Summary

• The amalgamation of Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities into nine regional bodies is expected to take effect in early 2027.
• A new directive from Environment Minister Todd McCarthy orders conservation authorities to halt any major decision-making processes, such as changing staffing structures or purchasing property, in the meantime.
• After a meeting between Environment Ministry officials and conservation authority staff on May 6, 2026, one public servant told The Narwhal, “The province has essentially handcuffed conservation authorities.”

On Friday, May 1, Ontario Environment Minister Todd McCarthy sent a letter to all conservation authority heads directing them to halt any “significant financial, asset or employment decisions” as the government begins consolidating the agencies tasked with protecting watersheds. 

The letter signals that the work to amalgamate authorities from 36 to nine, and shift oversight to a new government agency that takes direction from McCarthy’s office, has begun. 

Five days later, senior ministry officials told authority staff in an internal meeting that this reorganization will be complicated and still contains many unknowns. 

The directives “were not easy to write,” a senior official said at the meeting. “I’ll be frank to say that this required us to get into the [conservation authority] business in a way that we as a ministry aren’t typically.”

A recording of that meeting, which included discussion of the consolidation on drinking water protections, was shared with The Narwhal by one participant and independently verified by another. The Narwhal is not identifying the officials who led the meeting by name to respect their privacy as public sector workers with limited authority.

In it, a director in the ministry’s conservation and source protection branch notes the directive McCarthy sent out to authorities was not meant to affect the day-to-day business of conservation authorities, but to “put some guardrails in place that would sort of mitigate against any decision, like extraordinary decisions that would not be to the benefit of the regional [conservation authority].” 

Such guardrails are common in government-initiated mergers, the official said, to protect agencies and organizations from decisions that may harm their consolidated form. A staff member from McCarthy’s office, speaking unofficially, told The Narwhal this is “standard operating practice” for any amalgamation, designed to “essentially keep things stable.”  

Rhonda Bateman, chief administrative officer of Lower Trent Conservation, said in an email to The Narwhal, “It was not a surprise. We were expecting some direction.” 

“When businesses amalgamate or are merged, there needs to be a baseline of information available and I believe this is the intent behind the direction,” she said.

Along with the recording, The Narwhal was sent a copy of McCarthy’s letter, which was later publicly posted by the ministry. The Narwhal reached out to 10 conservation authority officials for comment, with most saying they were not allowed to comment, could not comment for fear of repercussions or were still trying to understand the implications of the directive. Five people agreed to speak to The Narwhal for this story, all on the condition of confidentiality. 

“The province has essentially handcuffed conservation authorities,” one public servant who attended the meeting told The Narwhal. “Conservation authorities are not in control now [of the consolidation], and it seems that they won’t be in control moving forward.” 

One conservation authority official in central Ontario said they were “surprised” by the “sweeping” nature of the directive, and felt that the consolidation was “out of our hands.”  

Conservation authorities are tasked with protecting Ontario watersheds by safeguarding local drinking water sources and reducing the risks from natural hazards like flooding, erosion and drought. The government’s move to amalgamate them from 36 agencies to nine is the biggest disruption since the agencies were created 80 years ago, and has created widespread concern about their continued ability to preserve access to fresh water for more than 80 per cent of Ontario residents.

The government’s 2026 budget officially greenlit the consolidation and gave the environment minister powers to issue directives as needed. It also created a new Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency, which will oversee the 36 conservation authorities during the transition, under the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. This agency will work with Hassaan Basit, a longtime conservation authority official who is now the province’s chief conservation executive, and is staffed by a handful of bureaucrats, with a five-person board of directors made up of deputy ministers from other ministries. The agency’s goal is to see resources equally shared among the consolidated conservation authorities.

McCarthy’s first directive on the consolidation restricts conservation authorities’ actions to what has already been set out in their 2026 budgets. That includes making any changes to staff or governance structure, acquiring or disposing of any land, approving any new projects (like wells, for example) or making major purchases without explicit authorization from the government.

The official from McCarthy’s office told The Narwhal they expect conservation authorities to be able to do things that are beyond their budget. “We’ll likely approve it,” they said. “Conservation authorities remain independent.” They also noted that the restrictions don’t apply to land donations, as “they are not an expense.” 

The directive notes there will also be exceptions in responding to “an immediate danger to human life, health or property.” The official from McCarthy’s office said, for example, this could be “if the conservation authority has a dam and the dam is on the verge of breaking and they need to make emergency repairs.” 

These restrictions are in place until at least Feb. 1, 2027, when the consolidation is expected to take effect. They can be amended any time “at the sole discretion of the minister,” according to the letter.

Ontario’s drinking water is tied up in conservation authority changes but officials have few details

The details of how McCarthy’s directive will affect conservation authorities’ work protecting drinking water remain unclear. 

The authorities work closely with community-led source protection committees, which include directors from industries like agriculture, manufacturing and tourism to protect and properly manage drinking water. 

The province’s 19 source protection committees were created on the heels of the deadly water contamination crisis in Walkerton, Ont. They are supported by staff from conservation authorities, who provide data and carry out protective actions as the source protection authority.

The Narwhal reported in April on the impacts of consolidation on source protection committees, and the fact that 15 of the 19 committees had vacant chair positions. The government began seeking people to fill the chair positions soon after.

Many source protection staff were in attendance at the May 6 meeting hosted by Ministry of Environment officials after McCarthy’s directive was issued. 

In the recording of the meeting, ministry officials are heard assuring attendees that they were happy to keep working with conservation authority staff, and that the government remains committed to preserving drinking water protections. But the officials repeatedly said things are still being figured out, with “a range of scenarios” being considered. They acknowledged the lack of answers was “not terribly reassuring” and “anxiety producing, probably” for conservation authorities.  

During the two-hour meeting, ministry officials did not answer direct questions about whether the source protection regions would also be consolidated. 

“I think that is probably the first question that needs to be answered, and we can’t answer it,” the official responded. “Obviously, that has to come from the decisions from whoever is making them.”

McCarthy previously told The Narwhal the 19 source protection committees will remain as they are and work with the nine regional conservation authorities, but said their jurisdictions are “a work in progress.” The government has said changes to the Clean Water Act will be needed but hasn’t specified what those changes will be.  

“We’ve got eight months to sort out the details,” the official from McCarthy’s office told The Narwhal. “The point is not to rush this. We just started the process.”

During the meeting, ministry officials gave two explanations for their inability to answer attendees’ questions. First, they said they weren’t directly part of the decision-making process as the transition is being run by the new Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency, “not the ministry.” And second, they cited cabinet confidentiality, referring to private policy deliberations between Premier Doug Ford, his ministers and senior ministry officials. 

“Typically, sometimes the reason you have to, like, back away and stop engaging is because things become cabinet confidential at a certain point,” a senior official said in the meeting. “I’m not allowed, right? Because it’s become a cabinet process.”

They continued that staff in the ministry were working to ensure source protection plans, for example, weren’t being unnecessarily rewritten, though much of the consolidation process was still being sorted out.

“This isn’t a change many people were asking for and want necessarily, and I fully appreciate that I can’t necessarily know what all this means to you,” one official said in the meeting. They added that they hoped to help conservation authorities understand “what our thinking has been around the transition planning.”

“This is a government that is set to do this,” the official said. “This is happening.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Summary

• With the climate changing and energy demands increasing, many cities set out energy efficiency and other green requirements for new builds.
• Across Ontario, cities have also created grants and other programs to help home and business owners retrofit older buildings with things like heat pumps or insulation.
• The Ford government’s Bill 98 will prevent municipalities from requiring new builds to be green, meaning a whole new generation of buildings could be added to the retrofit backlog.

Over the past decade, Ontario municipalities — and the taxpayers who foot their bills — have spent tens of millions of dollars retrofitting buildings to stave off the worst effects of climate change.

Local governments across southern Ontario have given homeowners grants to transition houses away from natural gas, protect them from extreme temperatures and safeguard their basements from flooding. Businesses have used such funds to cut office energy consumption, reduce the risk of birds crashing into their windows and increase access to nature around their buildings. 

For cities, the idea was simple: fortify structures built before the climate emergency and create rules that ensure new development is prepared for it to worsen. 

At the local level, there’s been broad demand for the initiatives, and positive outcomes as a result. 

In Kingston, Ont., one homeowner lowered the annual emissions of their 1,500-square-foot semi-detached house by 91 per cent by replacing windows, installing a heat pump and insulating the attic, basement and exterior walls. And that translates directly to lower energy bills.

In Toronto, more than 4,000 development projects have met the city’s green standards, which have been in place since 2010. These rules mandate that each building has shared outdoor spaces that aren’t covered by concrete or asphalt, but permeable coverings that absorb stormwater to prevent flooding, among other eco-friendly features. 

Yet despite the climate imperative and public interest, the ability of cities to incentivize greener builds like these is about to get a lot more complicated — and costly in the long run.

Earlier this month, the Doug Ford government introduced new legislation that would block municipalities from taking action to ensure future development is sustainable. The government’s Bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, prevents Ontario cities from requiring developers to include electric-vehicle parking spots or bird-friendly windows, among other things. If the majority Progressive Conservative government passes this bill, local governments won’t even be able to require trees on residential properties.

The Narwhal spoke to four officials who serve in the planning or environment departments of Ontario cities, all of whom asked for confidentiality as they weren’t authorized to speak on the issue. All four said their teams are still analyzing the impacts of Bill 98 to properly respond to the government’s proposal, but that ultimately, they expect local budgets to absorb the likely higher — and unavoidable — costs of deep retrofits. 

