NPCA audit points to larger governance issue

The governance structure of conservation authorities require greater attention from the Province of Ontario.

That is one of the main points made by the release last week of a special audit of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, conducted by the office of Ontario’s auditor general Bonnie Lysyk.

Yet this week, in response to a question from Niagara Centre New Democrat MPP Jeff Burch regarding what the provincial government is doing in response to the audit, Ontario Minister of the Environment, Parks and Conservation Rod Phillips, said “issues raised in Niagara do not reflect concerns with all Ontario conservation authorities.”

Burch had asked if the province would perform a “clean sweep” at the NPCA, replacing its board of directors and senior management and installing a supervisor to oversee implementation of the 24 recommendations made by Lysyk’s lengthy and detailed report. Phillips never directly addressed the question.

While most of the audit’s recommendations — 18 of them — related directly to the NPCA, there were a further six directed at the ministry.

The recommendations directed at the NPCA are proof the authority has not been the well-governed, transparent operation its defenders have made it out to be. They include recommendations surrounding issues such as questionable hiring and employment practices, poor enforcement of provincial conservation regulations, questionable financial decisions and more.

Among those directed to the province, the most important to our mind was that dealing with governance.

Lysyk’s report found NPCA board members inappropriately interfere with the day-to-day operations of the agency, including doing such things as lobbying for development projects that are in the best interest of a board member’s home municipality.

Among several examples of this was the decision by board members to lobby for a controversial residential development next to the Thundering Waters wetland in Niagara Falls, even when told by NPCA staff that a scheme to transplant the wetland wasn’t supported by science. The NPCA board is made up of 15 individuals, 12 of them from Niagara. Two are from Hamilton and one is from Haldimand County, which fall within the watershed area which the NPCA oversees. A majority of these appointees are municipal councillors.

The very first recommendation in Lysyk’s report calls for the province to “ensure effective oversight of conservation authorities’ activities through boards of directors” by clarifying “board members’ accountability to the conservation authority.”

This recommendation did not apply to the NPCA only but to all conservation authorities in Ontario. The NPCA is one of 36 authorities which have been created under the Conservation Authorities Act.

In its opening section, subtitled Reflections, the auditor general’s report says: “During our audit, we found significant operational issues specific to the NPCA. Many of these issues stem from a broader governance issue relevant to all conservation authorities that will need clarification and guidance from the Province to overcome. The Act states that conservation authority board members have the authority to vote and generally act on behalf of their respective municipalities.”

And that is often in conflict with the legislated role of the authorities. The ministry, in its response to the recommendation, agreed that the responsibilities of board members require clarification.

We don’t think this goes far enough. The province needs to take a more forceful approach and amend the Conservation Authorities Act, to ensure a better balance exists on authority boards between appointees from local municipal councils and those with expertise in conservation and science. Only then will we see all of Ontario’s conservation authorities enabled to fulfil the mandate included within their names — conservation.