HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-12-19
Electronic Council Communications Information
Package
Date:December 19, 2025
Time:12:00 PM
Location:ECCIP is an information package and not a meeting.
Description: An ECCIP is an electronic package containing correspondence received by Staff for
Council's information. This is not a meeting of Council or Committee.
Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the
Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Members of Council: In accordance with the Procedural By-law, please advise the Municipal Clerk
at clerks@clarington.net, if you would like to include one of these items on the next regular agenda
of the appropriate Standing Committee, along with the proposed resolution for disposition of the
matter. Items will be added to the agenda if the Municipal Clerk is advised by Thursday at noon the
two weeks prior to the appropriate meeting, otherwise the item will be included on the agenda for
the next regularly scheduled meeting of the applicable Committee.
Members of the Public: can speak to an ECCIP item as a delegation. If you would like to be a
delegation at a meeting, please visit the Clarington website.
Pages
1.Region of Durham Correspondence
1.1 Regional Response to ERO #025-1257 – Proposed Boundaries for the
Regional Consolidation of Ontario’s Conservation Authorities - December
19, 2025
3
2.Durham Municipalities Correspondence
2.1 City of Oshawa - Community Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan - 5 Year
Update - December 18, 2025
26
3.Other Municipalities Correspondence
3.1 Township of Nairn and Hyman - Nation-Building Improvements to
Highway 11/17 (2+1 & Four Lane Options) - December 17, 2025
82
3.2 Township of Nairn and Hyman - Support for Steel and Lumber Sectors -
December 17, 2025
87
4.Provincial / Federal Government and their Agency Correspondence
4.1 Minister of Emergency Preparedness and Response - Emergency
Management Modernization Act Achieves Royal Assent - December 9,
2025
91
5.Miscellaneous Correspondence
5.1 Minutes from the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority meeting
dated November 27, 2025
95
5.2 Kawartha Conservation 2026 Preliminary Budget - December 16, 2025 102
5.3 Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Submission - Proposed
boundaries for the regional consolidation of Ontario’s Conservation
Authorities (ERO#025-1257) - December 17, 2025
167
5.4 Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority - ERO Notice Proposing the
Consolidation of Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities into Regional
Conservation Authorities - December 18, 2025
175
December 19, 2025
Electronic Council Communications Information Package (ECCIP)
Page 2
The Regional
Municipality of
Durham
Corporate Services
Department –
Legislative Services
Division
605 Rossland Rd. E.
Level 1
PO Box 623
Whitby, ON L1N 6A3
Canada
905-668-7711
1-800-372-1102
durham.ca
Alexander Harras
M.P.A.
Director of
Legislative Services
& Regional Clerk
Sent Via Email
December 19, 2025
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Conservation and Source Protection Branch
300 Water Street North Tower, 5th Floor
Peterborough, ON K9J 3C7
RE: Regional Response to ERO #025-1257 – Proposed
Boundaries for the Regional Consolidation of Ontario’s
Conservation Authorities (2025-CG-14), Our File: L14
Council of the Region of Durham, at its meeting held on December
17, 2025, passed the following resolution:
A)That the following be endorsed as the Region of D urham’s
comments on ERO #025-1257, proposed boundaries for the
regional consolidation of Ontario’s conservation authorities:
i)The province should consider how consolidations at a
smaller geographic scale than the seven regional CAs
proposed could still meet the criteria of reducing
administrative burden for municipalities while combining
watersheds that are more geographically and contextually
similar. Considering shared environmental protection
priorities, similar biological, geological and ec ological
attributes, and simplified administration, the Region
recommends that the prov ince consider two regional CAs
within Durham, one that serves the urbanized Lake
Ontario shoreline and one serving the area north of the
Oak Ridges Moraine;
If you require this information in an accessible format, please contact Legislative Services at
clerks@durham.ca or at 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2097.
Page 3
ii) Each regional CA should be equally equipped with the appropriate resources
(i.e., human and financial) and flexibility to respond to the urban context in
order to support provincial housing objectives;
iii) The province should ensure that existing Memoranda of Understanding
(MOUs) remain in force through the consolidation process;
iv) The Region and its area municipalities require continued, proportionate
representation to ensure that local watershed priorities and risks are reflected
in decision-making;
v) The centralization of administration and the establishment of the Ontario
Provincial Conservation Agency (OPCA), as proposed, may weaken
relationships with Indigenous communities through the loss of localized,
meaningful engagement and potential erosion of relationship continuity and
trust;
vi) The province should leverage existing processes and resources already
established under Conservation Ontario and clarify any future role of
Conservation Ontario under the new regional CA framework;
vii) The Region requests clarification if upper tiers will continue to have a role in
funding CAs and supports a review of the existing CA funding model to
increase clarity and understand potential financial impacts to municipalities
and shifts amongst municipalities resulting from the proposed consolidation.
Any proposed changes should not result in increased costs individual
municipalities;
viii) The province should complete a Financial Impact Analysis, at their expense,
to fully understand the overall financial implications of consolidation and the
specific financial impact of consolidation on each municipality;
ix) Municipalities should not be responsible, through the municipal levy, for
funding the activities of the OPCA, this should remain a provincial cost;
x) The OPCA should develop a standardized template for CA budget
submissions to reduce administrative burden for municipalities that continue
to have multiple CAs within their jurisdiction under the proposed new regional
CA framework;
Page 4
xi) The ability for regional CAs to access grant funding to deliver local programs
and services should not be compromised as a result of consolidation;
xii) The province should ensure that regional CAs are equipped to respond to
localized flood, natural hazard and water quality concerns despite being
geographically vast;
xiii) The province should ensure that OPCA applied standards are flexible to local
hydrological and ecological conditions;
xiv) The province should prioritize the maintenance of regional CA involvement in
local partnerships and community-driven environmental and climate projects,
as agreed to by municipalities, to avoid weakening the effectiveness of these
important initiatives;
xv) The Region supports the transition toward a more predictable, criteria-based
CA permitting system;
xvi) All current mandatory (Category 1) programs and services should be
maintained as part of the proposed changes, with emphasis on maintaining
existing service levels and avoiding increased administrative burden to
municipalities that already have delivery agreements in place;
xvii) The province should prioritize staff continuity and local technical capacity
throughout the consolidation process;
xviii) The province should ensure that data systems, monitoring networks, and
technical records supporting plans and policies (e.g., Source Protection
Plans) remain intact, accessible, and interoperable throughout the transition,
and that existing data-sharing agreements remain in force until successor
arrangements are established;
xix) The province should ensure that Clean Water Act governance boundaries
remain stable, and any re-designation of Source Protection Authorities occur
only after careful coordination with affected municipalities;
xx) Municipal support for Risk Management Official functions and Risk
Management Plan implementation should continue to be identified as a
mandatory service within any new regional CA mandate;
Page 5
xxi) The province should ensure stable, dedicated funding for Clean Water Act
program delivery during and after consolidation to prevent program
interruptions;
xxii) A phased implementation schedule for consolidation that safeguards ongoing
monitoring, reporting, and policy update commitments throughout the
transition is recommended; and
B) That a copy of Report #2025-CG-14 of the Commissioner of Community Growth
and Economic Development be forwarded to the Ministry of the Environment,
Conservation and Parks, the Region’s five conservation authority partners, area
municipalities, and Williams Treaty First Nations.
Please find enclosed a copy of Report #2025-CG-14 for your information.
Alexander Harras
Alexander Harras, M.P.A.
Director of Legislative Services & Regional Clerk
AH/tf
c: J. Grossi, Clerk, Town of Ajax
F. Lamanna, Clerk, Township of Brock
J. Gallagher, Clerk, Municipality of Clarington
M. Medeiros, Clerk, City of Oshawa
S. Cassel, Clerk, City of Pickering
B. Labelle, Clerk, Township of Scugog
D. Leroux, Clerk, Township of Uxbridge
C. Harris, Clerk, Town of Whitby
C. Darling, CAO, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
L. Laliberte, CAO/Secretary-Treasurer, Ganaraska Region Conservation
Authority
M. Majchrowski, CAO, Kawartha Conservation
R. Baldwin, CAO, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
J. MacKenzie, CEO, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Alderville First Nation
Beausoleil First Nation
Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation
Chippewas of Rama First Nation
Page 6
Curve Lake First Nation
Hiawatha First Nation
Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
S. Austin, Commissioner of Community Growth and Economic Development
A. Burgess, Director, Communications and Engagement
Page 7
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2564.
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Report
To: Regional Council
From:Commissioner of Community Growth and Economic Development
Report:#2025-CG-14
Date: December 17, 2025
Subject:
Regional Response to ERO #025-1257 – Proposed Boundaries for the
Regional Consolidation of Ontario’s Conservation Authorities
Recommendation:
That it be recommended to Regional Council:
A)That the following be endorsed as the Region of Durham’s comments on ERO
#025-1257, proposed boundaries for the regional consolidation of Ontario’s
conservation authorities:
i)The province should consider how consolidations at a smaller geographic
scale than the seven regional CAs proposed could still meet the criteria of
reducing administrative burden for municipalities while combining watersheds
that are more geographically and contextually similar. Considering shared
environmental protection priorities, similar biological, geological and ecological
attributes, and simplified administration, the Region recommends that the
province consider two regional CAs within Durham, one that serves the
urbanized Lake Ontario shoreline and one serving the area north of the Oak
Ridges Moraine;
ii)Each regional CA should be equally equipped with the appropriate resources
(i.e., human and financial) and flexibility to respond to the urban context in
order to support provincial housing objectives;
Page 8
Report #2025-CG-14 Page 2 of 16
iii)The province should ensure that existing Memoranda of Understanding
(MOUs) remain in force through the consolidation process;
iv)The Region and its area municipalities require continued, proportionate
representation to ensure that local watershed priorities and risks are reflected
in decision-making;
v)The centralization of administration and the establishment of the Ontario
Provincial Conservation Agency (OPCA), as proposed, may weaken
relationships with Indigenous communities through the loss of localized,
meaningful engagement and potential erosion of relationship continuity and
trust;
vi)The province should leverage existing processes and resources already
established under Conservation Ontario and clarify any future role of
Conservation Ontario under the new regional CA framework;
vii)The Region requests clarification if upper tiers will continue to have a role in
funding CAs and supports a review of the existing CA funding model to
increase clarity and understand potential financial impacts to municipalities
and shifts amongst municipalities resulting from the proposed consolidation.
Any proposed changes should not result in increased costs individual
municipalities;
viii)The province should complete a Financial Impact Analysis, at their expense, to
fully understand the overall financial implications of consolidation and the
specific financial impact of consolidation on each municipality;
ix)Municipalities should not be responsible, through the municipal levy, for
funding the activities of the OPCA, this should remain a provincial cost;
x) The OPCA should develop a standardized template for CA budget
submissions to reduce administrative burden for municipalities that continue to
have multiple CAs within their jurisdiction under the proposed new regional CA
framework;
xi)The ability for regional CAs to access grant funding to deliver local programs
and services should not be compromised as a result of consolidation;
Page 9
Report #2025-CG-14 Page 3 of 16
xii)The province should ensure that regional CAs are equipped to respond to
localized flood, natural hazard and water quality concerns despite being
geographically vast;
xiii)The province should ensure that OPCA applied standards are flexible to local
hydrological and ecological conditions;
xiv)The province should prioritize the maintenance of regional CA involvement in
local partnerships and community-driven environmental and climate projects,
as agreed to by municipalities, to avoid weakening the effectiveness of these
important initiatives;
xv)The Region supports the transition toward a more predictable, criteria-based
CA permitting system.
xvi)All current mandatory (Category 1) programs and services should be
maintained as part of the proposed changes, with emphasis on maintaining
existing service levels and avoiding increased administrative burden to
municipalities that already have delivery agreements in place;
xvii)The province should prioritize staff continuity and local technical capacity
throughout the consolidation process;
xviii)The province should ensure that data systems, monitoring networks, and
technical records supporting plans and policies (e.g., Source Protection Plans)
remain intact, accessible, and interoperable throughout the transition, and that
existing data-sharing agreements remain in force until successor
arrangements are established;
xix)The province should ensure that Clean Water Act governance boundaries
remain stable, and any re-designation of Source Protection Authorities occur
only after careful coordination with affected municipalities;
xx)Municipal support for Risk Management Official functions and Risk
Management Plan implementation should continue to be identified as a
mandatory service within any new regional CA mandate;
xxi)The province should ensure stable, dedicated funding for Clean Water Act
program delivery during and after consolidation to prevent program
interruptions;
Page 10
Report #2025-CG-14 Page 4 of 16
xxii)A phased implementation schedule for consolidation that safeguards ongoing
monitoring, reporting, and policy update commitments throughout the transition
is recommended; and
B)That a copy of this report be forwarded to the Ministry of the Environment,
Conservation and Parks, the Region’s five conservation authority partners, area
municipalities, and Williams Treaty First Nations.
Report:
1.Purpose
1.1 On October 31, 2025, the province announced plans to introduce legislation to
amend the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) to create the Ontario Provincial
Conservation Agency (OPCA), a provincial board-governed agency to provide
centralized leadership, strategic direction, and oversight to Ontario’s conservation
authorities (CAs). It is not clear how the establishment of the OPCA will impact the
existing role of Conservation Ontario, a non-profit association that currently
represents the existing 36 CAs.