“Anything that we require as a standard to protect the environment or reduce emissions through the planning process, we could no longer do if this bill passes as is — including requiring developers to make sure there’s a tree in every yard,” one rural Ontario official said in an interview. “That essentially means that we can’t hold developers accountable, and we’ll have to spend money ourselves to fix what they don’t do. So brace for impact, I guess.” 

Municipal green standards developed in place of scant provincial requirements for building efficiency

For more than a decade, green standards were adopted in either mandatory or voluntary forms by Ontario cities including Toronto, Mississauga, Halton Hills, Markham, Vaughan and Richmond Hill. 

Cities across Durham Region, including Whitby, Ajax and Pickering, for example, have standards for private development that promote green roofs, urban forest protection, stormwater management, renewable energy systems and green spaces. These have been implemented as Durham as a whole develops a green development program for new builds, in an effort to have 100 per cent of new housing achieve net-zero emissions by 2030. 

These cities introduced their standards in part because the provincial building code hasn’t been updated since 2017 and makes no mention of eco-friendly features. It came under scrutiny from the provincial auditor general in 2020 for not being strong enough to substantively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Buildings are the source of 24 per cent of Ontario’s emissions, mainly from the use of fossil fuels like natural gas for heating. And these emissions are likely to increase as the province encourages faster construction to support a rapidly growing population, without requiring energy efficiency. 

If Bill 98 passes, developers would only be held to that now decade-old rulebook on building standards. Municipalities would be thwarted in their efforts to keep new building emissions down. The province recognized this in its own analysis of the changes, stating that ending green standards will result in not just “shifting burden from the development sector to municipalities for sustainability measures” but “unintended environmental impacts.”

“Unfortunately, right now, the only way that municipalities can really afford to build those kinds of infrastructure projects is by borrowing money, incurring debt and then paying it over time … or through development charges,” Markham Mayor Frank Scarpitti said last week, explaining why he opposed the bill’s provisions on green standards. 

“We do not have to turn our back on environmental standards,” Scarpitti said. “The environmental standards can actually be set, and then those projects will meet them.” 

Cities have already been trying to soften the blow of energy efficiency costs on developers. Local green standards are often tied with financial incentives to urge developers to make the shift to greener construction. In 2021, the City of Kingston created a program that offers property tax rebates to builders and private developers who voluntarily construct buildings that strive for net-zero emissions. 

Toronto’s green standards offer a partial refund on development charges for buildings that meet their rules. The more rules a building meets, the higher the refund. Since its inception, this scheme has delivered almost $120 million in refunds to developers.

The success of these programs has inspired other Ontario municipalities to begin working on their own green standards. That includes Hamilton, Ottawa, Waterloo Region, Guelph, Clarington and Oshawa. But their efforts have been paused since Bill 98 was proposed, because it makes building green more complicated.

Ottawa officials, for example, have noted the bill would prevent municipalities from even asking developers to include electric-vehicle spaces in their buildings, even though a process for putting them in place has already been developed.

In an April 8 memorandum, Marcia Wallace, general manager of planning, development and building services for the City of Ottawa, said staff would explore “enabling approaches” like partnerships with the private sector and financial incentives. It did not note whether those incentives could come from taxpayers’ dollars.

Axing green standards means Ontario municipalities have to spend more taxpayer money on building retrofits 

It’s difficult to quantify the cost of building sustainably from the get-go, which depends on size, location and other factors. One study from The Atmospheric Fund in 2012 and another from City of Toronto staff in 2017 suggest the cost of construction would increase by two to four per cent, depending on the building type and community. 

What’s more certain is that retrofitting existing buildings to both lower emissions and withstand some of the symptoms of climate change is a lot more expensive than building green from the start. One Canadian green homebuilder says retrofits can be 50 per cent more expensive. A 2023 study by United Way Greater Toronto estimates a deep energy retrofit of an existing apartment building in Toronto would cost $200,000 per unit.

And all of that is cheaper than leaving homeowners to rebuild after severe flooding. Flood insurance premiums in Ontario have jumped up to 26 per cent in the last two years, according to a new report by a Canadian real estate firm and insurance-rate aggregator.

Many Ontario municipalities are already spending millions to retrofit public buildings and incentivize companies and homeowners to do the same. Now, rather than being able to shrink that budget over time as modern buildings are made more resilient, cities are looking at an exponential growth in cost. 

Guelph and Kingston, for example, have robust home retrofit programs that have been financed to the tune of millions of dollars with support from the federal government. Residents have been eager to take them up on it. 

In April 2022, Kingston’s local retrofit program had to be paused due to “overwhelming interest” resulting in a lengthy waitlist. As of October 2024, it had supported 250 projects. These programs, and several others aimed at lowering greenhouse gas emissions, fall under the city’s climate leadership division, which in 2025 had a budget of more than $800,000. That works out to $11 on the average tax bill, according to the budget. For a city of 130,000 people, with a limited tax base, that investment is paying off. 

In Guelph, 637 households have registered for this kind of funding and 448 have either completed their retrofits or are currently doing so.  

In Durham Region, more than 1,600 residents have signed up to lower energy consumption and reduce emissions. By 2023, almost 200 retrofits had been completed. In 2024, the region expanded the program to include commercial buildings. 

One Greater Toronto Area official said they expect demand for retrofits to increase if Bill 98 passes: “If there’s no way for us to ensure development is done according to the needs of the climate emergency, I imagine we’ll have more buildings to retrofit than we can handle in the very near future.”

The costs of doing so will ultimately be borne by taxpayers, especially as the province is still in the process of amending its own building code to acknowledge the realities of how climate change will affect buildings across Ontario.

“The building code will be updated. We’re going to go through it section by section,” Ontario Housing Minister Rob Flack told The Narwhal last week. “With respect to green standards, we’ve asked various stakeholders to be part of the process. … They’ll be involved in the process of redefining the building code.”

When pressed on the timeline of this process, Flack said, “ASAP.”

“We’ve started the process of getting people in place,” he said. “It’s going to take a while. It’s a big document.” 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Piping plovers have returned to Wasaga Beach, as they have done every spring for nearly 20 years. This time, their beachfront home has undergone some major changes, as a court case pressuring the federal government to ensure the plover is kept safe develops. 

That case was filed in April by Ecojustice, on behalf of Environmental Defence and Ontario Nature. Now, Environment and Climate Change Canada says it has begun an imminent threat assessment to determine whether an emergency order is needed to protect the tiny endangered birds and the habitat they love — natural sand dunes and shrubbery make for perfect nesting ground — on the world’s longest freshwater beach. 

For decades, both the Georgian Bay beach and the plover have been protected by the Ontario government through two main tools. First, the designation of Wasaga Beach as a provincial park, which meant development and disruption of the sandy shore was off-limits. Second, the plover was offered extra protection under the provincial Endangered Species Act. 

Neither of those protections stand anymore.

Last fall, the Doug Ford government removed a majority of the beachfront from Wasaga Beach Provincial Park and transferred it to the local municipality in an effort to boost tourism development. And in March, the government officially repealed the Endangered Species Act and replaced it with much weaker legislation that no longer recognizes the plover in its list of protected species. 

The town has promised it will protect the plover after the transfer — and has begun working with Birds Canada on its habitat protection — but residents are not convinced. Two local officials agreed to speak to The Narwhal on the condition their names be kept confidential, for fear of retribution. They said on April 13, a tractor owned by the municipality was seen raking more beachfront than was previously permitted — an action that could damage habitat and destroy plover nests. Though the raking hasn’t been repeated, many are concerned the beach is unprotected. The town did not respond to The Narwhal’s request for comment by the time of publication. 

As a result, environmental groups are taking the matter to federal court. 

In January, Ecojustice, on behalf of Environmental Defence and Ontario Nature, petitioned the federal government for an emergency order to offer protections for the piping plover by March, before machines are usually brought in to clear the beach after winter, and the birds begin migrating back.  

The federal government did not respond by that deadline. In April, the groups asked the Federal Court of Canada for a judicial review into the delay and to compel Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin to make a recommendation to cabinet to issue the emergency protection. 

The groups also asked the court for an urgent, temporary order — or an injunction — to prohibit any raking or harmful development on the beach, which is federally recognized as a critical habitat.

An official from Environment and Climate Change Canada told The Narwhal the federal government is assessing whether the piping plovers face an imminent threat. “At this time, we are unable to comment further due to litigation,” Keean Nembhard, the minister’s press secretary, wrote in a May 29 email.

The ministry-led assessment is an option offered to Canada’s environment minister under a little-used provision in the federal Species At Risk Act. The minister is obliged to recommend to cabinet an emergency order if the assessment shows a species faces imminent threats to its survival or recovery. The last time the government employed this option was in February 2023 to save Canada’s last spotted owls.

In his email, Nembhard said the government “remains committed to working collaboratively across jurisdictions to advance the protection and recovery of at-risk species such as the piping plover.” 

Concerned citizens received a letter dated May 7 from a regional director at the federal environment ministry informing them of the assessment, noting this assessment would be done “in a timely manner.” 

Here’s what you need to know about the tiny bird and its fate in Wasaga Beach.

What are piping plovers? And why are they endangered?

Piping plovers are sprightly shorebirds, each no bigger than a cotton ball, that can sometimes be seen bounding over Great Lakes beaches in the summertime. But seeing them isn’t easy — their sandy colour blends into their surroundings and they’ve become extremely rare in Ontario due to human encroachment.

“The main threat to the piping plover is human disturbance,” according to the Government of Ontario, “since the sandy beaches where plovers live are also popular for human recreation which can destroy nests.”

Plovers generally spend winters in the United States and Mexico, but return to more northern climates to nest for the summer.

For a long time, the Great Lakes were a prime destination for would-be plover parents. It’s been estimated that the region was once home to up to 800 breeding pairs. But the Great Lakes plover population cratered in the 1960s and ’70s, and the bird was considered extinct in Ontario by 1986.

