the Greenbelt.

Under Bill 229, one of the amendments allowed the government to use Ministerial Zoning Orders (MZOs) to force conservation authorities to approve developments, even if they had concerns about flooding risks, while another provision required conservation authorities to enter into agreements with developers, allowing them to pay a fee in exchange for the destruction of endangered species habitats.

In response, seven members of Ford’s Greenbelt Council resigned, citing concerns over Bill 229, including the chair, former PC MP David Crombie, who called the amendments “disastrous.”

“It (Bill 229) cuts out the heart of integrated watershed planning and management; severely cripples the Conservation Authorities in the pursuit of their historic stewardship of environmental issues, and now with the grossly expanded use of Ministerial Zoning Orders (MZO) and other procedural revisions, essential public discussion and debate will be stifled or shut down,” Crombie wrote in the letter. 

The resignations also included several planners, environmental experts as well as the chief administrative officer and scientist at Credit Valley Conservation Authority at the time.

Under Bill 23, CAs were tasked with identifying “surplus land” they own or manage by December 31, 2024, that could be repurposed for housing development—an effort that raised concerns over the potential risk to protected areas.

The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) identified eight parcels within the Grand River watershed along with 20 acres of land in Guelph, part of the former Kortright Waterfowl Park, for sale. The land’s real estate value had soared dramatically, from just $2,750 per acre in 1977 to nearly $1 million per acre in 2024, making the total value of the parcel approximately $20 million.

Bill 23 threatened to reduce watershed planning, replacing Ontario’s integrated approach with a fragmented system of over 400 municipalities managing development independently.

Coleman reminded the PC government at the time: “It is most often an ordinary weather day when we’re debating: what would be safe, what is a hazard, and what would we need to ensure a successful development proposal. But it’s not the average day Conservation Authorities prepare for. We are planning for the 1:100 year flood, or larger storm. It’s the day the waters rise, when the roads are underwater, and the emergency vehicles must rescue people from their homes.”

Flooding this past summer forced Mississauga Fire and Emergency teams to rescue vulnerable residents.

(Mississauga Fire and Emergency Services)

In February 2022, just ten months before Bill 23 was passed, the province had witnessed what floods can do to a community; large parts of Brampton’s historic Churchville neighbourhood were swallowed by six feet of water after the Credit River overflowed due to ice blockages. Homes in the floodplain were at risk, families were forced to evacuate, and emergency crews scrambled to respond.

Flooding, experts warn, is not just an occasional disaster—it’s Ontario’s most frequent public emergency and Canada’s costliest natural disaster. Liberal MPP Mary-Margaret McMahon echoed these concerns while introducing Bill 56, Fewer Floods, Safer Ontario, stating:

“Flooding is the number one cause of public emergency in Ontario. It’s the number one natural disaster in Canada. It’s costing Canadians more than any other climate issue.” 

Bill 56 was ultimately voted down and among those opposing it, PC MPP Ric Bresee argued that local conservation authorities were best equipped to handle flood prevention, citing their expertise.  

But how could they fulfill that role if their authority was being systematically dismantled?

Environmental Defence’s land use and Ontario environment & counsel program manager Phil Pothen told The Pointer in an interview that through Bill 23, the Ford government removed “not just the direct protection for wetlands and conservation, but the settlement area boundary system that prevented the headwaters of major river systems from getting things was repealed entirely by the provincial government.”

Ironically, Conservation Authorities were established under the Conservation Authorities Act as a direct response to one of Ontario’s deadliest natural disasters—Hurricane Hazel. The 1954 storm ravaged the province, flooding homes and infrastructure built in hazard-prone areas and claiming the lives of 81 people.

"The fact that they were established in the wake of Hurricane Hazel in the '50s because of significant flooding events, to basically be watershed managers, to have the expertise and knowledge to plan in a way that recognizes the need for balance between urban planning and environmental protection. So, they are the experts in watershed planning,” Ontario Nature’s conservation policy and campaigns director Tony Morris told The Pointer.

“Yet, we've seen their mandates kind of continually reduced over the last few years,” narrowing their focus primarily to flooding and erosion control when they cannot be addressed in isolation from broader land-use planning and natural heritage conservation, Morris notes. 