1.2 The announcement also outlined the province’s intention to consolidate Ontario’s
existing 36 CAs into seven regional CAs. Following this announcement, the province
formally initiated consultation on proposed boundaries and criteria for this
consolidation through the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO #025-1257) on
November 7, 2025. Feedback on the proposal is invited until December 22, 2025 (a
45-day commenting period). The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of
the proposal and seek Council endorsement of Regional staff comments.
1.3 Once endorsed by Regional Council and in advance of the December 22, 2025,
commenting deadline, a response letter and a copy of this report will be sent to the
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.
2.Background
2.1 The CA Act, which sets out the organization of CAs, was established in 1946 in
response to widespread flooding, erosion and deforestation that threatened
Ontario’s natural resources. Recognizing that natural features do not follow
municipal boundaries and are best managed holistically, CAs were organized along
natural watershed boundaries, rather than political ones.
Page 11
Report #2025-CG-14 Page 5 of 16
2.2 There are currently five CAs with jurisdiction in Durham:
•Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) – Pickering, the majority of
Ajax, and a portion of Uxbridge;
•Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) – the majority of Brock
and Uxbridge, and western portion of Scugog;
•Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) – Whitby, Oshawa,
portions of Ajax, and the western portion of Clarington;
•Kawartha Region Conservation Authority (KRCA) – the majority of Scugog,
portions of Brock, and a small portion of Uxbridge; and
•Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA) – the eastern portion of
Clarington.
2.3 While the initial focus of CAs was watershed-based environmental protection and
hazard mitigation (e.g., flood and erosion control), over time their mandate
expanded to include a broad range of programs and services. For example,
environmental monitoring and research, source water protection, environmental
education, land use planning and regulations, watershed restoration, and
landscape-level conservation.
2.4 In 2015, the province released the Conservation Authorities Act Discussion Paper to
identify ways to improve existing CA legislation, regulatory and policy framework,
and programs and services. The Region provided comments in response to themes
of CA governance, funding mechanisms, and roles and responsibilities (Report
#2015-J-49).
2.5 Building on feedback from that Discussion Paper, in May 2016, the province
released a consultation document entitled, “Conserving Our Future: Proposed
Priorities for Renewal”. The Region responded to address various priority actions
including, strengthening CA oversight and accountability, increasing clarity and
consistency, improving collaboration and engagement, modernizing funding
mechanisms, and enhancing flexibility for the province (Report #2016-COW-12).
2.6 Following these initial consultation exercises, there have been numerous legislative
and regulatory changes to the CA Act. These changes have focused on
modernization and refinement of core responsibilities and narrowing CA focus to
hazard prevention, with the intention to streamline permitting and align with
provincial growth and housing objectives.
Page 12
Report #2025-CG-14 Page 6 of 16
2.7 Reports detailing these amendments to the CA Act are provided in the following
section of this report.
3.Previous Reports and Decisions
3.1 The following reports detailing amendments to the CA Act have been provided to
Regional Council in recent years:
•In July 2017, Regional comments on Bill 139, the Building Better Communities
and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 were provided through Report #2 017-
INFO-79.
•In May 2019, an overview of pr ovincial proposals to amend the CA Act was
provided through Report #2019-P-27.
•In May 2019, Regional comments on Bill 108, the M ore Homes, More Choice Act
and associated discussion papers related to the CAs were provided through
Report #2019-A-22.
•In November 2020, Regional com ments on Bill 229, the Protect, Suppor t and
Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures), including changes to the CA
Act were provided through Report #2020-P-2 6. Regional Council, at its meeting
on November 25, 2020, passed a resolution requesting that Schedule 6 to Bill
229 be removed.
•An update on the final v ersion of Bill 229, in particular Schedule 6, was provided
through Report #2021-INFO-1.
•In July 2021, an overview of Phase 1 regulatory proposals under the CA Act was
provided through Report #2021-INFO-82.
•In March 2022, an overview of Phase 2 regulatory proposals under the CA Act
was provided through Report #2022-INFO-22.
•In November 2022, an overview of Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act,
2022 and Regional comments on the Bill were provided through Report #2022-
INFO-93.
4.Overview of Proposal to Consolidate the Conservation Authorities
4.1 The province is proposing to consolidate Ontario’s existing 36 CAs into seven
regional CAs, listed below and shown in Attachment #1. Durham-specific regional
CAs are highlighted in bold and shown in Attachment #2.
•Huron-Superior Regional Conservation Authority (HSRCA) – existing
LSRCA jurisdiction within Durham;
Page 13
Report #2025-CG-14 Page 7 of 16
• Central Lake Ontario Regional Conservation Authority (CLORCA) –
existing TRCA jurisdiction within Durham;
• Eastern Lake Ontario Regional Conservation Authority (ELORCA) –
existing CLOCA, KRCA and GRCA jurisdictions within Durham;
• Lake Erie Regional Conservation Authority (LERCA);
• Western Lake Ontario Regional Conservation Authority (WLORCA);
• St. Lawrence Regional Conservation Authority (SRCA); and
• Northeastern Ontario Regional Conservation Authority (NORCA).
4.2 The similarity in name between the CLORCA and the existing CLOCA may cause
confusion. Additionally, TRCA’s Board and stakeholders have expressed concerns
about the costs associated with TRCA’s proposed name change to CLORCA.
4.3 The province is not proposing to change the total amount of geographic area that is
currently governed by the CAs, but rather existing CAs are proposed to be grouped
together to form each regional CA. While a proposed governance model has yet to
be released, the province has indicated that regional CAs will remain independent
organizations, operating with municipal governance and oversight (required by the
CA Act).
4.4 It is Regional staff’s understanding that governance changes are not intended to be
initiated until after municipal elections in October 2026. Existing Board members
would continue to serve their terms until that time.
4.5 On November 6, 2025, the province released Bill 68, the Plan to Protect Ontario Act
(Budget Measures), 2025 (Bill 68). Bill 68 received Royal Assent on November 27,
2025. Schedule 3 of Bill 68 changes the CA Act to create the OPCA. The OPCA will
provide centralized leadership to all regional CAs by overseeing the CA
consolidation, implementing province-wide performance standards, policies and
fees and a digital permitting platform, and assessing and reporting on the
effectiveness of regional CAs.
4.6 The province has indicated that the intention behind the proposed consolidation is to
reduce duplicative administrative costs, direct resources to frontline conservation,
and better align CA services with provincial housing, economic, infrastructure and
climate resilience priorities. Under the proposed consolidation, the Region will have
three regional CAs within our jurisdiction (currently five CAs), so may not benefit
from the same reduction in administrative costs as other municipalities.
Page 14
Report #2025-CG-14 Page 8 of 16
4.7 The criteria applied for determining the proposed boundaries for the seven regional
CAs are:
• maintaining watershed-based jurisdictions – aligning with natural hydrological
boundaries;
• streamlining relationships between CAs and municipalities – reducing
administrative duplication and overlap for municipalities and CAs;
• balancing expertise and capacity across CAs – enhancing technical skills and
resources across CAs; and
• ensuring service continuity – providing uninterrupted delivery of local CA
programs through and after consolidation.
4.8 Regional staff participated in a virtual information session, hosted by the province on
November 18, 2025.
5. Regional Staff Analysis and Comments on the Proposal to Consolidate the
Conservation Authorities
5.1 Staff from the Region’s Community Growth and Economic Development
Department, Works Department, Health Department, and Finance Department
collaborated on the following comments.
5.2 The province’s proposal was also considered by the Durham Environment and
Climate Advisory Committee (DECAC) at their November 20, 2025, meeting.
DECAC’s comments have been considered by staff in the preparation of these
comments.
Governance and Administrative Considerations
5.3 The Region recognizes that CA consolidation is desired and supports provincial
efforts to continue utilizing watershed boundaries for the proposed regional CAs.
The province should consider how consolidations at a smaller geographic
scale than the seven regional CAs proposed could still meet the criteria of
reducing administrative burden for municipalities while combining
watersheds that are more geographically and contextually similar.
Considering shared environmental protection priorities, similar biological,
geological and ecological attributes, and simplified administration, the Region
recommends that the province consider two regional CAs within Durham, one
that serves the urbanized Lake Ontario shoreline and one serving the area
north of the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Page 15
Report #2025-CG-14 Page 9 of 16
5.4 The nature of current growth and expected future growth within the Region’s
southern municipalities is largely urban and urbanizing. For example, the
municipalities of Pickering, Ajax, Whitby, Oshawa, and Clarington have been
identified by the province as “large and fast-growing municipalities” because of their
size and rapid population growth. In the province’s proposal, Pickering and most of
Ajax are to be included within the Central Lake Ontario Regional CA (currently
TRCA). TRCA’s watershed boundaries remain intact with no proposed changes.
The rest of Ajax, Whitby, Oshawa and Clarington (currently covered by CLOCA and
part of GRCA) are proposed to be within the Eastern Lake Ontario Regional CA
(see Attachment #2). The Eastern Lake Ontario Regional CA, which extends
easterly to Kingston, and northerly to Highlands East, has substantially more rural
area, which will require a balance between rural and urban circumstances. Each
regional CA should be equally equipped with the appropriate resources (i.e.,
human and financial) and flexibility to respond to the urban context in order to
support provincial housing objectives.
5.5 Under previous changes made to the CA Act through Bill 229, the Region
established memoranda of understanding (MOUs) for the delivery of CA programs
and services with our five CA partners. The process to establish these MOUs began
in 2021 and completed MOUs were in place by January 1, 2023. The Region was
expecting to work with our CA partners to update the MOUs, beginning in early
2026. It is unclear how this work will proceed in light of proposed consolidation.
Regardless, existing MOUs will have to be restructured to align with the proposed
regional CA framework. The province should ensure that existing MOUs remain
in force through the consolidation process.
5.6 CA Board composition typically includes members appointed by municipalities within
the watershed, usually elected officials, alongside citizen representatives.
Representation is reflective of each municipality’s financial contribution or area,
ensuring local input into watershed management decisions. Merging CAs and
including many more municipalities under each regional CA could result in larger CA
Boards, leading to reduced local decision-making. It may also lead to conflicts when
CAs are providing programs and services, with limited budgets, for many more
municipalities with differing priorities The province should provide more information
about who holds accountability and how municipal, Indigenous, and local
stakeholder voices will be maintained under a regional CA framework. The Region
and its area municipalities require continued, proportionate representation to
ensure that local watershed priorities and risks are reflected in decision-
making.
Page 16
Report #2025-CG-14 Page 10 of 16
5.7 Many CAs have established relationships with Indigenous communities. The
centralization of administration and the establishment of the OPCA, as
proposed, may weaken relationships with Indigenous communities through
the loss of localized, meaningful engagement and potential erosion of
relationship continuity and trust.
5.8 Conservation Ontario is a not-for-profit, board-governed organization that represents
Ontario’s 36 CAs. The core functions of Conservation Ontario are in policy and
program development, business development and partnerships, communications,
education and training, collective corporate services, government relations and
information management and research. With the establishment of the OPCA, it is
not clear what future role Conservation Ontario will have, if any. The province
should leverage existing processes and resources already established under
Conservation Ontario and clarify any future role of Conservation Ontario
under the new regional CA framework.
Financial Considerations
5.9 Under the CA Act, CAs levy, through participating municipalities, for the portion of
their operating expenses and capital costs not funded by other revenue sources.
The CA can determine the amount of levy required and can apportion an amount of
the total to each participating municipality. Current cost apportionment methods
include:
• modified current value assessment – combines the relative modified current
property assessment dollars and the relative percentage of municipal
jurisdiction within the CAs jurisdiction and creates a percentage of what each
municipality is to pay of the total levy amount the CA determines for its annual
budget;
• authority-municipal agreement – maintenance costs can be apportioned by
agreement between the CA and participating municipalities on what the benefit
derived is for each participating municipality related to the maintenance costs
where the modified current value assessment method is not considered
appropriate. Capital costs may also be apportioned by this method; and
• apportionment by the CA – this method is often used for capital projects. The
CA decides which participating municipalities should pay and how much each
should pay based on benefits derived.
Page 17
Report #2025-CG-14 Page 11 of 16
It is unclear if the proposed consolidation will have impacts on current
apportionment methods or if upper-tier municipalities will continue to fund CAs going
forward as only lower-tier municipalities were listed in the supplemental materials
included with the ERO posting. Without the province providing information on each
municipalities’ assessment within the new consolidated CA boundaries and the total
budgets for the consolidated CAs, it is not possible to quantify the financial impacts
of the proposed consolidation for Durham Region and its property taxpayers. The
Region requests clarification if upper tiers will continue to have a role in
funding the CAs and supports a review of the existing CA funding model to
increase clarity and understand potential financial impacts to municipalities
and shifts amongst municipalities resulting from the proposed consolidation.
Any proposed changes should not result in increased costs for individual
municipalities.
5.10 There may be significant costs associated with the proposed CA consolidation. For
example, costs associated with IT systems, human resources, legal and
administrative work, rebranding, and integration of policies, procedures and internal
controls. The province should complete a Fiscal Impact Assessment, at their
expense, to fully understand the overall financial implications of consolidation
and the specific financial impact of consolidation on each municipality.
5.11 Amendments to the CA Act to establish the OPCA include cost recovery stipulations
to allow the OPCA to determine costs and expenses that the authorities owe to the
OPCA and apportion those amounts to the authorities. It is anticipated that funding
for the regional CAs will continue to come largely from the municipal levy.
Municipalities should not be responsible, through the municipal levy, for
funding the activities of the OPCA, this should remain a provincial cost.