But in recent decades, plovers have been staging a tentative comeback in the Great Lakes. A breeding pair returned to Sauble Beach (now Saugeen Beach) in 2007, sparking hope and enthusiasm among bird watchers and conservationists in the area. The birds have been spotted in the region annually since then.

But plovers’ hold is anything but secure. Some years pass with only a handful of breeding pairs observed, and other years come and go with no fledglings reaching maturity.

Why is Wasaga Beach important to plovers? And what do they like about it?

“Wasaga Beach is the most important and most productive nesting site for piping plovers in our province.”

That’s what Sydney Shepherd, the Ontario piping plover coordinator for Birds Canada, told The Narwhal last summer. The beach has been home to 59 nests and 87 fledglings since the birds returned about two decades ago, according to Birds Canada, a national conservation group. 

While plovers have been observed on other beaches in the Great Lakes region, none are anywhere near as popular with plovers as Wasaga Beach. The plovers that have been born on Wasaga Beach make up nearly 50 per cent of all fledglings in Ontario, and many of them have gone on to establish their own nests elsewhere in the region. 

Plovers tend to value Wasaga Beach for different reasons than human beachgoers. While tourists might prefer a well-groomed beach for lounging, plovers require naturalized shorelines: shrubbery and sand dunes offer cover from predators. That means of all the 14 kilometres of beachfront at Wasaga, only a small fraction near the northeastern tip of the park is suitable plover habitat.

What’s happening at Wasaga Beach?

The fortunes of the Town of Wasaga Beach have long been tied to the sandy shoreline that gives the town its name. Tourism to the area is the main economic driver, drawing more than 1.6 million visitors a year according to the municipality’s website.

But while tourism brings opportunity to the residents of Wasaga Beach, it also puts pressure on plover habitat. Until recently, that tension was managed by staff at Wasaga Beach Provincial Park, who were mandated to preserve and protect the sand dunes and other beach areas that plovers frequent.

The vast majority of the beachfront had long been within the boundaries of Wasaga Beach Provincial Park, and some in the town believed the park hindered efforts to spruce it up and develop new amenities and attractions to boost tourism revenue.

The Doug Ford government heard those concerns and acted on them. Ontario would sever more than half of the beachfront from the park and hand it over to the town to manage, Ford announced in 2025. Earlier this year, the province confirmed its intention to move forward with that plan, despite 98 per cent of formal citizen feedback on the plan being negative.

The Narwhal confirmed that transfer has now happened. 

All of the suitable plover habitat on Wasaga Beach is within the land set to be removed from the provincial park, meaning the habitat will no longer be protected by a provincial park designation.

The town, for its part, says it’s committed to protecting piping plovers. But it has yet to release its full redevelopment plans, and that leaves conservationists worried that the beach’s plover habitat is threatened.

Shepherd told The Narwhal this week that Birds Canada is in the process of formalizing their role with the Town of Wasaga Beach. The group is “seeking a committed partnership” to support the long-term protection and recovery of piping plovers that would enable them to monitor and protect the nests and the birds, and also increase education and awareness of the species. 

“So far, we have collaborated for one training session for [town] staff to begin to introduce what piping plover conservation entails,” she said in an email.

Are piping plovers otherwise protected?

The removal of provincial park designation from plover habitat on Wasaga Beach comes on the heels of other policy changes that weaken species protection in Ontario.

In 2025, Ontario repealed its Endangered Species Act and replaced it with new legislation called the Species Conservation Act, a weaker set of rules that drops some key protections.

One difference between the two acts is the newer one adopts a more narrow definition of “habitat” than the former act. When it comes to legal protections for the habitats of endangered species, the new legislation’s scope is limited to the specific area an animal nests or dens in, rather than the larger area it uses to travel or find food.

But even that limited protection doesn’t stand for piping plovers, which have been removed from Ontario’s list of protected species. With the loss of provincial park status, the plover habitat has been stripped of another protection that could have restricted the beach grooming activities that render Wasaga Beach unsuitable for plovers — and appear to have already begun.

That’s why environmental groups are now turning to the federal government to fill the gap. Nationally, there is a species-at-risk law that can be invoked for the protection of an endangered species and the broader habitat it needs to survive. The question is whether the federal government will use it to save the piping plover’s favourite Ontario beach.

Updated on May 29, 2026 at 2:52 p.m. ET: this story has been updated with new information about the federal government’s imminent threat assessment and to note the plovers’ most recent arrival at Wasaga Beach.

Updated on April 22, 2026, at 2:55 p.m. ET: this story has been corrected to note that piping plovers have been removed from the Government of Ontario’s list of protected species, meaning even the individual and its nest are not provincially protected.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Summary

• Under the Clean Water Act, community-led groups called source protection committees write plans and oversee the protection of drinking water sources in Ontario.
• The jurisdiction of the committees is aligned with the boundaries of conservation authorities, and experts say the recent amalgamation of authorities could also affect the committees.
• The province has not appointed 15 of the 19 source protection committee chairs, leaving some experts questioning whether change is afoot.

As the Doug Ford government moves to consolidate conservation authorities from 36 to nine, many are concerned about the impact on Ontario’s drinking water. 

Conservation authorities have long been tasked with protecting Ontario watersheds by safeguarding local drinking water sources and reducing the risks from natural hazards like flooding, erosion and drought. But the government’s legislation for their amalgamation — the biggest disruption to the agencies in 80 years — indicates there may be changes coming to the way they help preserve access to fresh water for more than 80 per cent of Ontario residents. 

Since 2006, municipal drinking water has been governed by 19 source protection committees, community-led groups with directors from industries like agriculture, manufacturing and tourism that hold conservation authorities and municipalities accountable for properly managing drinking water. Within each conservation authority, designated staff serve as liaisons to these committees, providing necessary data and carrying out any suggested protective actions.

“Source protection committees are purposefully local. They’re the people that drink the water they are protecting,” Katie Stammler, water quality scientist and project manager for the source water protection committee at the Essex Region Conservation Authority, told The Narwhal.

The committees were created on the heels of the water contamination crisis in Walkerton, Ont. In May 2000, seven people died and some 2,300 people became ill when manure from a nearby farm leached into a well due to a failure of safety checks in the local water treatment system. 

An inquiry into the crisis resulted in dozens of recommendations, including creating source protection committees. These groups were officially enacted by the passage of the Clean Water Act. Each one was designed with the boundaries of conservation authorities in mind and tasked with writing a plan to protect the sources of drinking water in that region from threats such as fuel, sewage, road salt and agricultural runoff.

In the years since they were formed, source protection committees seemed to be “untouchable,” Lynn Dollin, once long-time chair of the South Georgian Bay-Lake Simcoe Source Protection Committee, told The Narwhal. Successive Ontario governments didn’t want to change anything “because no one wants to risk another Walkerton.”But things might be changing now.

The Ontario government’s move to reduce the number of conservation authorities has meant that each authority now covers a much larger area. The Narwhal obtained a government slide deck presented to conservation authorities leaders earlier this month that shows drinking water source protection “remains a core mandated responsibility” for the nine proposed regional authorities, and that source protection plans “will continue to be carried out.” 

But in the same slide deck, the government also notes “changes may be needed under the Clean Water Act and associated regulations” to “clarify” how source protection committees would operate under the new structure. 

“We’re not making any fundamental changes [to source protection committees],” Ontario Environment Minister Todd McCarthy said in an interview with The Narwhal: the 19 committees will remain as they are and work with the nine newly proposed regional conservation authorities, though he said their jurisdictions are “a work in progress.”  

“Clean water is absolutely essential, and Ontario’s is best protected in the world. That’s going to continue,” he said. “The idea is to make sure it doesn’t change by better resourcing and better supporting [them] equally across Ontario.”

McCarthy added that there may be some legislative “housekeeping” in the fall to ensure “alignment” between the new regional conservation authorities and source protection committees. 

The absence of details raises red flags for experts. 

“They cut. Now they cut and tinker,” one central Ontario conservation authority official said. “They’re saying nothing is going to change, but in practice, that remains to be seen. … All the changes they’ve made so far have delayed work operations. They like to pretend otherwise.”

The Narwhal spoke to 12 people, including lawyers, members of three source protection committees and several conservation authority staff, many of whom spoke anonymously for fear of retribution. As conservation authorities get bigger, these experts worry about the loss of local input, knowledge and protections. 

Already, the chair positions at 15 of the 19 committees are vacant. To many, this quiet erosion of leadership and a loosening of water laws in the province are indicators that a system put in place to prevent another drinking water crisis is now in flux. 

Most source protection committees still don’t have government-appointed leaders

Nearly 20 years ago, Dollin, now mayor of Innisfill, Ont., was one of 19 source protection committee chairs appointed by the Ontario government to help take care of the province’s complex system of local drinking water sources.

Back then, her committee’s first task was “a little unnerving,” she said. “I was shocked how there was no good, complete list of where our municipal drinking water systems were.” So they created one, along with guidelines on how to protect them to ensure local drinking water sources don’t become contaminated or overused. 

Dollin’s term as head of South Georgian Bay-Lake Simcoe Source Protection Committee ended in August 2025; she was told by a ministry official she would not be reappointed, though she said no reason was given. Her position hasn’t been filled since. 

As of April 14, the government had not appointed several chairs — something it is legally required to do under the Clean Water Act — since summer 2025.

“The absence of appointed chairs over the past year has created some uncertainty at the committee level, particularly around governance, leadership continuity and decision-making authority,” John Mesman, managing director of property, conservation, lands and community outreach for South Nation Conservation, told The Narwhal. 

A lack of chair appointments, others say, may indicate source protection committees are a low priority amidst the amalgamation of Ontario’s conservation authorities. Many told The Narwhal communication between conservation authorities and ministry staff have been eroding since the government under former premier Mike Harris first cut funding in 1995.

