In a report presented to Council (Planning) on Tuesday, February 18th (2025) by Candace Hamm, Saugeen Shores Development Services Officer, she explained that the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority (SVCA) has proposed an updated Environment Planning and Regulations (EPR) Policies Manual to reflect changes in Provincial legislation, regulations and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
On October 25, 2022, the Ontario government unveiled Bill 23 (More Homes Built Faster) legislation and regulations to meet its goal of building 1.5 million homes in Ontario over the next ten years, and which the 36 conservation authorities (CAs) expressed concerns.
The SVCA describes the Policies Manual as a cornerstone document outlining the SVCA’s approach to environmental planning and regulatory responsibilities and serves as a critical guide for SVCA staff when providing comments on natural hazards under the Planning Act and reviewing permit applications.
However, “The draft EPR Policies Manual indicates that the ‘principle of development’ is preferred to be established through the Planning Act, noting that Planning Act approvals are to be secured first; and SVCA permit approvals second.”
According to Hamm’s report, the SVCA is also “seeking to delegate, or has already delegated, administrative review powers to the General Manager / Secretary-Treasurer”. Therefore, in the draft of the manual, if an applicant requests a review on a permit, it would be subject to review by SVCA staff and not the authority (board of directors). Under regulation, the timeline of review is also required to be within 30 days, however if there were extenuating circumstances, the SVCA could ask for more than 30 days, which is not permitted under the regulation.
Hamm also explained that under the regulation, an applicant can disagree with the authority and, if an application is deemed incomplete, staff could determine that it could be the determining factor for a request for review and, therefore, would “circumvent the entire process”.
She also said that, if the draft manual was accepted as is, if an applicant approached the SVCA in disagreement, the general manager/Secretary-Treasurer would evaluate and the Town would not be afforded the opportunity to approach the SVCA. She, therefore recommended the approval remain with the entire Authority and not the general manager/Secretary-Treasurer.
She also pointed out that a dispute resolution process is lacking in the report and that the Minister now has full power to prevent the SVCA from issuing a permit and has the power to take over the permitting process and to review the process at the request of the applicant. The regulation determining that the Ministry can use these powers came into effect on January 1st and relates to housing, community services, infrastructure, jobs and any other matter that, in the opinion of the Ministry, is of Provincial interest.
“Therefore, it’s of interest to the residents, that there are alternatives for approvals outside the SVCA,” said Hamm. “Therefore, it is recommended that there should be a section in the manual on the Minister’s powers.”
The draft manual also includes several references to climate change but there is no reference in the CA Act or regulations to address the subject of climate change and its impacts. The reference of climate change resides with the Planning Authority with no consultation with Conversation Authorities. The recommendation is that the draft manual be revised to align with the SVCA’s policies, mandates and roles related to climate change.
Councilor and Town representative on the SVCA, Dave Myette, agreed that there should be inclusion in the manual as to the Minister’s powers as it appears to undermine the authority of the Conservation Authorities. “There are also many extenuating circumstances where they 30-day limit cannot be met and, sometimes a resolution with the applicant is met and does not even come to a hearing. The revised flood-plane mapping, particularly in Southampton, where our situation is unique and will allow development to happen a little easier.
Councillor Bud Halpin, also Town SVCA representative, said, “I don’t want to see us getting into a situation that is happening in the US where no-one can say anything. Does climate change affect the watershed?” he asked of Hamm.
Hamm replied that climate change does affect watersheds and that CAs play a supporting role but it is not part of their mandate when it comes to applications.
“I am also eager to hear what the SVCA staff have to say about the report,” said Halpin.
Hamm pointed out that the Authority can delegate power to a ‘body’ or staff, if it is the intention to do that. “The concern is that a request for review should go to the Authority and not remain at the staff level.”
Mayor Luke Charbonneau said that there is no-one who knows more about this manual than Hamm as she drafted the original one. “What is concerning is that manual uses the term Board of Directors when it is actually the Authority. There is a creeping tendency to diminish the role of the Authority. It isn’t like a municipality. The Authority are the people representing municipalities who sit around the table, and all the power rests with the Authority. In drafting policies, they will try to define you as a ‘Board of Directors’ in order to diminish your ability to exercise that authority. You must resist that and as directors you must insist on being referred to as a Conservation Authority.”