5.12 As a municipality with five CAs (proposed to be three) within its jurisdiction the
Region reviews budget submissions that vary in format and detail. The OPCA
should develop a standardized template for CA budget submissions to reduce
administrative burden for municipalities that continue to have multiple CAs
within their jurisdiction under the new regional CA framework.
5.13 CAs apply for and receive program-specific funding and external grants from a
variety of sources. For example, CLOCA was recently awarded $1.6M from the
Canada Water Agency through the Great Lakes Freshwater Ecosystem Initiative to
restore and protect Oshawa Second Marsh coastal wetlands. To be awarded grant
funding, CAs and their municipal partners often must meet specific criteria, which
may no longer apply under a regional CA framework. The ability for regional CAs
Page 18
Report #2025-CG-14 Page 12 of 16
to access grant funding to deliver local programs and services should not be
compromised as a result of consolidation.
Human Health and Environmental Considerations
5.14 The province has indicated that the work CAs do to protect people and property
from the risk of flooding and other natural hazards will not change as a result of this
proposal. The province should ensure that regional CAs are equipped to
respond to localized flood, natural hazard, and water quality concerns despite
being so geographically vast.
5.15 Natural heritage varies across the province and within and between watersheds.
CAs are relied upon for their local, technical expertise in this regard. The province
should ensure that OPCA applied standards are flexible to local hydrological
and ecological conditions.
5.16 Regional CAs may have reduced ability to prioritize and capacity to actively
participate in and collaborate on local climate adaptation and environmental
stewardship projects. The province should prioritize the maintenance of CA
involvement in local partnerships and community-driven environmental and
climate projects, as agreed to by municipalities, to avoid weakening the
effectiveness of these important initiatives.
Program and Service Delivery Considerations
5.17 Development or site alteration within CA regulated natural hazard areas requires a
permit from the CA to proceed. CAs make permit decisions based on the rules and
standards in provincial legislation, regulatory requirements, technical standards and
CA approved policies. The Region recognizes that processing times for permits can
vary widely across CAs and differences in technical standards, mapping
methodology, and interpretations for landowners working across multiple CA
jurisdictions can be challenging. The Region supports the transition toward a
more predictable, criteria-based CA permitting system.
5.18 The Region, area municipalities and local school boards rely on the CAs to deliver a
variety of important programs and services. There are resourcing differences
between the CAs within Durham, which results in differences in program offerings
and access across the region. While the Region is supportive of efforts to improve
coordination and efficiency, significantly increasing the geographic extent of the CAs
may impact their ability to maintain strong local engagement and deliver localized
programs at existing service levels.
Page 19
Report #2025-CG-14 Page 13 of 16
5.19 While the province has indicated that implementation of the proposed consolidation
will be phased to ensure uninterrupted delivery of key programs, a change of this
magnitude brings a significant risk of service disruption, loss of staff and technical
expertise, and confusion about roles and responsibilities. All current mandatory
(Category 1) programs and services should be maintained as part of the
proposed changes, with emphasis on maintaining current service levels and
avoiding increased administrative burden to municipalities that already have
delivery agreements in place.
5.20 Notwithstanding the proposed consolidation, the Region will continue to advocate
for coordinated program delivery. For example, recent CA collaborations in Durham
include the Durham Trees Program and Resilient Agriculture Landscape Program.
These programs are examples of CAs working together successfully to offer
programs region-wide, while reducing administrative costs and leveraging
partnerships to secure funding.
Technical Expertise Considerations
5.21 CA staff possess specialized knowledge of local natural heritage features and
functions, aquifers, wellfield vulnerability assessments, hydrogeological conditions,
and agricultural challenges and opportunities. Regional staff are concerned about
potential loss of local expertise, staff capacity, and institutional knowledge as a
result of consolidation. Given the vast proposed boundaries of the regional CAs, it is
unclear how this expertise will be preserved. The province should prioritize staff
continuity and local technical capacity throughout the consolidation process.
5.22 Data integrity and continuity are critical to maintaining defensible technical work. To
support this, municipalities and CAs currently operate under numerous data sharing
agreements. Consolidation could create data management challenges, if monitoring
networks, databases, and GIS systems are merged without clear standards. The
province should ensure that data systems, monitoring networks, and
technical records supporting plans and policies (e.g., Source Protection
Plans) remain intact, accessible, and interoperable throughout the transition,
and that existing data-sharing agreements remain in force until successor
arrangements are established.
Clean Water Act Implementation Considerations
5.23 The Clean Water Act is implemented through Source Protection Authorities (SPAs)
that are aligned with existing CA boundaries, allowing source protection plans to
reflect local conditions affecting municipal drinking water systems. Consolidation will
Page 20
Report #2025-CG-14 Page 14 of 16
likely require re-designation of SPAs and reconstitution of Source Protection
Committees (SPCs). Given that the proposed regional CA boundaries would
continue to include three SPCs within Durham, there is unlikely to be any reduction
in duplication or administrative burden for the Region.
5.24 Proposed changes risk disrupting established SPA governance structures, delaying
ongoing Section 36 updates, and creating inconsistencies in policy interpretation,
implementation and monitoring. The province should ensure that Clean Water
Act governance boundaries remain stable, and any re-designation of SPAs
occur only after careful coordination with affected municipalities.
5.25 Risk Management Officials (RMOs) are appointed by the municipality that is
responsible for implementing Part IV of the Clean Water Act. They negotiate and
establish Risk Management Plans and review development applications and issue
Section 59 notices in vulnerable areas around drinking water sources. Since 2013,
the Region has performed the RMO responsibility in Durham. The Region currently
employs two RMOs, one responsible for the northern municipalities and one
responsible for the southern municipalities. Municipal staff and RMOs rely on CA
technical staff for policy interpretation, mapping and Section 59 screenings. Any
interruption in CA support could delay development review, Risk Management Plan
Implementation, and policy enforcement. Municipal support for RMO functions
and Risk Management Plan implementation should continue to be identified
as a mandatory service within any new regional CA mandate.
5.26 Changes to CA funding structures could affect resource allocation for source
protection delivery. Municipalities may experience increased financial burden or
reduced service levels if provincial funding is redistributed across larger regional
CAs. The province should ensure stable, dedicated funding for Clean Water
Act program delivery during and after consolidation to prevent program
interruptions.
5.27 Source water protection reporting obligations, including annual reports and five-year
reviews, could be compromised during CA restructuring. A phased implementation
schedule for consolidation that safeguards ongoing monitoring, reporting,
and policy update commitments throughout the transition is recommended.
6. Relationship to Strategic Plan
6.1 This report aligns with the following Strategic Directions in Durham Region’s 2025-
2035 Strategic Plan:
Page 21
Report #2025-CG-14 Page 15 of 16
a) Connected and Vibrant Communities
• C2. Enable a full range of housing options, including housing that is
affordable and close to transit.
• C7. Create accessible, lively, and culturally welcoming public spaces,
including opportunities to access nature.
b) Environmental Sustainability and Climate Action
• E3. Prepare for and respond to severe weather impacts.
• E5. Respect the natural environment, including greenspaces, waterways,
and agricultural lands.
c) Healthy People, Caring Communities
• H1. Implement preventive strategies to support community health,
including food security.
• H7. Prepare for and respond to local health emergencies in partnership
with the community.
d) Strong Relationships
• S1. Enhance inclusive opportunities for community engagement and
meaningful collaboration.
• S2. Build and strengthen respectful relationships with First Nations, Inuit,
Métis, and urban Indigenous communities.
• S3. Collaborate across local area municipalities, with agencies, non-
profits, and community partners to deliver co-ordinated and efficient
services.
• S4. Advocate to the federal and provincial government and agencies to
advance regional priorities.
• S5. Ensure accountable and transparent decision-making to serve
community needs, while responsibly managing available resources.
7. Conclusion
7.1 The province is seeking feedback on proposed boundaries and criteria for the
consolidation of Ontario’s 36 CAs to seven regional CAs (ERO #025-1257).
7.2 Regional staff from Community Growth and Economic Development, Works, Health,
and Finance collaborated on a recommended Regional response. Regional staff
Page 22
Report #2025-CG-14 Page 16 of 16
support the province’s objective to improve efficiency and coordination, and highlight
concerns regarding potential impacts to local representation, funding, technical
capacity, watershed-based planning, and implementation of programs and services.
7.3 Following consideration by Regional Council, a Regional response letter and a copy
of this report will be sent to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
in advance of the December 22, 2025, commenting deadline.
7.4 It is anticipated that the province will be engaging in future consultations as
associated legislative and regulatory proposals are released. Regional staff will
keep Council apprised of these consultations, as appropriate.
7.5 For additional information, contact: Amanda Bathe, Senior Planner at
Amanda.Bathe@durham.ca.
8. Attachments
Attachment #1: Provincial Map of Proposed Regional Conservation Authorities
Attachment #2: Proposed Regional Conservation Authority Boundaries in
Durham Region
Respectfully submitted,
Original signed by
Sandra Austin
Commissioner of Community Growth and
Economic Development
Recommended for Presentation to Council
Original signed by
Elaine C. Baxter-Trahair
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 23
Attachment 1
Page 24
0
Lake Simcoe
York Regional
Municipality
Hu ron-Sup erio r
RCA
TOWNSHIP OF
UXBRIDGE
CITY OF
PICKERING
C e ntra l Lake
Ontario RCA
Toronto
Division
5 10
Kilometres
20
TOWNSHIP
OF BROCK
TOWNSHIP
OF SCUGOG
Proposed Amalgamat ed
Conservation Au th orities
In Durham Reg ion
tllll Proposed Conservation Authority
Current Conservation Authorities
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
Kawartha Conservation
----Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
---- Toronto And Region Conservation Authority
Eastern Lake
Ontario RCA
Kawartha
Lakes
Division
TOWN OF
WHITBY CITY OF
OSHAWA MUNICIPALITY
OF CLARINGTON
Lake Ontario
This map has been produced from a variety of sources. The Region of Durham does not make any
representations concerning the accuracy, likely results, or reliability of the use of the materials. The Region
hereby disclaims all representations and warranties.
Digital cartography by The Regional Municipality of Durham, Community Growth and Economic Development
Department, November 2025. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced without permission.
Attachment 2
Page 25
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer
Legislative Services
The Corporation of the City of Oshawa, 50 Centre Street South, Oshawa, Ontario L1H 3Z7
Phone 905∙436∙3311 1∙800∙667∙4292 Fax 905∙436∙5697
www.oshawa.ca
File: 03-05
December 18, 2025
DELIVERED BY E-MAIL
Association of Municipalities of Ontario
amo@amo.on.ca
Re: ED-25-115 - Community Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan - 5 Year Update (All Wards)
Oshawa City Council considered the above matter at its meeting of December 15, 2025, and
adopted the following resolution concerning Community Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan - 5
Year Update (All Wards):
1. That, based on Report ED-25-115 dated November 26, 2025, the 2024 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Inventory be endorsed as part of the first five year update to the Council-
approved Community Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan and authorize staff to provide a
copy of the 2024 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, together with a copy of said
Report, to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for approval, to satisfy Milestones 4
and 5 of the Partners for Climate Change program; and
2. That a copy of Report ED-25-115 dated November 26, 2025 be sent to the Association of
Municipalities of Ontario, the Region of Durham, Durham area municipalities, Oshawa
Power and Utilities Corporation, and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority.
Please find attached a copy of Report ED-25-115 for your information.
If you need further assistance concerning the above matter, please contact Anthony Ambra,
Commissioner, Economic and Development Services at the address listed below or by telephone
at 905-436-3311.
Regards,
Mary Medeiros
Director, Legislative Services/City Clerk
Page 26
2
Encl.
/pa
cc: Region of Durham
Town of Ajax
Town of Whitby
City of Pickering
Municipality of Clarington
Town of Uxbridge
Township of Brock
Town of Scugog
Oshawa Power and Utilities Corporation
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
Page 27
Public Report
To: Economic and Development Services Committee
From: Anthony Ambra, P.Eng, Commissioner,
Economic and Development Services Department
Report Number: ED-25-115
Date of Report: November 26, 2025
Date of Meeting: December 1, 2025
Subject: Community Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan - 5 Year Update
Ward: All Wards
File: 12-05 3555
1.0 Purpose
The purpose of this Report is to provide Council with an update on the first five years of
progress towards the initiatives/reduction targets established in the Community
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (the “Community Plan”) previously approved by Council
through Report DS-20-130 in November, 2020, and to seek authorization to submit the
2024 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory (the “G.H.G. Inventory”) to the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities (“F.C.M.”) together with a copy of this Report, to satisfy
Milestones 4 and 5 for the Partners for Climate Protection (“P.C.P.”) Program.
Attachment 1 is a copy of the Community Plan. Owing to its size, a copy of the
Community Plan can be viewed using the following link:
https://app.oshawa.ca/agendas/Development_Services/2020/11-09/REPORT_DS-20-
130.pdf.
Attachment 2 is a copy of the G.H.G. Inventory dated November 2025, prepared by
Ontario Tech University’s Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, in partnership with
the City of Oshawa through the Teaching Cities initiative.
2.0 Recommendation
That the Economic and Development Services Committee recommend to City Council:
1.That, based on Report ED-25-115 dated November 26, 2025, City Council endorse the
2024 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory as part of the first five year update to the
Council-approved Community Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan and authorize staff to
provide a copy of the 2024 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, together with a copy
of said Report, to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for approval, to satisfy
Milestones 4 and 5 of the Partners for Climate Change program.