“It seems the ministry doesn’t understand the source protection program, so it doesn’t bother to think about it,” the central Ontario conservation authority staff member said. “We started getting alarmed by ministry decisions a while ago on a number of issues. It’s been consistent, our comments are not being heard.”

That’s especially challenging as water supply gets more complicated. In recent weeks, the government has proposed permitting communal wells for private development. That would mean a new subdivision, for example, could draw from its own well instead of tapping into municipal water services. Sources who spoke to The Narwhal were concerned about this because communal wells aren’t currently overseen by source protection committees. 

“We need source protection leaders now more than ever to be present at the table,” a conservation authority official in western Ontario said. “As this government pushes approvals for development, we need to make sure water is not an afterthought.” 

A Ministry of Environment official told The Narwhal, “a competitive process will soon be underway” for source protection committee chair appointments. 

New boundaries of conservation authorities could affect source protection committees 

Not only do many source protection committees not have leaders right now, but they also don’t know what their jurisdictions will be post-conservation authority amalgamation.

“I don’t think [the government] contemplated a whole scale change like this,” Theresa McClenaghan, executive director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, said. “A lot of people don’t realize that most local drinking water sources are protected by plans that were created by these committees over many years.” 

Per the requirements of the Clean Water Act, the government has two options, McLenaghan said: realign source protection boundaries and governance to reflect the new larger regional conservation authorities or maintain the current structure within the new regional authorities. 

Minister McCarthy told The Narwhal the boundaries “are not changing at this time,” but the exact boundaries will be finalized in the fall, informed by consultations with new local watershed councils the ministry is creating to facilitate the transition. 

“We’ll have to see how this works out,” he said. “Right now, the reality is nine watershed-based regional conservation authorities are what we proposed … and with those 19 [source protection committees], we’ll have to see how their boundaries match up or align.” 

McLenaghan said if the committees stay as they are, “that’s good news,” but “there will still be some potential disruptions” as several source protection regions combine under a single conservation authority.

Right now, some source protection areas, such as Essex County, stand alone, while others like the Thames-Sydenham Source Protection Region, combine several conservation authority jurisdictions. Per a preliminary analysis by the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the amalgamation would see the inverse of this, where one regional conservation authority has several source protection regions within it. For example, both the Lake Huron and Western Lake authorities would each incorporate three source protection agencies.

The new regional conservation authorities will be “very, very busy” managing so many source protection committees under the new system, the central Ontario conservation authority official said.

Under the amalgamation plan, Stammler’s Essex County Conservation Authority now falls under the Western Lake Erie regional authority, which has boundaries spanning from Niagara through Halton and Peel Region.

She, and others, said they’re concerned this will result in a reduction in the hyper-localized focus on water that conservation authorities provide.

“I think it’s going to undermine Ontario’s ability to protect drinking water,” Ontario Greens Leader Mike Schreiner said. “I think the amalgamation of [conservation authorities] is going to contravene the recommendations of the Walkerton inquiry around source water protection.”“I mean, how can you have 19 source water protection committees across the province and nine [conservation authorities]? And how is that going to work together, especially when you’re undermining local decision-making expertise?”

It’s something local industry representatives are similarly concerned with. 

Chris Snip, an independent agronomist and water protection advocate from Essex County, has built a career helping farmers grow better crops with less impact on the environment from fertilizer use. He joined the Essex region’s source water protection committee six years ago to support the group’s understanding of agriculture and the sector’s role in maintaining water quality.

As with many in Ontario’s farming community, the Walkerton tragedy casts a long shadow for Snip. With the Ford government’s changes to water protection, in favour of easing development, Snip wonders if the province is forgetting lessons of the past.

“People died, and the policies around source water protection were based on recommendations from those deaths and injuries, and this provincial government is basically, you know, turning its nose up to it, not caring about what happened then,” he said.

“History is bound to repeat itself, especially if we don’t remember.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Summary

• The Government of Ontario is overhauling the mine permitting process to funnel all stages through the relatively new Ministry of Energy and Mines, under the “one project, one process” system.
• Many First Nations leaders have voiced concerns about how this will impact consultation, and the burden it places on Indigenous communities.
• Some mining companies are already seeing how this fast-tracking could play out, and say no corners will be cut.

In early March, dozens of digital billboards across Toronto’s Union Station repeatedly flashed four words that have become synonymous with economic survival for the Doug Ford government: “one project, one process.”

The phrase welcomed people travelling through the central transit hub on their way to the world’s largest annual mining conference, held by the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. It was an overwhelming four-day affair, where more than 32,000 people talked deals, investments and pretty rocks in faraway places and how to get them out of the ground. 

This year’s conference — the largest ever — began a day after the United States and Israel attacked Iran, setting in motion a crippling squeeze on oil supply that has raised gas prices to levels not seen in decades and killing thousands of people. But that didn’t hamper the very loud buzz at the conference. In some respects, it may have upped the volume.

The urgency for a homemade solution to tackle global crises (mainly Donald Trump) had increased once more — and Ontario had a (four-word) plan that is still, for all the fanfare, an untested experience, unknown to many.

Though outward-facing, the plan is actually predicated on reshaping the way the government works internally, to guide and greenlight proposals for mining and development faster through the bureaucracy. The promise: one project ushered through one massive, clear and quicker process. 

“It’s a huge shakeup,” one former Ministry of Mines official told The Narwhal. “It’s a huge disruption from how we would all typically work.”

The enormity of this internal shift was evident in the sprawling halls of the Metro Convention Centre. There, government ministers, led by Energy and Mines Minister Stephen Lecce, met seemingly every global delegation with the message of “one project, one process” — colloquially called “1P1P” — and how it would turn Ontario into “the world’s reliable partner.” Ministry staff answered questions in packed rooms about how to figure out if “1P1P was right for you.” The three companies that had already been accepted into the fast-tracking process were the stars of a crowded trade show, including one that talked at length with The Narwhal.

While expediency might yield positive results for the mining industry, for some First Nation leaders who attended the conference, there is an obvious loss: important things, like consultation and consent, could also be fast-tracked, or missed completely. There was also frustration over the many crises that, for decades, have not been granted the same urgency: clean drinking water, basic health-care services, housing. 

“We still don’t have any clarity on what fast-track or ‘one project, one process’ really means,” Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict told The Narwhal. “We’re all still kind of unsure.” 

Four other First Nations leaders told The Narwhal the same thing: no one in government had talked to them yet about the process, let alone what it means for their communities, which are already on the frontlines of resource extraction and its aftermath. 

The next 12 to 18 months, Benedict said, will “become the real test” of the government’s four-word fast-tracking policy, both provincially and nationally.

‘A trailblazer or a guinea pig’

Just outside Red Lake, Ont., 100 kilometres east of the Ontario-Manitoba border, is the proposed site for the largest lithium mine in the province. The company hoping to build it, Frontier Lithium, says the mine could help supply electric-vehicle battery manufacturers. It was the first project to be designated on Ontario’s “one project, one process” list. The Sudbury-based mining company was assured a 24-month approval by the Ford government. 

“We’re either a trailblazer or a guinea pig,” Clara Lauziere, Frontier Lithium’s director of sustainability, told The Narwhal.

Three years ago, Lauziere was working in the Ministry of Mines, navigating a process she described as inefficient and uncoordinated. “Had I known 1P1P was coming, I might have stayed,” she said. 

As she explains it, the regulatory system in Ontario and Canada has some of the highest environmental standards, but it’s also one of the most complex globally. “There’s never been a real road map on how to permit a mine and how to do it effectively,” she said, because every project is different. Until last October, mining companies had to work with multiple ministries that didn’t communicate well, which she said resulted in a lot of repetition and confusion for both industry and Indigenous communities. 

“Consultation fatigue was huge,” she said. Some of the communities she spoke to as a ministry official had received six or seven letters from several different ministries about the same project. In the same vein, companies were receiving multiple directives from different ministries about which Indigenous communities to consult about different parts of the project. 

All of this inevitably resulted in delays for permits; 15 years of delay, according to the Ford government, though it hasn’t given examples of when bureaucracy alone tangled a mining project up for that long. With the new process, that will purportedly go down to two years. “Certainty is everything,” Lauziere said, “especially when you’ve never had it.” 

That’s why she was bombarded with questions in every room she went to at the conference. “People want to know if they can really believe this is actually going to happen,” she said. The short answer appears to be yes, but it depends on a sustained commitment from industry to also be ready and committed with the right paperwork, detailed studies, accurate data and robust consultation plans. “I think the key is really just being willing to work with the government and communities,” she said. 

In other words, as a government official told a packed room at the mining conference, “this is not a one-way street” but “a tremendous effort that requires everyone to be at the table.”

When Frontier Lithium was accepted into the new system, the company “had everything ready,” Lauziere said. In response, they were assigned a bureaucrat to be their main point of contact throughout the process, leading a team of officials across ministries. The company was provided a detailed 24-month timeline of steps this team would be completing in partnership with them. 

In early March, the Independent Electricity System Operator, the Crown agency in charge of electricity supply and demand, proactively reached out to Frontier Lithium to discuss energy needs for their proposed mine after the company was selected for fast-tracking. “So there’s a lot of coordination and pressure there on priority projects,” Lauziere said, including from the mining minister himself. 

In mid-March, Frontier Lithium received a single directive identifying all the communities that need to be consulted for the entire project. “Now, we can have confidence that we know who we need to talk to and what the potential impact on rights are going to be, so we can have meaningful conversations,” Lauziere said. “That level of detail and consolidation is incredibly valuable for communities and companies.”