“The changes to Conservation Authority mandates have tried to silo these issues, which really still actually fundamentally goes against what's in the Provincial Planning Statement, which still recognizes that the watershed is an ecologically meaningful scale for planning. So, it's a bit of a contradiction in provincial policy now and provincial priorities in pushing certain development patterns that kind of go against that need for integrated watershed management."

More than two years after Bill 23 was passed, Coleman reflects on the recommendations outlined in the letter, emphasizing that efforts are still ongoing to ensure the protections requested are upheld. "Have some of those protections been maintained? Yes, to some extent," she acknowledges.

Conservation Ontario had two key recommendations for the Ford government as part of its letter to the provincial government.

(Conservation Ontario)

“But there's also always that need to make sure that we're watching things, there's a balance to things, and we do have to work together.”

Morris points out that this government has heavily pushed the idea that sprawl will solve the housing crisis, framing it as a matter of cutting red tape.

“They've portrayed it as cutting red tape, which really has been cutting environmental protections to hasten housing yet it hasn't worked,” he said.

As reported by The Pointer, homeownership has become out of reach for many Ontarians, with the PC government not only driving up housing costs but also stripping away environmental protections. 

When asked about the housing crisis during the provincial debate on February 17, Ford pointed to the bustling cityscape, “all you have to do is look outside the door, there’s more cranes going up in Toronto, right in your own backyard.”

He’s right. The latest RLB Crane Index shows Toronto leads North America with 83 cranes in its core, 43 of which are dedicated to residential projects.

But housing starts in the province have been declining for three consecutive years.

A report from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for February 2025 reveals a 29 percent drop in housing starts across the province last year with just 74,326 housing starts—25,000 fewer than in 2021.

 Ontario ranks third among Canadian provinces with a decline in housing starts.

(CMHC)

“Housing starts are lower than they've ever been in Ontario, and we can't sacrifice our natural areas and farmland to build housing. It will only make congestion worse. It won't actually address affordability. Will affect our food security and it will affect the climate resilience of Ontario as we continue to lose more and more natural areas, wetlands being the main key example,” Morris said.

He pointed to the growing frequency of severe flooding in the province, stressing that continuing to develop wetlands and watersheds will only increase the risk of flooding, bringing “insurance and infrastructure costs in municipalities higher, so it will actually make life more unaffordable.”

Pothen criticized the idea behind Bill 23, saying that weakening conservation authorities would not improve housing output. Instead, he argued, the government has been betting on low-density greenfield development as the solution to the housing crisis. 

"They placed all their eggs in this basket of removing barriers to greenfield development," Pothen explained. 

"But that’s the most expensive and least labour-efficient form of development. It was already costly before interest rates rose, and now that rates are higher, this type of development is no longer viable. Ontario has put all its housing eggs in a basket that no longer exists, and no one can afford it.”

While greenfield development remains unaffordable, the government has been preventing the types of development that would work. 

“Ontario has all the tools that it needs to house a fast-growing population, even with high interest rates. It's the province's own laws and subsidies that have been preventing builders from changing how and what they build in the way that it needs to in order to keep up with demand and end the housing shortage.”

Now, with interest rates rising, the government’s bet on expensive forms of housing development is no longer practical. Pothen argued that the government’s failure to shift focus to more affordable, mid-rise housing is a major barrier to solving the housing crisis.

Looking ahead, the changing political and economic environment might prompt a reevaluation of Ontario’s housing policies. 

Pothen believes that the economic instability triggered by external factors—such as U.S. trade threats—could provide an opening for the government to abandon its previous stance on sprawl. 

With the cost of farmland and food likely to rise, he argued, it no longer makes sense to focus on greenfield development at the expense of agriculture and environmental preservation. 

"Ontario’s housing strategy needs to change," he said. "The focus should shift away from expensive, sprawling developments and toward more sustainable and affordable housing in existing neighbourhoods."

But that can only happen if the powers taken from conservation authorities are restored.

“The good news is that we really have a prime opportunity to turn things around. We have a set of circumstances that makes it viable politically for the government to change course without being accused of flip-flopping.” 

Email: [email protected]

At a time when vital public information is needed by everyone, The Pointer has taken down our paywall on all stories to ensure every resident of Brampton, Mississauga and Niagara has access to the facts. For those who are able, we encourage you to consider a subscription. This will help us report on important public interest issues the community needs to know about now more than ever. You can register for a 30-day free trial HERE. Thereafter, The Pointer will charge $10 a month and you can cancel any time right on the website. Thank you