Page 28
Report to Economic and Development Services Committee Item: ED-25-115
Meeting Date: December 1, 2025 Page 2
2. That a copy of Report ED-25-115 dated November 26, 2025 be sent to the Association
of Municipalities of Ontario, the Region of Durham, Durham area municipalities,
Oshawa Power and Utilities Corporation, and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority.
3.0 Input From Other Sources
The following have been consulted in the preparation of this Report:
Chief Administrative Officer
Commissioner, Community and Operations Services Department
Commissioner, Corporate and Finance Services Department
Commissioner, Safety and Facilities Services Department
Ontario Tech University
4.0 Analysis
4.1 Region of Durham 2024 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
The Region of Durham reports annually on their G.H.G. Inventory as well as their progress
towards achieving the net-zero climate targets established in, and as part of the Durham
Community Energy Plan (“D.C.E.P.”). These reports help monitor and track the Region’s
overall progress in reducing G.H.G. emissions.
For more information on the 2024 Regional G.H.G. inventory please visit the following link:
https://shared.ontariotechu.ca/shared/department/research/brilliant-energy-institute-
website/durhamclimateroundtable/durhamzero-jan-
20251.pdf?__hstc=264899472.ce27554b2fdd290ead7cb2bae0aab723.1761568607135.17
61568607135.1
A link to the D.C.E.P. can be found here: https://www.durham.ca/en/living-here/low-
carbon-pathway.aspx#Community-Energy-Plan.
It is important to note that both the City and the Region are committed to the same
Community G.H.G. reduction targets listed below:
5% reduction from 2007 levels by 2015;
20% reduction from 2007 levels by 2020; and,
80% reduction from 2007 levels by 2050.
4.2 City of Oshawa Policies
4.2.1 2024 to 2027 Oshawa Strategic Plan
On June 24, 2024, City Council considered Report CNCL-24-71, dated June 19, 2024, and
approved the Oshawa Strategic Plan (“O.S.P.”) 2024-2027: Innovate. Belong. Care. Lead.
The O.S.P. serves as the City’s highest level policy document. The O.S.P. identifies a
vision for the long-term future, refines the City’s corporate mission and identifies a series of
Page 29
Report to Economic and Development Services Committee Item: ED-25-115
Meeting Date: December 1, 2025 Page 3
priority areas, goals and actions to move toward the vision. A key component of the
O.S.P. is the establishment of performance metrics, to measure the City’s progress in
implementing the O.S.P. The O.S.P. includes four priority areas and/or initiatives that are
identified below:
Innovate: Vibrant Culture and Economy
Belong: Inclusive and Healthy Community
Care: Safe and Sustainable Environment
Lead: Governance and Service Excellence
The G.H.G. Inventory as contained in Attachment 2 aligns with the metrics, goals and
actions brought forward in the Care: Safe and Sustainable Environment, section of the
O.S.P.
4.2.2 Oshawa Official Plan
The Oshawa Official Plan (“O.O.P.”) sets out the land use policy directions for long-term
growth and development in the City. The O.O.P. includes policies related to environmental
management, conservation and long-term sustainability. Policy 5.1.11 of the O.O.P.
states, in part, that “The City supports incremental reduction of overall greenhouse gas
emissions and other air pollutants generated by the municipality’s own corporate activities
and functions.”
4.2.3 Integrated Transportation Master Plan and Active Transportation Mater Plan
The City’s Integrated Transportation Master Plan (“I.T.M.P.”) is a planning document
designed to define the policies, programs and infrastructure changes required to meet
future transportation needs. The I.T.M.P. seeks to encourage sustainability and reduce
G.H.G. emissions by providing residents with viable multi-modal transportation options that
include alternatives to gas-powered automobiles.
In February of 2025, the City initiated an update to the existing I.T.M.P. and the Active
Transportation Master Plan (“A.T.M.P.”) to help shape how people and goods move
around the City over the next 25 years. The plans will consist of the following measures:
Consider all ways of getting around – walking, cycling, public transit, driving,
recreational trails, and goods movement.
Consider safety, accessibility, and connectivity for everyone.
Support the City’s environmental, economic, and social goals, as well as goals and
objectives outlined in the O.S.P.
The new I.T.M.P. and A.T.M.P. will build on Oshawa’s existing transportation network and
provide a roadmap to guide transportation investment and decision-making. The
anticipated completion date for these updates is late 2026.
Page 30
Report to Economic and Development Services Committee Item: ED-25-115
Meeting Date: December 1, 2025 Page 4
4.3 Partners for Climate Change Program
The P.C.P. Program is voluntary and was established by F.C.M. in 1994. It was created to
help municipalities take action against climate change through the following five-milestone
framework:
Milestone 1: create a baseline emissions inventory and forecast;
Milestone 2: set emissions reduction targets;
Milestone 3: develop a local action plan;
Milestone 4: implement the local action plan; and,
Milestone 5: monitor progress and report results.
The P.C.P. Program also provides project funding through the Green Municipal Fund for
the development of community and corporate plans.
4.3.1 Community Milestones 1 to 3
On March 9, 2009, City Council considered Report DS-09-74 dated February 25, 2009,
and adopted a recommendation to participate in the P.C.P. Program and committed to
achieving the milestones set out in the P.C.P. five-milestone framework.
On September 7, 2010, City Council considered Report DS-10-217 dated August 25, 2010,
and adopted the following recommendation:
“1. That Report DS-10-217 dated August 25, 2010 and its attached inventories
be submitted to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Partners for
Climate Protection Program in partial satisfaction of Milestone 1 of the
Program; and,
2. That Milestone 1 of the Program be finally completed by adopting 2007 as the
City’s benchmark or baseline year for the purposes of monitoring and
measuring the City’s future performance in achieving its Greenhouse Gas
reduction targets and that the Partners for Climate Protection Program be so
advised; and
3. That the following community and corporate Greenhouse Gas emission
targets be adopted as provisional targets until a local action plan is developed
at which time the targets may be further refined:
5% reduction by 2015 from 2007 baseline;
20% reduction by 2020 from 2007 baseline;
80% reduction by 2050 from 2007 baseline; and,
4. That the City apply to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green
Municipal Fund for funding to complete Milestone 3 (preparation of a Local
Action Plan/Integrated Community Sustainability Plan for reducing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions) and that any additional City funding required be
referred to the 2011 budget for consideration for funding from the Gas Tax.”
Page 31
Report to Economic and Development Services Committee Item: ED-25-115
Meeting Date: December 1, 2025 Page 5
The G.H.G. emission reduction targets identified in the above Council resolution are
consistent with the Region of Durham’s G.H.G. emission reduction targets identified in the
D.C.E.P.
On January 28, 2013, City Council considered Report DS-13-10 dated January 9, 2013,
concerning the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario’s Annual G.H.G. Progress Report
2012, and adopted the following recommendation:
“That Report DS-13-10 dated January 9, 2013, regarding the Environmental
Commissioner of Ontario’s Annual Greenhouse Gas Progress Report 2012 – A
Question of Commitment, be received for information and that staff proceed with
Milestone 3 of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Partners for Climate
Protection plan, which requires the development and implementation of corporate
and community greenhouse gas emission reduction plans to achieve the
Milestone 2 targets previously established and approved by Council.”
On November 9, 2020, City Council considered Report DS-20-130 dated
November 4, 2020, and adopted the following recommendations:
“1. That, pursuant to Report DS-20-130 dated November 4, 2020, City Council
endorse the City’s Partners for Climate Protection Milestone 3 City of Oshawa
Community Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan dated November 2020
(Attachment 1 to said Report) as a guideline to reduce energy costs, energy
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, to be sent to the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities for review and approval.
2. That, a copy of Report DS-20-130 dated November 4, 2020 and the related
Council resolution be sent to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the
Region of Durham, Durham area municipalities, Oshawa Power and Utilities
Corporation, the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, and the City’s
Building Industry Liaison Team which includes representatives of the Durham
Chapter of the Building Industry and Land Development Association and the
Durham Region Home Builders’ Association.”
The Community Plan, as shown in Attachment 1, satisfied the Milestone 3 requirement for
the P.C.P. program and it is the intent of this Report, together with Attachment 2 (the
G.H.G. Inventory), to satisfy Milestones 4 and 5 of the P.C.P program.
4.3.2 Corporate Greenhouse Gas Reduction
On February 22, 2016, City Council considered Report DS-16-25 dated February 3, 2016
concerning the P.C.P. Program Milestone 3 Corporate Plan Submission, and adopted the
following recommendation:
“That, pursuant to Report DS-16-25 dated February 3, 2016, City Council
endorse the City’s Partners for Climate Protection Milestone 3 Corporate Plan as
a guideline to reduce energy costs, energy consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions and that staff be authorized to submit it to the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities for review and approval.”
Page 32
Report to Economic and Development Services Committee Item: ED-25-115
Meeting Date: December 1, 2025 Page 6
As a result of completing the Milestone 3 submission of the Corporate Plan, the City
received acknowledgement from F.C.M. on March 8, 2016 that it had achieved Milestones
3, 4, and 5 for the Corporate Plan.
To date, the City has, and continues to, complete many of the actions identified in the
Corporate Plan to help reduce the G.H.G. emissions from corporate sources.
Key actions that have been advanced by the City include, but are not limited to, the
following:
The installation of solar-powered parking meters in the downtown;
The construction of the Oshawa City Hall Revitalization Project which was built to the
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“L.E.E.D.”) Silver Standard;
The provision of training for program and operational staff at City recreational facilities
and fire halls to reduce electricity and gas consumption;
The delivery of various Net-Zero Retrofit Strategy Feasibility Studies, which began in
2024 for Delpark Homes Centre, Civic Recreation Centre and City Hall;
The establishment of the Corporate Facilities Energy Audit Program with F.M.S., which
is now preparing to enter the third annual cycle in 2026;
The certification of ongoing construction of the Rotary Park Redevelopment to meet the
Zero Carbon Building (Z.C.B.) Standard;
The advancement of City fleet electrification which currently totals 32 Electric Vehicles
in use, and the installation of 35 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations; and,
Collaboration with local post-secondary institutions through three Teaching City
projects. These projects supported the Corporate Net-Zero Emissions Feasibility
Studies, the development of an Oshawa Facilities Corporate Green Building Standard
and the Community G.H.G. Inventory Report.
In addition to the City’s voluntary efforts to reduce its carbon footprint, the City is mandated
by O. Reg. 507/18 under the Energy Act, 1998, to prepare a Corporate Facilities Energy
Management Plan (“C.F.E.M.P.”) and update it every five years.
4.3.2.1 Corporate Energy Management Plan 2024 to 2028
The City of Oshawa established the first Corporate Facilities Energy Management Plan
(“C.F.E.M.P.”) in 2014, with the mission of outlining facility-based actions for energy
conservation and greenhouse gas reduction. On June 24, 2019, City Council considered
Report CORP-19-62 dated June 12, 2019 concerning an update to the C.F.E.M.P., and
adopted the following recommendation:
“That the Corporate Facilities Energy Management Plan 2019 – 2023, dated
June 12, 2019, as set out in Attachment 1 to Report CORP-19-62, be endorsed.”
Page 33
Report to Economic and Development Services Committee Item: ED-25-115
Meeting Date: December 1, 2025 Page 7
The C.F.E.M.P. supports the goals and targets set out in the City’s Corporate Plan.
The Corporate Plan was established in 2016 to satisfy Milestone 3 of the F.C.M.’s Partners
for Climate Protection Program. This Corporate Plan outlined contributions for greenhouse
gas reductions corporately.
In 2023, City Council considered Report SF-23-20 dated May 10, 2023, and adopted the
2024-2028 Corporate Energy Management Plan (“C.E.M.P.”). The C.E.M.P. has
amalgamated the C.F.E.M.P. and the Corporate Plan, marrying the corporate efforts
towards decarbonization with the goal of accountability and meaningful forward action.
The targets and measures defined in the C.E.M.P. bring the City of Oshawa into
compliance with the Electricity Act, 1998, and Ontario Regulation 25/23, and fulfills the
F.C.M.’s Partners for Climate Protection Program’s commitment for a corporate action plan
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The C.E.M.P. can be found at the following link:
https://www.oshawa.ca/media/vssn1v2z/environment-sf-23-20-2024-2028-cemp-
attachment-1_final.pdf.
4.4 2024 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
4.4.1 Introduction
Oshawa’s G.H.G. reduction targets are consistent with net-zero emission targets that other
municipalities, institutions (e.g., Ontario Tech University and Ontario Power Generation),
the Province of Ontario and the Federal Government of Canada have declared, as a result
of the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act of 2021, which is an Act that legally
binds the Federal Government of Canada to reduce G.H.G. emissions to net-zero levels by
2050.
In 2010, City Council endorsed the following Community and Corporate greenhouse gas
emission reduction targets (based on a 2007 baseline):
5% reduction by 2015;
20% by 2020;
30% by 2030; and,
80% by 2050.
The targets listed above were endorsed by City Council at the community level on
November 9, 2020 through the adoption of the Community Plan as contained in
Attachment 1. As part of the Community Plan the City is required to monitor and measure
progress on a five (5) year cycle and report back to Council to track the community’s
progression towards these reduction targets.
Given this requirement the City of Oshawa, through the Teaching Cities program,
partnered with Ontario Tech University’s Dr. Daniel Hoornweg, Associate Professor in the
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, and David Wotten, Sustainable Development
Page 34
Report to Economic and Development Services Committee Item: ED-25-115
Meeting Date: December 1, 2025 Page 8
Consultant, as well as students working alongside Dr. Hoornweg, to compile the 2024
Community G.H.G. Inventory update on behalf of the City of Oshawa.