Frontier Lithium is expecting a permit by the fall of 2027, so the new process does appear to be faster. Lauziere said if any concerns crop up with their proposal over this period, the company expects to resolve them with the government and communities. 

“No corners are cut in the process,” she added. “And nothing changes on the consultation front.” What “one process, one project” does is make the consultation process clearer for every company. 

“Yes, we want to build a mine,” Lauziere said, “but we also want a relationship that lasts 50 years.” 

“As the first, we all kind of have to get it right.”

Fear of the fast track

Ontario’s push to fast-track mines, and promises it can happen without sacrificing free, prior and informed consent from First Nations, hasn’t landed with everyone. 

“The idea of fast-tracking really scares me,” Natasha Martin, Deputy Grand Chief of Mushkegowuk Council, told an overflowing room of miners and government staffers at the March conference. 

She repeated the same sentiment to The Narwhal in an interview later. “That means that it’s a very fast job — a rush job — and we’re taking something that has taken years prior down to six months. That scares me, because then there will be things that won’t be properly captured or looked at.”

Martin’s fear highlights a deep disconnect in the ways industry and First Nations understand “one project, one process.”

While companies are quickly gaining extensive knowledge of what it all means for them, many First Nations say they have been left in the dark. And they remain especially skeptical about the effectiveness of environmental and community risk assessments under the streamlined process. In no small part, because it was initially proposed in Bill 5, a controversial legislation that allows for “special economic zones” where “designated projects” can evade provincial laws.

Bill 5 was written without the government holding a single consultation with Indigenous communities, although many would be significantly impacted by an increase in mining and development activity — and have historically not reaped the financial or social rewards of such industry. Nine First Nations have challenged the law in court, arguing that it is unconstitutional.

Complicating matters further is that just as Ontario speeds up development approvals, the federal government has created its own office with a similar mandate. The Crawford Nickel project, outside Timmins, is being considered for fast-tracking at both levels. And recently, Frontier Lithium has been named to another list of projects for “federal permitting coordination.” 

On the one hand, Lauziere credits the “one project, one process” system for setting them up perfectly for federal fast-tracking. On the other hand, early signs show choppy collaboration between levels of government could be a new drag on momentum, even as First Nations around Red Lake appear ready to work with both.

Lauziere agreed that if things are going to be sped up, there will inherently be added pressure on First Nations. She called it “an unintended consequence” that will require Ontario to actively work on better informing and communicating with Indigenous communities. 

“We really haven’t seen much of a difference on the ground yet,” Jason Batise, the executive director of the Wabun Tribal Council, told The Narwhal. The regional council for five First Nations around Timmins has honed a consultation framework to manage the deluge of mine consultations over the last two decades. That includes Crawford Nickel, with whom Batise says the First Nation has a good relationship.

Batise is clear: “Consultation has never been a bottleneck to responsible development.” 

“We don’t really yet see any sort of distinct acceleration of 1P1P, but we know it’s coming,” he said. “And if I had one concern, it would be the expectation from developers to fast-track consultation.” 

“Because at that point, 1P1P is going to get challenged by the nations.” Historically, mining projects have been delayed by protests or legal challenges from nations that feel their constitutional rights were not properly met.  

Batise isn’t the only one watching the fast-tracking process carefully. Many Indigenous leaders came to the mining conference with messages of vigilance, reminding attendees that First Nations were not “carbon copies,” and neither are their territories.

Even as the process to approve mining projects speeds up, communities like Neskantaga First Nation, in the Ring of Fire region, are dealing with simultaneous crises. When Bill 5 passed, the nation’s only health-care centre was flooded and inoperational. There continues to be a chronic housing shortage; those that are standing are plagued by mould. There is a 31-year boil advisory in effect, the longest in the region. 

“It’s hard to understand. It’s moving so fast,” Chief Gary Quisses told The Narwhal at the mining conference. He fears that despite its moniker, the “one project, one process” system will open the doors to multiple projects in their communities that all bypass First Nations consent, and needs. 

“I don’t even have 9-1-1, I can’t even use that number. I don’t have a fire truck. I don’t have an ambulance, paramedics, anything,” he said. “And here, the government is trying to push and take our resources away.”

Batise is cautiously hopeful, noting that industry has lately had its “come-to-Jesus moment with First Nations,” developing meaningful partnerships based in equity. But he too worries the fast-tracking process may become a catalyst for companies to prioritize their bottom line. 

“The government is telling industry 1P1P will be better for them. They’re also telling nations that faster is better for them,” he said. “The difference is that industry is getting what they want, but communities are not.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Summary

• A working group of First Nations and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada released an interim report on the cumulative impacts of development in the Ring of Fire.
• Among the participants and collaborators in that report, the Government of Ontario was glaringly absent. The report says the province hasn’t shared valuable data on caribou, polar bears and other regional species that are needed to complete the assessment.
• Ontario NDP MPP Sol Mamakwa said, “By not providing any information or any data to the process, they are essentially muzzling the process itself.”

We’re trying out staff-written summaries. Did you find this useful? YesNo

Ontario has not been involved in the federal government’s regional assessment of the Ring of Fire, withholding scientific data and funding needed to understand the impact of mining development, even as the province ushers it through. 

The province is absent in the regional assessment working group’s interim report, released Feb. 23. In multiple instances, the group, made up of representatives from 15 First Nations and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, makes clear Ontario has yet to sign on. 

There is still an “opportunity for collaboration with the province of Ontario in the regional assessment,” the group wrote in the report. The group said it’s preparing what “specific information” it will need to request from the province.

Ontario’s absence is notable as the Doug Ford government continues to push through development in the Ring of Fire, an environmentally sensitive area of boreal forest and peatlands in the James Bay Lowlands, known as Bakitanaamowin Aki, which means “the Breathing Lands,” and Mammamattawa, or “many rivers coming together,” by the First Nations that call it home.

“If they really, really cared about [the assessment], they would work with the federal government,” Ontario NDP MPP Sol Mamakwa, who represents the Ring of Fire region, told The Narwhal. “By not providing any information or any data to the process, they are essentially muzzling the process itself.”

A spokesperson for the federal Impact Assessment Agency confirmed to The Narwhal that the working group understands “several areas it must assess are within provincial expertise.” It will “request information from Ontario as needed” in addition to consulting publicly available data, the spokesperson added.

The Ontario government is hoping the region will be the centre of new mining activity. During a press conference with Prime Minister Mark Carney in December, Premier Ford said Ontario is on track to get “shovels in the ground this June” to build a road to the remote region.

But the regional assessment has also been in the works for at least seven years. Aroland First Nation and environmental groups asked for a federal regional assessment in 2019.

The Ontario government has signed deals with three First Nations along the proposed roads to the Ring of Fire, even as other local communities urge the government to pause and properly address environmental protections and long-standing issues on the ground, such as boil-water advisories, health care and housing.

The interim regional assessment report reiterates some of these concerns, recommending the existing conditions for First Nations in northern Ontario be “thoroughly examined” and for “immediate interventions” to be made, even as mining and development are greenlit. 

“There are a lot of things happening in these First Nations and their territories that both Canada and Ontario need to address,” Mamakwa said. 

“Before the conversation turns to mining, conditions need to be properly assessed and improved.” 

The working group’s plan, updated in November, shows it has already built an information sharing platform, held technical sessions, developed community-led studies and begun to evaluate cumulative impacts of development in the Ring of Fire.

It’s now seeing through evaluations and studies and continuing to engage with communities to eventually compile a final report, which the group expects to land around June 2027. 

Whether or not Ontario will come to the table for the next phase is not yet clear.

“I think [the Ford government] is not happy with the federal assessment,” Mamakwa said. “The process itself, I think, they don’t want to be part of. And they just want to do their own thing.”

Ontario’s participation was ‘TBD’ — now it’s non-existent

Last January, when the working group finalized its terms of reference, it described an “outer ring” of contributors, such as experts and industry representatives and listed Ontario as one of these — but with “TBD,” or to be determined, attached to its name. 

The latest report suggests Ontario is not participating despite having a trove of scientific information readily available about the region. 

While 22 federal departments and agencies show up on a list of respondents to the working group’s public call for information and data, no provincial ministries are listed.

Even Wyloo Metals, the company behind the Eagle’s Nest mine, currently in the exploration phase in the Ring of Fire, contributed to technical sessions of the regional assessment, according to the report.

All of this is raising questions about whether the Ford government is preventing Ontario public servants from participating in the regional assessment. 

Without Ontario at the table for the regional assessment, “staff obviously won’t be given the mandate to participate,” Kerrie Blaise, the founder of the non-profit Legal Advocates for Nature’s Defence, told The Narwhal. 

“One hundred per cent, there would be staffers who would have knowledge and things to contribute. Without the direction to do so, they’re barred from doing so.”

In an interview at Queen’s Park on March 23, The Narwhal asked Ontario Environment Minister Todd McCarthy about the province’s lack of involvement in the regional assessment. He said he’d look into the matter.

McCarthy also told The Narwhal the province is “co-operating” with the federal government, citing a Dec. 18 agreement between the two levels to streamline the environmental assessment process. 

In that agreement, Ontario promised to lead any assessments for projects that are subject to both federal and provincial jurisdiction. But this deal covers single projects, whereas the Ring of Fire regional assessment isn’t examining a project, instead looking at cumulative effects of development in the region.

McCarthy said Ontario’s absence from the interim regional assessment report was “an exception.” 

“I suspect that Ontario is part of that conversation, and will be part of the conversation and will continue to co-operate and lead in terms of sharing data … to get all of it done,” he said.

“If the sense is that we’re not there at the moment, as I speak to you, we’re going to be there as we are all the time in terms of co-operating and leading.” 