The delegation of the Ontario Regulation 41/24 Section 8 Request for Review giving powers to the SVCA General Manager / Secretary-Treasurer is concerning to the Town. Under this framework, the Town, and other applicants from the community, will not be afforded an opportunity to approach the SVCA ‘Board of Directors’ in instances where the applicant disagrees with the determination of the General Manager / Secretary-Treasurer on the completeness of the application, or the studies required in support of the application.
He went on to say that exercising authority means “… not ever delegating authority to the General Manager. What happens is that, if they (GMs) love a project, they will push it right through. In other cases, where their dogma disagrees with what’s being done, they will put it in purgatory and make it spin and spin forever. This policy, through ‘delegation’, perpetuates that and creates situations where applicants, if the GM doesn’t like it, will never find their way out of the review and it will be endless.”
“The administrative review process is, frankly, an unmitigated disaster,” continued the Mayor, “and creates huge problems across our watershed and prevents good developments from moving forward. The Authority needs to insist that it be able to exercise its authority and be the group that applicants can come to first in order to have a hearing before people who are elected and responsible for the watershed.”
As an example, he pointed out an application by Gay-Lea in the community of Teeswater. “The application spun and spun, until the Authority stepped in and said this must be resolved, bring it to us. We are going to have a direct review of this application, and staff said they couldn’t support it. The Authority made the decision to permit it. Although there was an impact to the watershed, Gay-Lea expanded and, had it shut down, the impact on Teeswater would have been a thousand times worse.”
“If the Conservation Authority has its way today,” continued the Mayor, “the impact to Southampton will prevent development across most of the eastern portion of Southampton, because it (CA) is being too narrowly focused on not being flexible at all and is preventing housing from being built in Southampton. If that attitude persists and the Authority doesn’t step in and allow housing to be built, they could sterilize half the developable land in Southampton. That’s the track they are currently on. We have to get serious about conservation authorities and they need to get ‘reigned in’. The members of the Authority who sit around the table need to insist that they are the authority and say bring the decisions to us. We will make the decisions not only for the watershed but for the communities that we represent. Therefore, do not delegate to staff, retain the authority and exercise the authority. I think that we should support the recommendations made in this report as they focus on the work they (CAs) should be doing and insist that they do the work they were elected to do.”
The Mayor also recommended that the report be circulated to the members of the Authority so that members can view the recommendations.
Councillor Bud Halpin pointed out that Saugeen Shores Council is, in fact, often encouraged to delegate authority to staff. He went on to say that Mayor should not characterize that the SVCA did the flood-plane mapping to prevent growth in Southampton. “That mapping can help us and fit in with the whole drainage plan that we have … I think the SVCA want to work with people to allow for development in that area but the flood-plane is really quite shallow and it means raising the grade to around a foot. I don’t think it’s fair to say that the SVCA wants to stifle growth in Southampton. I want to see growth and development without people having wet basements. We can do these things and do them properly.”
Mayor Charbonneau said he didn’t intend to “… characterize their intent, but rather their effect”. “It’s their response to several attempts by the municipality to mitigate issues by presenting reasonable solutions that have been vetted by experts and that have been rejected by the Authority. With great respect, I think the Authority is indeed stifling growth there through its inflexibility … and the effect is to stifle growth in Southampton.
In her report, Hamm suggested that the SVCA ask that comments on the draft update be forwarded to the SVCA members for consideration before a final manual is brought to the SVCA ‘Board of Directors’/Authority for approval.
Councillor Dave Myette suggested he and Halpin would ensure the other members of the Authority receive a copy of the draft.
Vice-Deputy Mayor Mike Myatt said he would hate to see the changes and recommendations in the report get lost and wanted to see them go directly to SVCA members.
Deputy Mayor Diane Huber also expressed that Councillor Halpin had made a good point about delegating to staff. “I agree that the Authority should have the ultimate decision making power and we should remember that too. We should make sure that our own house is set up in a way that we are also following through with that. I recognize that that there is validity from both sides but with this question of delegation, we struggle with that too here. With one exception all of here have sat on the SVCA governance body and all have experience there but I certainly appreciate that Councillors Myette and Halpin bring us insights when SVCA is on our agenda.”
CAO Kara Van Myall pointed out that when it comes to delegation, Saugueen staff brings items for approval to Council but, when there is a dispute resolution, it is always brought to Council.