4.4.2 Inventory Results
The 2007 baseline used by Oshawa (and other communities) is a Scope 1 and 2 (partial)
territorial assessment, including emissions that occur within Oshawa’s city-limits (plus
imported electricity, including vehicles fueled in Oshawa and driven elsewhere). To
contribute to global G.H.G. emissions reductions, the inventory suggests that a whole-of-
community inventory is needed (Scopes 1, 2 and 3), and emissions that are generated
upstream and downstream from activities that take place in Oshawa should also be
considered. This is especially important in Canadian communities and institutions, as
Canada’s global G.H.G. emissions (all Scopes) are among the highest in the world.
Reducing G.H.G. emissions requires a planetary effort as atmospheric contributions and
impacts do not recognize political borders.
The G.H.G. Inventory includes Scope 3, and defines it as embodied carbon emissions in
and from imported food, building materials, emissions generated from invested capital and
international travel, among other things. Scope 3 is essentially all avenues in which we
produce and contribute to G.H.G. emissions in our communities (see Attachment 2,
Table 2.1 for a full breakdown). Scope 3 emissions for Oshawa in 2024 were
19,826,558 tonnes, 16-times more than the combined emissions of Scopes 1 and 2.
However, many aspects of Scope 3 are beyond Oshawa’s ability to regulate/control. If
Oshawa was to shift focus away from Scopes 1 and 2 and focus primarily on Scope 3 in an
effort to achieve major reductions, substantial support from the Provincial and Federal
government would be required. The robustness of this support is not clear, which leaves
Oshawa and other municipalities to focus on Scopes 1 and 2.
In 2024, Oshawa’s total G.H.G. emissions under Scopes 1 and 2 was 1,275,674 tonnes.
This represents a 30% reduction from the 2007 baseline, despite a 30% increase in
population. According to the G.H.G. Inventory, per capita emissions dropped from
11.8 tonnes in 2007 to 6.4 tonnes in 2024. For a detailed breakdown of Oshawa’s
emissions under Scopes 1 and 2, please refer to the Sankey Diagram shown in Figure 2 in
Attachment 2.
Page 35
Report to Economic and Development Services Committee Item: ED-25-115
Meeting Date: December 1, 2025 Page 9
The following graph also shows the 2024 emissions by sector (or source) in Oshawa.
(Figure 3 in Attachment 2):
When looking at Scopes 1 and 2, the G.H.G. Inventory credits Oshawa for the 30%
reduction from the 2007 baseline. However, despite this impressive effort, the City’s
overall progress towards the established reduction targets is not anticipated to stay on
track, although Oshawa is not alone in this regard. Like most larger communities and
institutions in Canada, Oshawa will likely miss the 2030 and 2050 targets given the sheer
scale and overall buy-in required from governments, residents and businesses alike, to
reduce their overall emissions.
32%
5%
5%
13%
45%
Oshawa's 2024 Emissions Broken Down By Sector
(Following 2011 Reporting Practice, %tCO2e)
Natural Gas Electricity Waste Diesel Gasoline
Page 36
Report to Economic and Development Services Committee Item: ED-25-115
Meeting Date: December 1, 2025 Page 10
The following chart, Figure 5 in Attachment 2, shows Oshawa’s revised trajectory based on
the current statistics and future assumptions. The red X and line represent the City’s
anticipated trajectory towards the 2050 target.
To summarize, the G.H.G. Inventory provides the following rationale with respect to
Figure 5 and the revised trajectory for Oshawa:
“Oshawa’s territorial (Scopes 1 & 2) G.H.G. emission reduction target was on track from
2014 to 2020 (Fig 5 target line) and remains relatively well-positioned based on projections
outlined in Annex 2 (Appendix 2). These emission reductions are largely attributed to
decarbonizing electricity (especially in the ICI buildings sector) and significant changes in
industrial processes (Table 2.1). However, while emissions from ‘Building energy ICI’ and
‘Industrial processes’ declined by more than 75% between 2007 and 2024, ‘Land
transportation’ emissions more than tripled. Between 2024 and 2030 all categories of
territorial G.H.G. emissions are expected to increase.”
While this chart highlights the impressive efforts to date from the City of Oshawa as its
efforts are clearly tracking on the established target line for 2024, it also highlights the
importance of efforts over the next five years to try and stay as close as possible to the
original established target line. The G.H.G. Inventory suggests that the following initiatives
be undertaken to assist with meeting the next reporting target:
Phasing out natural gas for heating of buildings and hot water;
Page 37
Report to Economic and Development Services Committee Item: ED-25-115
Meeting Date: December 1, 2025 Page 11
Decarbonizing the transportation sector (including manufactured vehicles and low-
carbon aircraft and maritime shipping fuel);
Decarbonizing (global) electricity generation, i.e., less than 30 gCO2e/kWh;
Decarbonizing food production (and transportation, and organic waste management);
Decarbonizing (global) industrial processes such as cement and steel manufacturing;
and,
Ensuring that invested capital, e.g., Canadian Pension Plan, is low-carbon emitting,
i.e., below tCO2e/$M.5 (amount of CO2 generated from invested capital per year).
Many, if not all, of these initiatives are beyond the scope and/or control of the City.
However, Oshawa can engage in conversations and use this Report as a tool to educate
the public, stakeholders and even other levels of government.
It is worth noting that the G.H.G. Inventory also indicates that the City of Oshawa’s
corporate emissions continue to be less than 1% of the Oshawa’s overall emissions.
4.5 2020 Community Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update - Actions and
Opportunities
The Community Plan included seven (7) specific actions and opportunities that the City
could undertake, assist and/or promote. The following table summarizes the City’s
progress to date (from 2020-2024) on these actions, as outlined in the G.H.G. Inventory.
Action GHG
Avoidance
Potential
(2020-2024) Progress
(2024-2030)
1. Increase
renewable
electricity
generation
from
renewable
sources in
residential
buildings
2030;
4,741 t by
2050
resilience, reduce
energy costs,
improve air
quality, reduce
urban heat island
energy
performance
in residential
buildings
2030;
151,810 t by
2050
costs, improve
climate resilience,
increase home
values, improve
air quality, reduce
decline met
Page 38
Report to Economic and Development Services Committee Item: ED-25-115
Meeting Date: December 1, 2025 Page 12
Avoidance
Potential
(2020-2024) Progress
(2024-2030)
3. Increase
renewable
electricity
generation
from
renewable
sources in
commercial
2030;
3,431 t by
2050
resilience, reduce
energy costs,
improve air
quality, reduce
urban heat island.
energy
performance
in commercial
buildings
2030;
1,300,928 t by
2050
operational costs
of commercial
buildings,
improve climate
resilience,
improve air
quality, reduce
decline met, priority is to
shift away from
natural gas
heating
carbon or no
carbon
vehicles
2030;
235,772 t by
2050
quality, reduce
travel costs,
reduce urban
heat island
vehicles
registered in
Oshawa in
2022,
increased to
2,313 in
2025
targets more
than half the
vehicles in
Oshawa would
need to be
electric vehicles.
2050 target still
possible but
requires federal
and provincial
leadership.
Efforts need to
be developed
within a broader
mobility
Improve
cycling and
walking
infrastructure
to encourage
2030;
14,017 t by
2050
quality, increase
physical activity,
reduce travel
costs
scooter pilot
extended,
bike use
relatively
unchanged
targets can still
be met, but
efforts need to
be developed
within a broader
Page 39
Report to Economic and Development Services Committee Item: ED-25-115
Meeting Date: December 1, 2025 Page 13
Avoidance
Potential
(2020-2024) Progress
(2024-2030)
of
transportation
mobility
campaign
7. Coordinate
land-use
policies to
establish a
built form that
promotes
sustainable
growth
2030;
20,507 t by
2050
quality, more
efficient use of
land, increase
physical activity,
shorter commute
times, local
economic
development
form still
highly auto-
dependent,
most new
homes still
heated with
natural gas
targets can still
be achieved.
“Sustainable
growth” may
need to be
defined as
‘sustainability’ or
steady state
before 2050 as
Canada’s
population
influenced by a
global peak
population (and
decline
thereafter) post-
2075. Best
supported
through a
broader
sustainability
It is also important to highlight the following actions and initiatives undertaken by the City
that have or are anticipated to have impacts on the reduction of community G.H.G.
emissions:
Implementation of the C.E.M.P.;
Approval of supportive Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, including for the
Downtown Oshawa Urban Growth Centre, Protected Major Transit Station Areas and
the Bond/Simcoe corridor through the Downtown Main Central Area, and planning for
increased “as of right” density and more compact, pedestrian-oriented and transit-
supportive built form, together with ongoing work on the Oshawa Official Plan Review;
Updates to the I.T.M.P./A.T.M.P. (currently underway);
Development of a Forestry Master Plan (currently underway);
Building awareness through the Oshawa Environmental Advisory Committee;
Page 40
Report to Economic and Development Services Committee Item: ED-25-115
Meeting Date: December 1, 2025 Page 14
Promoting the Durham Greener Homes and Retrofit programs; and,
Installing electric vehicle charging infrastructure at City facilities, in support of Action
Number 5 of the Community Plan.
4.6 Conclusions and Next Steps
In summary, according to the G.H.G. Inventory results and the established targets in the
Community Plan, Oshawa is currently on track towards achieving the 2030 emission
reduction target under community Scopes 1 and 2. However the G.H.G. Inventory predicts
that within the next five years, as shown in the revised trajectory graph in Section 4.4.2 of
this Report, the City will be challenged in the years ahead to maintain low or on track
community emissions. Leading by example, the City will continue to implement the
initiatives set forth in the C.E.M.P., raise awareness through education, and seek out
partnerships with other levels of government and relevant stakeholders to support the
reduction of G.H.G. emissions.
Through the Community Plan the City has committed to providing Council with an update
every five years to monitor and track community G.H.G. emissions. The next report will be
in 2030.
5.0 Financial Implications
There are no financial implications associated with the recommendation in this Report.
The G.H.G. Inventory prepared by Ontario Tech University in partnership with the City of
Oshawa was a collaboration funded through the City of Oshawa’s Teaching Cities
Program.
6.0 Relationship to the Oshawa Strategic Plan
This Report responds to the Oshawa Strategic Plan Priority Area:
“Care: Safe and Sustainable Environment” with the goal to reduce the City's carbon
footprint and greenhouse gas emissions.
Tom Goodeve, M.Sc.Pl., MCIP, RPP, Director,
Planning Services
Anthony Ambra, P.Eng, Commissioner,
Economic and Development Services Department
Page 41
Item: ED-25-115
Attachment 2
City of Oshawa
An inventory of greenhouse gas emissions and
assessment of reduction efforts.
Ontario Tech University
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science
Brilliant Energy Institute
November 2025
Page 42
2
Table of Contents
1.Summary 3
2.Background 4
3.The Path Forward 6
4.New Approaches 9
5.Changing the Narrative 20
6.City of Oshawa Community Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan 22
7.Strengthening Oshawa’s capacity to be a leader in sustainability 26
8.Recommendations 28
9.References 23
Box 1: City of Oshawa and the Toronto Region 30
Annex 1 Detailed GHG Emissions Separate Report
Annex 2 Methodology of 2030 and 2050 Projections Separate Report
Tables and Figures
Table 1: Oshawa 2024 GHG Emissions Inventory 11
Table 2.1 Oshawa 2024 GHG Emissions compared to 2007 Baseline (total tonnes) 13
Table 2.2 Oshawa 2024 GHG Emissions compared to 2007 Baseline (per capita) 16
Table A1: Ontario Tech University GHG Emissions Inventory 2024 38
Figure 1: Oshawa Emissions (Scope 1, 2 and 3) tCO2e in 2024 17
Figure 2: Oshawa Emissions (Scope 1 & 2 only) tCO2e in 2024 18
Figure 3: 2024 Emissions by Sector in Oshawa Following 2011 Reporting Practice 19
Figure 4: Emissions by Sector in Oshawa (2011, City of Oshawa) 19
Figure 5, City of Oshawa Community GHG Reduction Plan, November 2020. 23
Figure 6: Change in Emissions, Canada, 2005-2024, and 2023-2024 29
Page 43
3
1. Summary
In 2010 Oshawa City Council endorsed the following Community and Corporate greenhouse gas
(GHG) emission reduction targets (based on a 2007 baseline):
• 5% reduction by 2015;
• 20% by 2020;
• 30% by 2030; and,
• 80% by 2050.
This target was endorsed again at the November 9, 2020, Council Meeting where the City of
Oshawa Community Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (November 2020) was accepted. This plan
also responded to the Climate Emergency Declaration (FIN-19-107) adopted by City Council
December 16, 2019.
Oshawa’s GHG reduction targets are consistent with ‘net-zero’ emissions targets that other
municipalities, and institutions such as Ontario Tech University and Ontario Power Generation,
the Province of Ontario, and the Government of Canada have declared, e.g., the Canadian Net-
Zero Emissions Accountability Act of 2021 legally binds the Government of Canada to a target
of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050.
In 2024 Oshawa’s GHG emissions were 1,275,674 tonnes (consistent categories – Table 2.1
highlighted cells). This is a 30% decline from 2007, despite a 30% increase in population. Per
capita emissions dropped from 11.8t in 2007 to 6.4t in 2024.