The Narwhal sent specific questions to Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources, as well as the premier’s office, the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks and the Ministry of Indigenous Affairs and First Nations Economic Reconciliation, about the government’s direction to public servants and financial willingness to support First Nation participation in the federal assessment. None responded to those emails by publication time.

Ontario is withholding scientific data on the Ring of Fire from the regional assessment

Within its interim report, the assessment group wrote that “several priorities for the regional assessment would benefit from provincial expertise.”

There are hints of what kind of expertise the group is hoping to get, in a submission by Environment and Climate Change Canada filed in January in response to one of the group’s requests for information.

In a question about Indigenous consent for non-Indigenous uses of land, the Environment Department pointed out that most traditional territories in Ontario are on non-federal lands, and the province is responsible for hunting and fishing regulations there.

The department also pointed out how the province has been monitoring boreal caribou and undertaking research to fill gaps in knowledge about the animal, and that the province holds valuable data such as aerial surveys on polar bears in the southern Hudson Bay subpopulation. 

Ontario also hosts the Natural Heritage Information Centre, which has historical data and continues to track biodiversity in the Ring of Fire region, the federal Environment Department noted, and directed questions about the centre to the provincial government.

“There are certain things the federal government cannot touch,” Blaise said. “So even if there’s a comment deadline, and people bring up concerns, if it’s not all within federal jurisdiction, you’re not going to have those players at the table to actually respond to those information gaps and requests.”

Without Ontario’s participation, the working group will be forced to go to the province to request information. That could result in more delays and extra costs, Blaise said.

When the Government of Alberta successfully challenged the constitutionality of the Impact Assessment Act at the Supreme Court of Canada, the judges emphasized in the 2023 ruling that “respect for the division of powers” between the federal and provincial governments helps put in place strong environmental protection laws and “facilitates co-operation between the two levels of government.”

Here, “we’re not getting that co-operation,” Blaise said. “So it means you’re inherently getting a narrower process, a process that doesn’t actually have all the requisite knowledge and expertise and government officials at the table.” 

Blaise also said Ontario’s lack of participation could translate to a lack of provincial support for whatever the working group ends up recommending.

First Nations need more funding to participate in the regional assessment from ‘other parties.’ Ontario did not respond to the call

The interim report highlights how many First Nations in the Ring of Fire area lack basic necessities, like clean water, health care, housing, education and electricity. First Nations can’t be “true partners in equitable decision-making processes” like the regional assessment, the group wrote, without these “necessities of life.” 

The report recommended that the existing conditions of First Nations in northern Ontario be “thoroughly examined” and that “immediate interventions” be made.

Community members also have to “constantly balance their roles,” the report stated, with responding to emergencies, dealing with other federal and provincial negotiations, staying involved in legal actions, responding to regulatory processes like permit applications and answering outside requests from industry.

All of this points to a need for more funding to help “address the participation gaps within the regional assessment process,” the group wrote.

While First Nations have worked with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada on a funding strategy, and receive “base funding” to support their participation, the group said the amounts involved are “often largely insufficient.”

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada’s departmental plan for 2026-27 shows it’s planning for $34,206,000 in cumulative spending cuts through 2029, but it’s unclear whether or how those cuts will impact its work on the Ring of Fire regional assessment.

The working group noted the effort involved in trying to apply to other federal funding programs, or nailing down private funds, is “prohibitive.” The group recommended that the federal government “and other parties” help the First Nations get enough funding so that they’re not burdened with trying to find the money themselves. 

“The provincial government cannot claim to move the Ring of Fire forward ethically or equitably while withholding information or funding for this process,” Mamakwa said.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Summary

• The Ontario government has released its final plan to amalgamate 36 conservation authorities into nine
• The new plan removes an earlier proposal to merge authorities on Lake Superior and Lake Huron
• A new agency created to oversee the consolidation will have a $20-million budget to put the plan in place, and $3 million annually once it’s up and running

We’re trying out staff-written summaries. Did you find this useful? YesNo

The Ford government is moving ahead with its plan to merge 36 conservation authorities into nine, two more than originally proposed. And it has created an agency with a $20-million budget to see it through.

Ontario Environment Minister Todd McCarthy said he consulted with more than 500 people in making this change. The proposed plan also received more than 14,000 comments on the Environmental Registry of Ontario, where the government is legally mandated to post changes to environmental and energy policy for public feedback (though the Ford government has previously created loopholes for that requirement). 

“Ontario currently has a fragmented system of conservation authorities, each of which have different policies, different standards, different fees and different levels of staffing and technical capabilities,” McCarthy told reporters on March 10. 

“These inconsistencies have hampered the ability of conservation authorities to perform their duties. This has led to unpredictable and inconsistent turnaround times for approvals, creating uncertainty and delays for farmers, homeowners, landowners, builders and anyone seeking permits.”

The government’s proposed fix to consolidate authorities has been received with a lot of trepidation and concern from conservation authorities, the municipalities that fund them and use their services and other groups that rely on their expertise. 

For nearly 80 years, the provincial agencies have been tasked with protecting public health and safety related to the province’s watersheds. That means safeguarding local drinking water sources and working to reduce the risks from natural hazards like flooding, erosion and drought. As Ontario’s population has grown, they have also been responsible for regulating development to minimize those risks, issuing permits only to those who pay attention to sustainable construction and growth.

“Conservation authorities don’t just ‘approve’ things; they provide the technical rules of the game that make projects workable and protect people and water,” Paola Cetares, director of public affairs for the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, told The Narwhal when the consolidation plan was first announced. That includes creating criteria for stormwater management and collating flood maps, erosion data and hydrologic studies to guide development. 

McCarthy insists the core mandates of the unique Ontario agencies will not change. Consolidation, he said, will mean “stronger flood resilience, clear processes for municipalities and permanent applicants and better support for housing and infrastructure projects, all while maintaining the science-based decisions that people and businesses expect.”

“Regional conservation authorities would continue to be independent, municipally governed organizations,” McCarthy said, emphasizing that there will be no layoffs, no changes in the funding and governance structure and that the agencies would continue to have control over their land. 

The government will table legislation to make these changes when Queen’s Park is back in session later this month, with the consolidation set to take effect in 2027. 

Here are the key takeaways from the final consolidation proposal. 

What does the final conservation authority consolidation look like? 

When the Ford government first discussed consolidation, they considered as few as six regional conservation authorities, McCarthy said. After the consultation period — in which at least one member of caucus voiced her concern — the government has landed on nine. 

The final boundaries of the regional authorities’ structure include a handful of significant changes from the original proposal. 

Notably, the Lake Erie Regional Conservation Authority and a Huron-Superior Regional Conservation Authority have each been split into two. The latter was initially controversially proposed to merge the authority in Thunder Bay, Ont., on Lake Superior, with that of one on Lake Huron, but the government has walked back on that — a decision that has been welcomed by the northern agency.

Members of the impacted authorities in this region previously told The Narwhal the original boundaries were too large and connected too many differing landscapes. “We listened, we acted,” McCarthy said.

Additionally, the Central Lake Ontario Regional Conservation Authority has been enlarged to include both the current Toronto Region Conservation Authority and the smaller neighbouring Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. 

And the conservation authority managing the lands around the city of Kingston, Ont., has been moved from the St. Lawrence River Conservation Area to the Eastern Lake Ontario Regional Conservation Authority. 

Who will manage the conservation authority consolidation and how much will it cost?

In 2025, the Ford government created the Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency to help lead this transformation. The agency has been given $20 million to usher through the consolidation. At the March 10 press conference, McCarthy pledged an additional $3 million annually to the agency, which would continue after the consolidation was complete. 

The government intends to create transitional committees for the nine new regional organizations with representatives from each of the existing conservation authorities under them. The chair of each of these committees would become the chief administrative officer of the regional authority for up to two years. 

The government is also instructing regional authorities to create “watershed councils” made up of members of municipalities and Indigenous communities to identify local priorities and “ensure that watershed management continues to be informed by the people who know their watersheds best,” McCarthy said. 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This story is part of a series called Shockwave: Rising energy demand and the future of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes region is in the midst of a seismic energy shakeup, from skyrocketing data centre demand and a nuclear energy boom, to expanding renewables and electrification. In 2026, the Great Lakes News Collaborative will explore how shifting supply and demand affect the region and its waters.

Table of contents

• What are small modular reactors, or SMRs? 
• How much power does an SMR produce and for whom? 
• What is Ontario Power Generation? 
• How much will it cost Ontario taxpayers to build the first SMR? 
• When will the first SMR be operational?
• So where is Ontario going to get the enriched uranium needed for small modular reactors? 
• Who wants Ontario’s SMRs?
• How does Lake Ontario, and water in general, factor into the SMRs at Darlington? 
• What will we do with the waste produced by small modular reactors in Ontario?  
• How do SMRs fit into Ontario’s other nuclear plans? 
• If Ontario has never built an SMR before, will it actually be built? 

In January, Ontario Energy Minister Stephen Lecce told a room full of business and energy officials that communities across the province have been “petitioning us for a small modular reactor.” 

The emerging nuclear technology is exactly what it sounds like: essentially a smaller nuclear reactor, often referred to as an SMR, that can produce enough electricity for up to 300,000 homes. And it’s all anyone in Ontario’s energy space can talk about. It’s poised to be a major facet of the province and country’s plan to become an “energy superpower.” 

There’s a simple case for expanding Ontario’s already robust nuclear fleet. We desperately need more clean, reliable, around-the-clock electricity supply to satisfy our thirst for artificial intelligence, electric cars and all the things we’ll be plugging in over the coming decades. 

The province is betting nuclear energy will satisfy the bulk of our power demand, and so is Canada. The two levels of government have promised billions of dollars toward the country’s (and North America’s) first small modular reactor power plant. The project is under construction at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Bowmanville, Ont., just over an hour’s drive east of Toronto, and led by the Crown corporation Ontario Power Generation. The plan is to build four of these reactors at Darlington over the next decade. 