Despite this impressive effort, progress toward emission reduction targets is not on track and
Oshawa, like most communities and institutions in Canada, will probably miss the 2050 target
(as well as 2030). This shortcoming is even larger than suggested in previous Council Reports, as
this review argues that communities like Oshawa should be monitoring a whole-of-community
emissions inventory. When all emissions associated with lifestyle, institutional, and business
practices in Oshawa are considered, the 6.4 tonnes CO2 per person increases to over 100 tonnes
per person.
There is much that can be done to reduce emissions. The 2020 Community Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Plane provides a credible path forward. The challenge for the City of Oshawa is that
major reductions require direct support from the Province of Ontario, Government of Canada,
actions of residents, and the efforts of local institutions and businesses. The robustness of this
support is not clear. Currently it is inadequate to meet declared targets. “Opportunity 3” of the
2020 Community Plan, calls to “Strengthen the City’s capacity to be a leader in sustainability.”
This report endorses that recommendations and suggests a possible way forward.
Page 44
4
2. Background1
In 2024 humans were responsible for releasing more than 58 billion tonnes of CO2e2 into the
atmosphere. This is the highest level ever, adding another 3.5 parts per million3 (ppm) to
atmospheric concentrations, forcing levels above 430 ppm.
The world is on track to see global temperature increase by more than 2.8oC this century.
Impacts will be staggering. Per person, the people of Oshawa, Ontario and Canada contributed to
this increase as much as anyone.
The remaining global carbon budget to limit global temperature increases to the 2oC target of the
Paris Agreement, is about 912 Gt (billion tonnes) of CO2. This is less than 20 years at current
emission levels4.
Recognizing the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the City of Oshawa in 2010
set reduction targets for community and corporate emissions. These reduction targets are largely
consistent with the ‘net zero by 2050’ carbon target. Ontario Tech University (Faculty of
Engineering and Applied Science) was retained by the City of Oshawa to evaluate progress
toward these targets. The November 2020 City of Oshawa Community Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Plan and update of the October 2014 Sustainability Oshawa Community Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Inventory provide the target metrics.
The City of Oshawa has made considerable progress in meeting its emission reduction targets.
Reduction targets are set against the 2007 baseline year (1,761,835 tonnes): 5% reduction by
2015; 20% reduction by 2020; 80% reduction by 2050.
1 This inventory is prepared by Adam Ristau, Ontario Tech University Energy Engineering student, with input (on
OTU) from George Mensah, OTU student, and David Wotten, consultant, and supervision and report writing by
Daniel Hoornweg, Associate Professor, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science City of Oshawa staff provided
ongoing support and assistance in data collection.
2 The most authoritative estimate of global GHG emissions (all anthropogenic sources except forest fires, some
refrigerants, and other fugitive emissions) are provided by the United Nations Environment Program, UNEP, it its
annual ‘Gap Report’ issued for the previous year in late October. The 2023 estimate was 57.1 Gt (billion tonnes).
2024 emissions are expected to be 2-3% higher.
3 Atmospheric levels of CO2 were about 278 parts per million (ppm) for the last several thousand years. This is
the average concentration of CO2, and other GHGs like methane, that provided the Goldilocks-like balance to
enable human civilization to flourish. When the Industrial Revolution with its dependence on fossil fuels
started around the 1760s, CO2 levels were about 278 ppm. ‘Safe levels’, that would limit global temperature
increase to 1.5oC are around 350 ppm. A 2.0oC temperature increase is expected to occur with an increase to
450 ppm. CO2 levels in 2025 are about 430 ppm, increasing by about 2.6 ppm per year, suggesting a global
temperature increase of more than 2.7oC above pre-Industrial times (with expected massive planetary
impacts).
4 See: https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/institute/departments/climate-economics-and-policy/carbon-clock
Page 45
5
The 2007 baseline used by Oshawa (and other communities) is typically a Scope 1 and 2 (partial)
territorial assessment, that includes specific GHG emissions that occur within Oshawa city-limits
(plus imported electricity, including vehicles fueled in Oshawa and driven elsewhere). This is
mostly a measure of the fossil fuels burned within the City’s territorial boundaries. Territorial
emissions (Scope 1 and 2) tend to be more effective for country-wide emissions. For example,
the territorial emissions of the 196 countries that committed to the Paris Agreement, plus
international aviation and shipping emissions, add up the total GHG emissions in the world (i.e.,
57.7 Bn tonnes CO2e in 2024).
Cities and businesses have more comprehensive GHG inventories as they are more concerned
with activities that take place at their behest outside of their direct influence (political border –
see Section 3). To contribute to global GHG emissions reductions, a whole-of-community
inventory is needed, and emissions that are generated upstream and downstream from activities
that take place in Oshawa should also be considered. These emissions that take place outside of
Oshawa’s political border (territory) are categorized as Scope 3 emissions (or global). These
embodied emissions are especially important in Canadian communities and institutions, as
Canada’s global GHG emissions (all Scopes) are among the highest in the world. Reducing GHG
emissions requires a planetary effort as atmospheric contributions and impacts do not recognize
political borders.
Oshawa’s 2024 GHG inventory highlights the need to assess the whole-of-community
contribution. Territorial emissions (all Scope 1+2) were 1,275,674 tonnes, while global
emissions (Scope 3) were 19,826,558 tonnes (16-times more). In Oshawa, global emissions are
higher than most communities as downstream emissions (Scope 3) from manufactured vehicles
contribute about three-quarters of the value. However, even without including manufactured
products, the overall GHG emissions from a resident of Oshawa generated outside of Oshawa
(global, Scope 3, e.g., embodied in imported food and building materials, emissions generated
from invested capital, international travel) are higher than the emissions generated within
Oshawa (Scopes 1+2, e.g., natural gas heating, gasoline and diesel fuel, electricity used).
The City of Oshawa deserves credit for declaring an ambitious emissions reduction target. As
outlined in the 2020 Council Report, the City of Oshawa’s corporate emissions continue to be
less than 1% of overall emissions. Reductions in overall community emissions, especially a
whole-of-community, is key. This requires a broader, more durable partnership. The City of
Oshawa can promote this partnership, but to approach net-zero emissions targets, other key
stakeholders need to provide robust support.
Getting to net-zero by 2050 (i.e., less than 2 tonnes per person, all scopes) is possible, but with
just 24 years, and the need for a global effort, the task is Herculean. Fortunately, a path, where
key initiatives can provide more than 80% of the global reductions needed, is available.
Page 46
6
These initiatives include: Phasing out natural gas for heating of buildings and hot water;
Decarbonizing the transportation sector (including manufactured vehicles and low-carbon
aircraft and maritime shipping fuel); Decarbonizing (global) electricity generation, i.e., less than
30 gCO2e/kWh; Decarbonizing food production (and transportation, and organic waste
management); Decarbonizing (global) industrial processes such as cement and steel
manufacturing; Ensuring that invested capital, e.g., Canada Pension Plan, is low-carbon emitting,
i.e., below 40 tCO2e/$M.5
Despite having considerable certainty on the path needed to get to net-zero, progress since the
2020 Council Report is backtracking. Oshawa’s territorial GHG emissions (Scope 1+2 only)
have doubled since 2015 (mostly from increased traffic volumes, more buildings, and higher
carbon intensity of electricity). Public commitment to carbon mitigation across Canada appears
to be waning, as highlighted by the 2025 elimination of the carbon tax and relaxing EV targets.
In 2024 the Province of Ontario’s overrode the Ontario Energy Board’s recommendation to not
amortise natural gas infrastructure beyond net-zero target dates. The re-election of Donald
Trump, and the US withdrawal from the Paris Accord is also a significant impediment to GHG
mitigation, e.g., cancelling Inflation Reduction Act initiatives.
The road to net-zero is fraught with detours, delays and challenges. The challenge is even more
acute as it requires a whole-of-community (global) approach. Fortunately, the route is reasonably
clear, however, everyone needs to get out and push. This repor t outlines how we can push and
pull together in the right direction, if we are willing. Like how climate scientists are fearful of
future tipping points, where increasing GHGs may bring about relatively rapid shifts in stable
earth systems, e.g., permafrost melting, shifting ocean circulation, climate policy advisers are
hopeful that a phase-shift in public attitudes will emerge, with governments and communities
enacting substantive mitigation measures.
3. The Path Forward
Chinese and African proverbs suggest that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single
step, and that if you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together. Recognizing the
scale and complexity of weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, 194 countries, including Canada, took
the first step and signed the Paris Agreement (to limit global temperature increases to 2 oC). More
than 500 local governments in Canada, and more than half the larger businesses announced a net -
zero target and/or have declared a climate emergency.
5 Average carbon intensity of dollar invested in Canada (institutional portfolios): ~114 tCO2e/M$ CAD. Average
global carbon intensity of portfolios or investments: Low – below 40 tCO2e/M$; Medium – between 40 and 80
tCO2e/M$; High - above 80 tCO2e/M$ invested. [See PSP Investments, 2025 CFD Report.
Page 47
7
For local governments, like Oshawa, that have taken that first step of declaring climate
mitigation targets, the path forward is harder to discern and seems increasingly lonely. Since the
last 2020 Council update on Oshawa’s climate mitigation progress, several large-scale changes
occurred. In January 2025, President Trump, signed again, an Executive Order to w ithdraw the
US from the Paris Climate Agreement. On March 14, 2025, Prime Minister Carney signed a
directive to eliminate the national consumer carbon tax and in September 2025 he relaxed EV
sales targets.
On February 22, 2024, through Bill 165 the Province of Ontario overrode the Ontario Energy
Board (OEB) natural gas directive and reinstated a 40-year amortization period for new gas
connections (well beyond the province’s own 2050 net-zero target). In 2022 the Province of
Ontario removed tolls on Highways 412 and 418 and in 2025 tolls on the provincially owned
section of the 407 were also removed (traffic volume increases of up to 40% are expected).
Broadly, there are two approaches to GHG emission inventories: territorial and comprehensive.
Territorial emissions emerged from the United Nations framework convention on climate change
(UNFCCC) adopted in 1992 (Canada joined that same year). The IPCC (intergovernmental panel
for climate change) was established under the Convention to provide consolidated scientific
reports. The Convention called for an annual ‘conference of the parties’ (COP) to take stock on
mitigation efforts and, where necessary, increase mitigation ambitions to keep global
temperature increases below 2oC.
The COP meets annually, with COP30 taking place in Brazil later this year. The UN
Environment Program provides an annual global inventory of GHG emissions (released the
month before COP; 2023 emissions estimated at 57.1 Gt CO2e, representing a 1.9% increase
from 2022, and a projected 2.5-2.9oC temperature rise above pre-industrial levels before 2100).
The total emission value (57.1 Gt CO2e in 2023) is mostly a compilation of each ‘party’, i.e.,
country, plus aviation and maritime emissions. Detailed accounting directives exist for countries
to inventorize their territorial GHG emissions (a task that falls to Statistics Canada and published
by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change in Canada).
Although there are some delays with migration of gases to the atmosphere, and ancillary impacts
from things like black carbon (soot) and land use changes (e.g., forest fires), the global emissions
value is represented in readily measured carbon dioxide and methane levels in the atmosphere
(i.e., CO2 has increased from 280 parts per million, ppm, at the start of the Industrial Revolution
in the mid-1700s to 420 ppm today, while methane increased from about 750 parts per billion,
ppb, to 1940 ppb today).
Page 48
8
Comprehensive emission inventories are slightly more complicated than territorial inventories as
they capture an entity’s total emissions regardless of where they occur, possibly outside their
‘territory’, or internationally. A methodology was first developed in 2006 (ISO 14064) to
provide a GHG emissions accounting framework for businesses that wanted to measure all GHG
emissions across their entire scope of operations. An agreed-to methodology was required to
reduce double-counting, e.g., when a company’s emissions are attributed to them even if they
take place in another country. This methodology (with Scopes 1, 2 and 3) was adapted to
communities and the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission
Inventories (GPC) was published December 2014.
The inventory in this report follows GPC methodology and is one of the world’s most
comprehensive accountings of a community’s overall GHG emissions. The inventory is prepared
consistently for the City of Oshawa, Ontario Tech University, Region of Durham, and (still in
draft) greater Toronto area (combined census metropolitan areas of Oshawa and Toronto).
How we address climate change varies considerably depending on the scale of the community
that responds to the challenge. At an individual, or household level, assuming we have adequate
information, we can quickly assess trade-offs and decide what we are willing to do to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. We estimate impact, fairness and ability, and personally we commit to
act, or not.
Many actions to mitigate GHG emissions might even save us money, while making our homes
more comfortable and safer. Somewhere between knowing that a journey of a thousand miles
begins with a single step and knowing that reducing fossil fuels and other GHGs is a collective
(global) problem.
The scale of the challenge is so enormous that what we do individually, or as a community, or
even as a country, is not nearly enough. This is a collective problem. We alone cannot solve the
problem. So, our actions need to do two things: help reduce GHG emissions, and signal to others
that we are willing to work together to address this shared challenge.
In public polling of Canadians those personally caring most about Environment/Climate Change
has dropped from 42% in December 2019 to 16% in June 20256.
The waning interest in climate change is exacerbated by the last mover advantage. If you make
money selling fossil fuels, and there remains demand for those fossil fuels, you do not want to be
the first to stop selling them. This sequencing problem is even more difficult in Canada where oil
and gas are distributed regionally. Alberta and Saskatchewan want to sell their oil and gas, while
other regions, that receive less benefit are less inclined. Alberta is more willing to forgo trading
6 https://angusreid.org/environment-climate-change/
Page 49
9
with by Europe for example, if it requires participation in their carbon border adjustment
mechanisms (CBAM).7
This same regional reticence for emission reductions is evident in southern Ontario where
vehicles manufactured (and largely exported to the US) have very high GHG emissions (Scope 3
downstream emissions generated over the operating life of the vehicle). There is enormous
pressure across Canada to maintain a high energy, high material economy, as many jobs and
current lifestyles depend on this. The new economy, post transition, does not yet have as much
support.
4. New approaches
The scale of the challenge we face is enormous. In less time than most people pay off their
mortgage (if they can get one) the way buildings are heated and cooled, the way we move around
and through the city, where and how we fly and spend our leisure time, is supposed to change.
Intuitively we see this as far-fetched. The task is too big, too expensive, and we have urgent
conflicting priorities today. We have a weakening economy, and we can barely afford what is
needed today.
Net zero efforts, or lack-thereof, have the potential both to bring communities together, and to
push them apart. Climate change requires a global response; however, like most grand global
ambitions, meaningful reductions of GHG emissions will grow from the ground up. Cities are
where civilization first emerges, and the complexities of meeting myriad conflicting demands
and priorities begins.
Canada’s cities are more fractured and have less autonomy than most of the world’s other cities.
Municipal boundaries can be transient, and in the Greater Toronto Area these boundaries are
even more ephemeral (see Box 1). Metropolitan areas make it more difficult for residents and
businesses to pursue local government, regional government, urban region, provincial or even
federal objectives, especially when objectives are not consistent. Or in the case of climate
mitigation, when the largest challenge facing Ontario municipal targets are the practices of
residents and the policies from the provincial and federal government – both of which municipal
staff and politicians have minimal control over.
The fractured nature of local government in Canada (especially regional Toronto, or the Golden
Horseshoe) serves to emphasize municipal corporate emissions, which is the one area that the
municipality has full agency. However, these emissions typically represent less than 1% of the
7 Europe established a carbon border adjustment mechanism that requires the businesses of countries that export to
Europe to inventories GHG emissions and pay a tariff for excess CO2 emissions.
Page 50
10
community’s Scope 1 and 2 territorial emissions (and a small fraction of that for Scope 3 global
emissions). Net-zero aspirations require communities to work together and to focus on as big a
picture as possible. Climate change is a system problem, a whole-of-community, all of humanity
challenge.
Page 51
11
Table 1: Overview. Oshawa 2024 GHG emissions inventory
(Scope 1, 2 and 3; GPC methodology)
NAME OF CITY: City of Oshawa, Ontario POPULATION: 194,635
LAND AREA (km2): 143
INVENTORY YEAR: 2024
tCO2/Capita Scope 1 1,240,042
tCO2/Capita Scope 1,2,3 21,169,491
GHG Emissions Source (By Sector)
Total GHGs (metric tonnes CO2e)
Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 included
in Basic/Basic+ Other Scope3 BASIC BASIC+ BASIC+ S3 +7
STATIONARY ENERGY
Energy use (all emissions except I.4.4) 387,209 62,883 265,155 450,092 715,247 715,247
Energy generation supplied to the grid (I.4.4)
TRANSPORTATION (all II emissions) 739,521 183 536,617 739,704 1,276,322 1,276,322
WASTE
Waste generated in the city (III.X.1 and III.X.2) 17,729 49,583 67,312 67,312 67,312
Waste generated outside city (III.X.3)
IPPU (all IV emissions) 93,474 15,285,455 93,474 15,378,929
AFOLU (all V emissions) 2,109 9,377 2,109 11,485
OTHER SCOPE 3 (all VI emissions) 3,720,196 3,720,196
TOTAL 1,240,042 63,066 851,356 19,015,028 1,257,108 2,154,464 21,169,491
Sources required for BASIC reporting
+ Sources required for BASIC + reporting
Sources included in Other Scope 3
Sources required for territorial total but not for BASIC/BASIC+ reporting (italics)
Non-Applicable emissions
Page 52
12
Page 53
13
GPC
ref No.
GHG Emissions Source (By
Sector and Sub-sector)
Total GHGs (metric tonnes CO2e)
Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Total
I STATIONARY ENERGY
I.1 Residential buildings 195,554 20,081 129,709 345,343
I.2 Commercial and institutional
buildings and facilities 85,145 24,040 61,982 171,166
I.3 Manufacturing industries and
construction 79,075 18,763 56,281 154,118
I.4.1/2
/3 Energy industries
I.4.4 Energy generation supplied to
the grid
I.5 Agriculture, forestry and fishing
activities
I.6 Non-specified sources 27,436 17,184 44,619
I.7
Fugitive emissions from mining,
processing, storage, and
transportation of coal
I.8 Fugitive emissions from oil and
natural gas systems
SUB-
TOTAL 387,209 62,883 265,155 715,247
II TRANSPORTATION
II.1 On-road transportation 676,388 183 294,516 971,087
II.2 Railways 30,999 14,880 45,879
II.3 Waterborne navigation 21,909 25,782 47,691
II.4 Aviation 10,225 201,439 211,664
II.5 Off-road transportation
SUB-
TOTAL 739,521 183 536,617 1,276,322
III WASTE
III.1.1/
2
Solid waste generated in the
region 6,597 6,597
III.1.3 Solid waste generated outside
the region
III.2.1/
2
Biological waste generated in
the region 5,431 5,431
III.2.3 Biological waste generated
outside the region
III.3.1/
2
Incinerated and burned waste
generated in the region 49,583 49,583
III.3.3 Incinerated and burned waste
generated outside region
III.4.1/
2
Wastewater generated in the
region 5,701 5,701
III.4.3 Wastewater generated outside
the region
SUB-
TOTAL 17,729 49,583 67,312
Page 54
14
IV INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES and
PRODUCT USES
IV.1
Emissions from industrial
processes occurring in the
region boundary 93,474 93,474
IV.2
Emissions from product use
occurring within the region
boundary 15,285,455 15,285,455
SUB-
TOTAL 93,474 15,285,455 15,378,929
V AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY and
OTHER LAND USE
V.1 Emissions from livestock 1,406 6,251 7,657
V.2 Emissions from land 703 3,126 3,829
V.3
Emissions from aggregate
sources and non-CO2 emission
sources on land
SUB-
TOTAL 2,109 9377 11,486
VI OTHER SCOPE 3
VI.1 Energy not included In I.7 &
I.8
VI.2 Building Material 169,409 169,409
VI.3 Food not included in V
VI.4 Transportation not included
in II.5
VI.5 Water
VI.6 Waste/Sewage Management
not included in III
VI.7 Key Infrastructure
VI.8 Emissions From Invested
Capital 3,097,754 3,097,754
VI.9 Other Scope 3 453,033 453,033
SUB-
TOTAL
3,720,196 3,720,196
TOTAL Territorial 1,240,042 63,066 19,866,383 21,169,491
Total Scope 1 and 2 Basic+ Reporting 1,240,042 63,066 1,303,108
Page 55
15
Table 2.1 2024 GHG Emissions
Compared to 2007 Baseline (tCO2e)
Highlighted cells Durham Sustainability, 2014
Year 2007
(Territorial)
2007
(Global)
2024
(Territorial)
2024 (Global) 2030
(Territorial)
2030 (Global) 2050
(Territorial)
2050 (Global)
Building Energy Residential 265,883 151,019 215,635 122,479 407,751 111,719 182,443 32,316
Building Energy ICI 894,705 444,511 207,023 102,854 267,223 214,414 211,303 29,331
Land Transportation 163,784 71,616 707,570 309,392 714,390 312,670 176,430 78,672
Air and Water Transportation 23,376 218,912 32,134 227,222 34,588 280,653 26,087 268,821
Waste 33,490 18,732 17,729 49,583 17,034 44,651 18,494 16,346
Industrial Processes and Product Uses 403,973 44,921,942 93,474 15,285,455 101,887 6,708,433 104,691 750,491
Agriculture, Forestry, & Other Land
Use
1,534 6,821 2,109 9,377 2,299 9,283 2,362 5,814
Other Global 2,706,309 3,720,196 4,055,013 3,794,600
Total 1,786,746 48,539,863 1,275,674 19,826,558 1,545,171 11,736,837 721,811 4,976,391
Page 56
16
Table 2.2 2024 GHG Emissions Per Capita
(tCO2e/Capita)
Year 2007
(Territorial)
2007 (Global) 2024
(Territorial)
2024
(Global)
2030
(Territorial)
2030 (Global) 2050
(Territorial)
2050 (Global)
Building Energy Residential 1.8778 1.0666 1.1079 0.6293 1.9261 0.5277 0.8357 0.1480
Building Energy ICI 6.3190 3.1394 1.0636 0.5284 1.2623 1.0128 0.9679 0.1344
Land Transportation 1.1567 0.5058 3.6354 1.5896 3.3745 1.4769 0.8082 0.3604
Air and Water Transportation 0.1651 1.5461 0.1651 1.1674 0.1634 1.3257 0.1195 1.2314
Waste 0.2365 0.1323 0.0911 0.2547 0.0805 0.2109 0.0847 0.0749
Industrial Processes and Product Uses 2.8531 317.2678 0.4803 78.5339 0.4813 31.6884 0.4796 3.4379
Agriculture, Forestry, & Other Land
Use
0.0108 0.0482 0.0108 0.0482 0.0109 0.0439 0.0108 0.0266
Other Global 19.1137 19.1137 19.1545 17.3825
Total 12.62 342.82 6.55 101.87 7.30 55.44 3.31 22.80
Page 57
17
Page 58
Figure 2: Oshawa Emissions (Scope 1 & 2 only) tCO2e in 2024
18
Page 59
Oshawa's 2024 Emissions Broken Down By Sector
(Following 2011 Reporting Practice, %tCO2e)
32%
5%
5%
45%
13%
Natural Gas Electricity Waste Diesel Gasoline
Figure 3: 2024 Emissions by Sector in Oshawa Following 2011 Reporting Practice
Figure 4: Emissions by Sector in Oshawa (2011, City of Oshawa)
19
Page 60
20
5. Changing the Narrative
Climate change mitigation is now largely positioned as a transition requiring sacrifice. Less
meat, less driving, less flying, fewer cruises and smaller cars. The transition suggests economic
and lifestyle changes. Few people welcome change, and existing stakeholders that are likely to
face impacts, will often argue against the need to change.
In communities like Oshawa, with automotive and other manufacturing facilities, the sacrifices
are even more tangible. For example, the vehicles manufactured in Oshawa in 2024 will likely
burn 6 billion litres of fuel over their lifetimes resulting in about 14 million tonnes of CO2. These
same 144,000 vehicles supported about 3,000 direct jobs and an additional 1,500 supply chain
jobs. These Scope 3 downstream emissions are added to Oshawa’s relatively high Scopes 1 and 2
(territorial) emissions, mainly from transportation (cars and trucks) and buildings (natural gas
heating). When taking a whole-of-community global emissions approach, few cities have a larger
task in delivering GHG emission reductions than Oshawa.
Oshawa’s overall GHG emissions (Scopes 1, 2 and 3) are consistent and inextricably linked with
Canada’s (and the world’s) overall mitigation progress. The Canadian Climate Institute, an
independent advisory group that tracks Canada’s progress toward net-zero targets, publishes an
annual Early Estimate of National Emissions (EENE). The 2024 inventory (released September
18, 2025) highlights that emissions are flatlining (694 million tonnes (Mt CO2e) in 2024), and
that Canada’s climate progress is fragile and slipping8 (Figure 6).
The lack of progress is significant (emissions were just 8.5% below 2005 levels, leaving
Canada’s 2030 target gap unchanged – still requiring an additional 40 to 45% reduction from
2005 levels). Progress is largely stalled with setbacks such as rescinding the consumer carbon
tax, eliminating electric vehicle (EV) targets, and relaxing provincial mitigation efforts.
Achieving Canada’s 2030 target would require year-over-year reductions equal to 40 Mt—far
beyond the ambition of current policy (Canadian Climate Institute).
When assessing Canada’s limited progress on climate mitigation the disproportionate impact of
oil and gas development, especially from the oil sands, it is quickly apparent (Figure 6). This
highlights the importance of a whole-of-community inventory approach used in this report (all
Scopes). In Canada’s national GHG inventory as reviewed by the Canadian Climate Institute, the
downstream impact of products manufactured in Canada are not considered. The emissions
associated with producing oil and gas are included in Canada’s inventory, but the emissions
associated with the use of that oil and gas, when exported are not included (more than 3-times
the amount of emissions from production). Similarly, the emissions associated with vehicles
manufactured in Canada, and exported to the US, where they are likely to combust Canadian
produced petroleum, are not included. These Scope 3 downstream emissions for vehicles
8 https://climateinstitute.ca/news/2024-emissions-estimate-shows-progress-stalled/
Page 61
21
manufactured in Oshawa are about 15 Mt in 2024. Scope 3 CO2 emissions from vehicles
manufactured in Ontario and exported are greater than all oil and gas development emissions in
Canada. Although these emissions are well-known, they are not typically included in the national
climate mitigation dialogue.
Another Scope 3 global emission that remains largely unaccounted is emissions associated with
invested capital. Canada’s five largest banks have about $3.25 trillion under management. Using
a conservative estimate of $75 tonnes CO2e per $1 million invested, this capital generates about
200 million t of CO2e per year. The capital of Oshawa residents, institutions and businesses is
estimated to have generated more than 3 million tonnes of CO2e in 2024.