The catch: we’ve never built a small modular reactor before. 

Both Russia and China have operational small modular reactors, while Argentina has a pilot under construction. But Ontario would be first in the G7 to build one.That doesn’t seem to have fazed the government — provincial or federal. Prime Minister Mark Carney has referred the Darlington New Nuclear project to his Major Projects Office for consideration to be fast-tracked. That means federal officials could support the financial and licensing needs of all four small modular reactors. 

Here’s everything you need to know about Ontario’s pursuit of small modular reactors, or SMRs. 

What are small modular reactors, or SMRs? 

They’re like traditional nuclear reactors, but, well, smaller in both the amount of power they produce and their physical size. An SMR and its components can range from the size of a shipping container to a football field. 

But they produce power in the same way, splitting radioactive uranium atoms into smaller elements. This process releases heat that is used to turn water into steam, which drives a turbine, producing electricity.

That similarity is one of the reasons Ontario Power Generation is confident in their plan to build a first-of-its-kind reactor at Darlington, with contractor GE Vernova Hitachi — the small modular reactor is a scaled-down version of an existing nuclear reactor model (the tenth generation of it, in fact), Subo Sinnathamby, Ontario Power Generation’s chief projects officer, told The Narwhal

While the physics are largely the same, small modular reactors are easier to build than a traditional reactor. “They’re almost like Legos: pre-made bits that come out of the factory and are put together on site,” Kirk Atkinson, associate professor and associate industrial research chair in Ontario Tech University’s department of energy and nuclear engineering, said. 

Atkinson, who is also director of the university’s Centre for Small Modular Reactors, says this kind of simplification allows small modular reactors to be produced at reduced costs and much more quickly than full-scale nuclear.

But while traditional nuclear reactors use uranium, a fuel Canada is the world’s second-largest producer and exporter of, small modular reactors require enriched uranium, which Atkinson likened to concentrated orange juice. Canada doesn’t have any of it in-house, and that’s a hurdle Ontario is trying to get over quickly. More on that below. 

How much power does an SMR produce and for whom? 

A single small modular reactor at Darlington will produce 300 megawatts of electricity, which is enough to power 300,000 homes. 

The lower capacity and size means they make sense in places with smaller populations, everywhere from rural, remote Ontario to Saskatchewan, helping them move away from diesel generators. They can also be used to provide independent or backup power for industrial facilities, mines or data centres, assuming regulation permits this. 

Unlike small modular reactors in remote communities or independent uses, Darlington’s reactors will be tied into Ontario’s power grid.

What is Ontario Power Generation? 

The provincial Crown corporation, often known as OPG, has built and currently operates a significant portion of the nuclear generators in the province. 

Atkinson said it is “the only entity in Canada that is large enough and wealthy enough and skilled enough to take a project like a small modular reactor and be the proving ground of a nation, be a proving ground of the western world.”

For more than a decade, Ontario Power Generation has had an empty site near its Darlington nuclear facility licensed for new nuclear builds. That site is now being used to build the first of four small modular reactors, technically known as the GE Hitachi Boiling Water Reactor X-300 (or the BWRX-300). The full-scale nuclear version of this reactor is in use in the United States.  

“We had a leg up on other nations because we already had a site suitable for this,” Atkinson said. “[Ontario Power Generation] was ahead of the times.”

How much will it cost Ontario taxpayers to build the first SMR? 

Absolute bucketloads. 

Initial forecasts suggest the first small modular reactor may cost $6.1 billion, plus another $1.6 billion for systems around it that will service all four once complete.

In total, Ontario Power Generation anticipates the four reactors at Darlington to cost $20.9 billion.

The federal government’s arm’s-length investment vehicle, the Canada Growth Fund, has given the first leg of the project $2 billion, while the province is putting forward $1 billion through its Building Ontario Fund. 

Both governments say these investments will be worth it because Ontario’s small modular reactors will create 18,000 jobs during construction and 3,700 jobs during operation. They also predict the project will contribute $38.5 billion to Canada’s gross domestic product through its construction and continued operation over 65 years. 

While it looks like the cost of the Darlington project will be borne by taxpayers, the province has noted it is “exploring potential financial instruments that would benefit ratepayers, and in parallel, [Ontario Power Generation] continues to explore other optimal financing arrangements.”

For now, the Crown corporation has asked the Ontario Energy Board to consider permitting it to nearly double the cost of nuclear power for ratepayers to help recoup the very high costs of building the small modular reactors. This follows a rule change made by the Doug Ford government allowing electricity rate increases for generating infrastructure that hasn’t been built yet. We’ll have to wait and see what the independent regulator decides.

When will the first SMR be operational?

If all goes well, 2030. 

“We have a licence to construct. We don’t have a licence to operate, yet,” Sinnathamby, of Ontario Power Generation, said.  

The power to grant that is in the hands of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which will greenlight the technology once it’s built, only if it meets all environmental and safety standards. 

It also depends on whether we manage to secure enough enriched uranium to operate them. 

So where is Ontario going to get the enriched uranium needed for small modular reactors? 

Maybe the U.S. Maybe France. 

In its 2024 fall economic statement, the federal government, led by then-prime minister Justin Trudeau, said it intended to backstop up to $500 million in enriched nuclear fuel purchase contracts from allied countries to support small modular reactor operators.

Sinnathamby said Ontario Power Generation has “a very diverse partnership to ensure we have a strong supply of enriched fuel.” Canada has an abundance of uranium, while the United States has facilities to produce the refined form. Sinnathamby noted the American company producing that enriched uranium is a subsidiary of GE Vernova Hitachi, which is building the SMR technology, and so is very invested in the project’s success and that supply chain. 

Nevertheless, in light of the U.S. trade tensions, Sinnathamby said Ontario Power Generation has also signed a deal with French company Orano to garner enriched uranium. 

“We’re quite comfortable and confident around fuel security and supply,” Sinnathamby said. 

Who wants Ontario’s SMRs?

If you ask Lecce … everyone? 

In 2022, the governments of Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Alberta agreed to a joint strategic plan to collectively build and deploy small modular reactors. Ontario and Nova Scotia have made a similar agreement. Some of these provinces are “starting from scratch,” George Christidis, president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association, said, which is what makes Ontario’s experience and expertise important. 

In the past year, Lecce has been on a whirlwind of international trips to secure deals both to deploy small modular reactors and support them, everywhere from New York to Poland. 

Ontario Power Generation has also been inundated with requests to visit Darlington to see the SMR site, Sinnathamby said, adding, “I joke that one of my execs is on full-time tour duty because of the number of visitors we have.” That has included representatives from European countries, as well as U.S. government agencies. 

How does Lake Ontario, and water in general, factor into the SMRs at Darlington? 

The three major nuclear sites in Ontario are all close to Great Lakes, which Atkinson said act as “very large bathtubs of water” that can be used to cool the reactors. 

To that end, Sinnathamby said the small modular reactor site in Darlington will include a tunnel into Lake Ontario to bring in water for cooling, “so that wouldn’t be different from any other technology, per se.”

What will differ is the volume of water needed; that depends on the eventual size of the reactor, the number of components and how many are built.

What will we do with the waste produced by small modular reactors in Ontario?  

We’re not sure, but everyone is confident there will be a plan when they’re operational. 

“Nuclear waste is very securely managed and regulated in Canada,” Christidis said. “There’s a strong and proven safety standard in this industry.” 

This question ultimately depends on the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, a non-profit established by Ontario Power Generation, New Brunswick Power Corporation and Hydro-Québec and empowered by the federal government to create a plan for nuclear waste management.

The organization has long been tasked with finding a site for nuclear waste produced by traditional reactors, and last year chose Ignace, Ont., as the site for a repository. 

But waste produced by small modular reactors isn’t included in the plan for Ignace, and they may produce higher amounts of nuclear waste per unit of energy than traditional reactors. 

Sinnathamby, who sits on the board of the waste management organization, expects robust consultation on what to do with small modular reactor waste before it is operational. “It could potentially go to Ignace,” she said, but either way, the organization is mandated to find a solution for the waste. 

How do SMRs fit into Ontario’s other nuclear plans? 

Ontario is currently in the midst of either refurbishing or expanding all three of its major nuclear plants, which collectively provide more than 50 per cent of the province’s electricity. 

The government has also directed Ontario Power Generation to explore the possibility of building a new nuclear facility in Port Hope, Ont. If built, it would be the second nuclear facility built since 1993 — only after Darlington’s small modular reactors.

If Ontario has never built an SMR before, will it actually be built? 

Many in politics and the industry vigorously believe so. 

But as with all new technology emerging in the energy transition — from carbon capture to hydrogen — a lot remains to be seen. 

“We’re kind of at the beginning stage of this journey,” Atkinson said. “It’s only once we’ve built some and we’ve had the chance to stand back and look at it will we be able to provide better answers.”

Christidis is resolute. “It isn’t just hype. It’s actually very real,” he said. “That’s in the sense of real projects, real jobs, real investments. It’s a success story in the making, here and internationally.” 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Ontario government is moving ahead with plans to transfer management of 60 per cent of Wasaga Beach from the province to the town, despite receiving feedback from thousands of Ontarians decrying the proposal as potentially endangering sensitive piping plover habitat and affecting beach access. 

The Doug Ford government received 14,233 comments over a 30-day period last summer, about 98 per cent of which were in opposition to the proposal. Many expressed concerns that erasing provincial protection could mean the loss of sand dunes in favour of hotels, condos and other beachfront development.

“We did not consider any changes to the proposal based on the feedback received, given the Town of Wasaga Beach’s commitments to keeping the beach public, not building on the beach and protecting environmentally sensitive dunes,” the government said in its decision.

Under Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights, the government is required to post moves with environmental or energy implications to the publicly accessible Environmental Registry of Ontario to allow for widespread feedback from industry, experts and residents. (The Ford government has, though, exempted several projects and types of notices from the registry, such as the Ontario Place redevelopment and permits to harm at-risk species, under Bill 5.)

Last June, the Ford government posted its decision to amend the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, the legislation which created more than 340 parks across Ontario. The amendment would permit the transfer of 60 hectares, or three per cent, of Wasaga Beach Provincial Park, which protects the world’s longest freshwater beach and surrounding natural areas, to the town’s management to help boost tourism and the local economy. 

The transfer includes more than half, or 60 per cent, of the beachfront, which contains all the sand dunes and vegetation that serve as nesting area for the piping plover.

Among the roughly two per cent of respondents that supported the move for the sake of economic development and revitalization, there was also a push for “continued environmental management and continued public access.”

Most of the comments on the registry posting highlighted the consequences of losing this beach environment, or even threatening it with increased development. 

“Once this precedent is set, we risk irreversible environmental degradation, reduced public access and the commercialization of what should remain a protected, public space for generations to come,” one local resident wrote. “Tourism and environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive, and development must not come at the cost of conservation.” 

“Public land — especially waterfront property as ecologically and recreationally important as Wasaga Beach — should remain in public hands and under provincial protection,” another wrote.  

None of this swayed the province. The amendments to enable the transfer were passed in Ontario’s 2025 budget, released last fall. With the recent decision, the government will now advance the transfer to the town.

This is not the first time the Ford government has disregarded feedback through the Environmental Registry of Ontario. The Auditor General of Ontario has repeatedly called out this government for failing to adhere to its own laws — at times “deliberately” — that require it to meaningfully consult the public through the registry.

In late 2022, for example, the government received more than 30,000 comments about its plans to remove 7,400 acres of land from the protected Greenbelt. In spite of this, “no changes were made to the proposal as a result of public consultation,” the government’s posting on the registry read.

In choosing not to consider any changes based on public feedback, the government’s decision said the lands removed from provincial protection in Wasaga Beach “will continue to be subject to Ontario’s species protection and environmental laws.”

However, shortly before announcing this transfer, the Ford government weakened species protections through its controversial Bill 5, as well as exempting certain postings from the environmental registry. The provincial parks legislation was the last law standing to protect plover habitat in Wasaga Beach.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Ontario government is not considering changing its law that prevents municipalities from charging Enbridge Gas for building pipelines on public land, despite calls to do so.

“I’m not aware of any contemplation of amending the current policy,” Ontario Energy Minister Stephen Lecce told reporters during a Jan. 7 press conference in Toronto.

Last November, Waterloo Region became the second Ontario municipality, after Guelph, to resist renewing these agreements. Doing so would have meant locking in for another two decades of offering free space to pipelines that carry natural gas, which is largely made up of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.

Through longstanding regulation, the province prohibits municipalities from charging for the right of way used for natural gas pipelines. 

The law requires municipalities to enter into franchise agreements with natural gas providers, allowing them to build pipelines under roadways and surrounding lands without charge. Enbridge Gas has these agreements with more than 340 municipalities, the details of which are negotiated through the Ontario Energy Board, a non-partisan regulator mandated to uphold provincial law.

These are unique arrangements in Canada; in provinces including British Columbia and Alberta, municipalities can charge gas companies that want to build pipelines on their land. 

Along with Waterloo Region and Guelph, both Ottawa and Toronto have argued changes to these agreements would give local councils a much-needed source of revenue, along with the ability to move away from fossil fuels and reduce emissions in their cities. 

“Were the province to amend its regulation and city council decided to apply a land-based charge to Enbridge’s use of the right of way, it could generate between $73 million and $293 million in total annual revenue,” according to City of Toronto staff, based on how such charges are applied elsewhere.

As of December 2025, neither Guelph nor Waterloo had received an official response from the province. 

In his Jan. 7 response to a question from The Narwhal about potential changes to the policy, Lecce deferred to the Ontario Energy Board. The board has announced a full review of these agreements in spring 2026 — the first since 1999. That will play out at the board alongside individual cases about Guelph and Waterloo Region’s agreements with Enbridge Gas. 

“The Ontario Energy Board is an independent adjudicator,” Lecce said. “They make sure that any cost that is borne on the ratepayer is prudent. … I have confidence in the [board].”

A spokesperson for Enbridge Gas previously told The Narwhal the company would not comment on the upcoming hearings, but that the board “reviews and approves every agreement to make sure it’s fair and in the public interest.”

Regardless of the board’s decision, the government would have to amend the Municipal Act to allow municipalities to charge gas utilities for pipeline right of way going forward. Ontario Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner, who is the MPP for Guelph, has twice tabled a private member’s bill proposing this amendment, with the latest iteration awaiting second reading. 

The upcoming Ontario Energy Board hearings between Enbridge Gas and the municipalities come in the wake of the board’s 2023 decision, when it ordered the company to stop passing down the cost of new gas hookups to homeowners on their bills, arguing cleaner and more economical alternatives exist. In early 2024, the Ford government made the unprecedented decision to overrule the regulator’s decision. After that, the government created a new energy policy that keeps natural gas, a fossil fuel, in Ontario’s supply mix until at least 2050. 

When asked if the government would accept the board’s decision on franchise agreements, Lecce said, “We want to seek alignments with the [board].” 

“We respect their independence, and obviously, I’m not going to entertain hypotheticals that may or may not come down the pipe in a year or two or three,” he added. “Our message to the [Ontario Energy Board] … is we want to focus on the economy, keep costs down.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

For 15 years and counting, my commute from Mississauga to Toronto has been mired by everything imaginable — construction, cancelled buses, traffic jams, frozen tracks and train delays with no explanation at all. It’s likely about to get worse, or at least more crowded. 

There are more than 60,000 public servants working in the Ontario government. Starting next week, they’ll head back to the office five days a week, even as provincial politicians take an extended break from the legislature until March. 

The province issued that directive last August, changing the pandemic-era policy that first ordered everyone to work from home, then continued to allow for flexible work schedules. The directive was a far cry from Premier Ford’s thinking only five years ago, when he said working from home was “the way of the future.” 

On social media, people who said they were public servants were upset at the change. 

“Hope every single driver knows that I am clogging up traffic unnecessarily because of Ford,” said one person on Reddit. 

“I am reminded I am now paid not to be at my most productive. But instead, it is now also my job to use more gas, contribute to ridiculously congested traffic and emit more pollution,” said another on the same platform. 

The greatest concentration of provincial government offices is in Toronto, including the legislature. But not all government workers live in the city, so bringing them all back five days a week is going to strain southern Ontario’s already stressed and overpacked roads and transit system — and its air.

Transportation is already the single greatest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Ontario, a province where the quality and quantity of transit leaves much to be desired. As provincial workers join the employees of big banks and other companies that have ordered everyone back downtown, there will inevitably be more people in cars, increasing traffic pollution. 

It already happened in Ottawa when federal workers returned to the office for just three days a week in 2024. A Carleton University study, conducted on 1,500 federal bureaucrats, found remote workers produced a quarter less emissions than those who went into the office. The researchers found the difference was even more drastic in Quebec, where remote workers with the federal government produced 64 per cent less emissions. 

The report’s conclusion was that working from home — even just part of the time — does cut emissions, as well as easing congestion. 

This would all look a lot different if our transportation infrastructure could handle tens of thousands more people. But it can’t, and little has changed in that regard over the Ford government’s seven and a half years in power, for either drivers or transit users. 

The long-promised Highway 413, which would cut through the Greenbelt and connect the suburbs north and west of Toronto, and the Bradford Bypass farther north, have yet to be built, even though the government has passed legislation after legislation to enable construction. 

And even if they were built, they almost certainly wouldn’t ease traffic congestion — even the province’s own modelling says so. 

More lanes simply means more cars on the road — a concept known as induced demand that is best illustrated by the fact that when the Ford government lifted provincial tolls off sections of the usually quiet Highway 407 last June, those stretches soon became busy. Meanwhile, there’s still no shortage of traffic on the 401.

But lifting those tolls was moving in the opposite direction of a proven solution for crowded streets: charging drivers through tolls and congestion pricing has worked in New York, reducing traffic congestion by 11 per cent since 2024. Instead, Ontario has killed several tolls and outlawed congestion pricing in its most recent budget. 

Transit-wise, if you’ve taken a GO train or TTC streetcar at rush hour you know there’s often no room for even one more person to make their way back to the office in January. 

The government says it’s investing in “the largest transit expansion in North America” and the “largest subway expansion in Canadian history.” Cool, but how long is it going to take? 

Toronto and its neighbouring communities remain trapped in decades-long construction mazes for light-rail transit and subways whose end dates are aspirational at best, as is their effectiveness. The city’s newest line since 2002 is Finch West, a $3.7-billion, 10.3 kilometre light-rail transitway that runners can outpace, as several people have demonstrated. 

If nothing else, maybe Ontario’s lagging transit upgrades and lack of real solutions for congestion will make walking to work the commute of choice — even if it means marathon distances. Otherwise, and more likely, we’ll continue down this road, which may involve paying another $120 billion in health costs associated with air pollution across the country, particularly in the most densely populated regions like the Greater Toronto Area. And more air pollution means more global warming and more extreme weather events like flooding and wildfires. 

But that shouldn’t be the cost of going to work — nor should the void of human interaction from working at home be a better solution.

Here’s to hoping the ever-elusive Goldilocks option of better transit and less traffic is on the table one day, for public servants and the rest of us.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.