GHG emissions from buildings are on track to increase from about 425,000 t in 2024 to 675,000
t in 2030 (about 10% increase per year). More than two-thirds of these emissions are from
natural gas use in the building. These are Scope 1 and 2 emissions only. The value is about 50%
higher when Scope 3 (global) emissions are included (mainly from production and transmission
to building). Emissions from electricity are set to more than double f rom 2017.
The last coal electricity plant in Ontario closed in April 2014. Ontario has touted its phase out of
coal as one of North America’s largest climate mitigation actions. In 2017 the carbon intensity of
Ontario’s electricity was a low ~20 g CO2e/kWh. As electricity demand increased, renewables
(hydro, wind and solar) and nuclear could not meet demand. The shortfall was supplied through
natural gas. In 2024 the average carbon intensity of Ontario’s electricity (grid supplied) had
climbed to 73 g CO2e/kWh. This is expected to increase to as high as 130 g CO2e/kWh by 2035
as more gas is burned for generation (before increased nuclear and renewables are brought
online).9 This is expected to add about 100,000 tonnes CO2e to Oshawa’s annual GHG
emissions.
***
Insects, disease, air pollution, the flow of water, and increasingly droughts, fires, commuters and
economic trends do not respect boundaries and borders. As a global challenge and local threat,
Oshawa’s response to climate change similarly needs to work across boundaries and borders. A
net zero strategy must accomplish two things. First, the government, institution or business must
take tangible, verifiable steps toward reducing GHG emissions. Second, by moving toward net
zero practices, communities like Oshawa and Ontario will signal to others that they too need to
reduce GHG emissions.
The path to net zero is fraught with delays. Groups will argue that Oshawa should not move
more quickly than others, that it is unaffordable at this time, or that the proposed mitigation
targets are unfair, too much burden is placed on Oshawa relative to some other jurisdictions.
9 Typical averages for carbon intensity by electricity generation type: coal 970 g; gas 440 g; solar 53; hydro 24;
wind 11; nuclear 6 g CO2e/kWh. (life cycle of plant, from Our World in Data 2020).
Page 62
22
These opinions should be anticipated and even embraced. Climate mitigation is one of the most
difficult tasks ever. No one should expect it to be easy.
A few salient facts remain. Oshawa can not meet net zero targets without significant support
from the Province of Ontario and Government of Canada. As governments represent the people
of the community, the onus rests with them.
There is little impact if the City of Oshawa reduces GHG emissions within territorial limits, if
the rest of Canada and the world do not follow. GHG emissions from the residents of Oshawa
need to decline both locally and globally.
6. City of Oshawa Community Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
Progress on Council’s Endorsement (Nov 9, 2020, Report DS-20-130)
As part of the community GHG reduction plan and in consultation with ICLEI and using the
Scenario Builder tool from Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), City of Oshawa staff
modelled GHG emission reductions within the November 2020 Climate Plan (Figure 5; 20% by
2020, 30% by 2030, and 80% by 2050).
Figure 5 includes estimated equivalent GHG emissions value for 2024, 2030 and 2050 (red ‘x’,
from Table 2.1). The value for 2024 is derived from actual data. Values for 2030 and 2050 are
based on projections outlined in Annex 2. Of particular importance for this reduction trajectory is
decarbonizing Ontario’s electricity grid (after the current increase is over) and moving away
from internal combustion engine vehicles (registered in Oshawa) and natural gas heating.
Page 63
Figure 5, City of Oshawa Community GHG Reduction Plan, November 2020.
2024, 2030 and 2050 ‘x’ from Table 2.1 (revised trajectory ----)
Oshawa’s territorial (Scopes 1 & 2) GHG emission reduction target was on track from 20 14 to
about 2020 (Fig 5 target line) and remains relatively well-positioned based on projections
outlined in Annex 2. These emission reductions are largely attributed to decarbonizing electricity
(especially in the ICI buildings sector) and significant declines in industrial processes (Table
2.1). However, while emissions from ‘Building energy ICI’ and ‘Industrial processes’ declined
by more than 75% between 2007 and 2024, ‘Land transportation’ emissions more than tripled.
Between 2024 and 2030 all categories of territorial GHG emissions are expected to increase.
The November 2020 GHG Reduction Plan included 7 specific actions and 3 opportunities.
The seven specific Actions and relative progress are as follows.
Action 1: Increase renewable electricity generation from renewable sources in residential
buildings.
GHG Avoidance potential (1,882 t by 2030; 4,741 t by 2050)
23
Page 64
24
Other benefits: improve energy resilience, reduce energy costs, improve air quality, reduce urban
heat island
Progress 2020-2024 (no change)
Likely Progress 2024-2030 (decline)
Action 2: Improve energy performance in residential buildings.
GHG Avoidance potential (20,213 t by 2030; 151,810 t by 2050)
Other benefits: reduce energy costs, improve climate resilience, increase home values, improve
air quality, reduce urban heat island
Progress 2020-2024 (about 10% decline)
Likely Progress 2024-2030 (target can be met)
Action 3: Increase renewable electricity generation from renewable sources in commercial
buildings.
GHG Avoidance potential (1,090 t by 2030; 3,431 t by 2050)
Other benefits: improve energy resilience, reduce energy costs, improve air quality, reduce urban
heat island.
Progress 2020-2024 (no change)
Likely Progress 2024-2030 (decline)
Action 4: Improve energy performance in commercial buildings
GHG Avoidance potential (505,267 t by 2030; 1,300,928 t by 2050)
Other benefits: reduce operational costs of commercial buildings, improve climate resilience,
improve air quality, reduce urban heat island
Progress 2020-2024 (about 10% decline)
Likely Progress 2024-2030 (target can be met, priority is to shift away from natural gas heating)
Action 5: Promote low carbon or no carbon vehicles
GHG Avoidance potential (103,853 t by 2030; 235,772 t by 2050)
Other benefits: improve air quality, reduce travel costs, reduce urban heat island
Progress 2020-2024 (631 EVs registered in Oshawa in 2022, increased to 2,313 in 2025)10
Likely Progress 2024-2030 (to meet 2030 targets more than half the vehicles would need to be
EVs. This does not appear to be on track. 2050 target still possible but requires federal and
provincial leadership. Efforts need to be developed within a broader mobility campaign.)
Action 6: Increase/Improve cycling and walking infrastructure to encourage active forms of
transportation
GHG Avoidance potential (28,913 t by 2030; 14,017 t by 2050)
Other benefits: improve air quality, increase physical activity, reduce travel costs
10 Oshawa Power, 2025
Page 65
25
Progress 2020-2024 (mixed, e-scooter pilot extended, bike use relatively unchanged).
Likely Progress 2024-2030 (2030 and 2050 targets can still be met, need to be developed within
a broader mobility campaign).
Action 7: Coordinate land-use policies to establish a built form that promotes sustainable growth
GHG Avoidance potential (26,254 t by 2030; 20,507 t by 2050)
Other benefits: improve air quality, more efficient use of land, increase physical activity, shorter
commute times, local economic development
Progress 2020-2024 (mixed, built form still highly auto-dependent, most new homes still heated
with natural gas).
Likely Progress 2024-2030 (GHG avoidance targets can still be achieved. “Sustainable growth”
may need to be defined as ‘sustainability’ or steady state before 2050 as Canada’s population
influenced by a global peak population (and decline thereafter) post-2075. Best supported
through a broader sustainability transition.
As outlined in this report, while these 7 actions are important, their progress would have little
impact on Oshawa’s overall contribution to GHG emissions (Scopes 1, 2 and 3, where Scope 3
global emissions are 15-times larger than Scope 1 & 2 territorial emissions). Also, the progress
of these 7 actions, and reduction of Oshawa’s territorial (Scope 1&2) emissions, is now largely
out of the City of Oshawa’s ability to directly influence. The three most important actions to
reduce Oshawa’s GHG territorial emissions – burning less natural gas (especially for space
heating), less gasoline and diesel combusted in vehicles, and low carbon electricity – are mainly
the purview of the Government of Canada and Province of Ontario (both governments have
recently backtracked on climate mitigation targets).
Perhaps presciently, the 2020 City of Oshawa Community GHG Reduction Plan also included
‘Additional Opportunities’.
Opportunity 1: Promote energy efficient business operations
Opportunity 2: Promote sustainable practices through strategic outreach and education
Opportunity 3: Strengthen the City’s capacity to be a leader in sustainability and implement the
actions in this Plan.
These opportunities were not quantified for potential avoided GHG emissions. However, other
benefits were identified and included increased awareness and engagement, educed energy and
water use, and lower costs.
Emphasis on the overarching Opportunity 3 “Strengthen the City’s capacity to be a leader in
sustainability and implement the actions in this Plan” is warranted. Bringing down Oshawa’s
GHG emissions needs to proceed in lockstep with other jurisdictions. This would suggest that the
Page 66
26
share of emissions reductions is not necessarily the same for every community, or ‘common but
differentiated responsibilities’ as first suggested at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Environment and
Development Conference. Those who generate more: should do more to mitigate, but everyone
needs to be pulling in the same direction.
Opportunity 3: Strengthen the City’s capacity to be a leader in sustainability and implement the
actions in this Plan.
The Oshawa Strategic Plan identifies environmental responsibility as a strategic goal, including
the following themes:
• Proactive environmental management and combat climate change;
• Cleaner air, land and water;
• Resilient local food system; and,
• Less waste generation.
The City can explore ways to demonstrate its commitment to environmental responsibility and
be a leader in reducing G.H.G. emissions. As suggested in the 2020 Council Report (DS-20-
130), strengthening the City’s capacity to be a leader in sustainability and implementation of the
actions in this Plan will be advanced by:
• Exploring opportunities to develop a climate lens in decision making that will
integrate climate change considerations into the planning and development of
staff and Council decisions by considering the environmental impacts,
G.H.G. emissions and climate resilience of projects;
• Exploring opportunities to encourage tree-planting initiatives both on City-owned
and privately-owned land; and,
• Exploring opportunities to partner with C.L.O.C.A. to support reforestation/
afforestation projects in rural areas.
7. Strengthening Oshawa’s capacity to be a leader in sustainability
Sustainability and its subset, sustainable development, require both local initiatives and an
appreciation for global impacts, trends, and interconnectedness. Climate change highlights this
better than almost any other issue facing humanity. Oshawa is part of the Greater Toronto Area,
Ontario, Canada and the global family of communities. Sustainability requires a balance between
‘fair’ effort and genuine capacity.
Page 67
27
Oshawa residents are likely not willing to face greater financial hardships in the sustainability
transition than other communities in Canada. However, Oshawa has significant capacity to
catalyze and lead the shift to greater sustainability.
Of the Durham Region’s seven priority neighbourhoods, five are in Oshawa11. Oshawa is steeped
in automotive history, with the McLaughlin Carriage Company moving to Oshawa in 1867. Sam
McLaughlin convinced his father, and the McLaughlin-Buick began production in 1908. The
company became part of General Motors in 1918. The Silverado currently built in Oshawa is one
of North America’s most fuel intensive vehicles (gasoline and diesel).
A trend that will significantly impact Oshawa over the next 75 years is a change in international
relations and the likely erosion of national (global) sovereignty with the emergence of regional
pragmatism and influence, i.e., “ecological realism”. This will develop through issues such as
pandemics and solar geoengineering (a probable outcome of the global collective inadequacy in
limiting GHG emissions).12 Cities and their urban neighbors are driving climate change. They
will be key in driving mitigation. For example, the Toronto Region alone makes up over a third
of Canada’s GDP, and in 2024 contributed more than 500 million tonnes CO2e (Scope 3, global
emissions; about 1% of the world’s total).
Oshawa remains well positioned to be a leader in sustainability (Opportunity 3, which
encompasses Opportunities 1 and 2). The City is an integral part of Durham Region, the Greater
Toronto Area (and Golden Horseshoe), Ontario and Canada. The City will be a key community
in the sustainability transition, requiring a path that is locally acceptable, regionally integrated,
and globally relevant.
Key community attributes and targets to anchor this opportunity include:
i. Phase out fossil fuel combustion by 2050, with a focus on space heating (natural gas) and
internal combustion engine vehicles (petroleum).
ii. Ensure that air pollution (PM 2.5) levels remain below 25 ug/m3
iii. Request that Ontario (IESO) maintain a reliable electricity grid where carbon intensity
(CO2e) is below 35 g/kWh (about 75 g/kWh in 2024 and rising).
iv. Request that the federal government and province of Ontario ensure that all vehicles sold
in Canada post 2040 are low carbon or no carbon emitting.
v. Request that post-2035 all vehicles driven on Ontario roads are charged per distance
travelled.
11 Oshawa’s median household income in 2025 was $86,000. In comparison the Greater Toronto Area (GTA)
median household income is around $101,000 (a 15% variance).
12 Elizabeth Chalecki (2025) – "Solar Geoengineering, Sovereignty, and the Case for Ecological Realism"
[Perspective]. Published online at SRM360.org. Retrieved from: https://srm360.org/perspective/sovereignty-
ecological-realism/
Page 68
28
vi. Develop complete streets and communities (inter-connectivity, system mobility, walkable
neighborhoods).
vii. Ensure that household global (Scopes 1, 2 and 3) carbon budgets, including food, global
travel, invested capital are below 5 tonnes CO2e per person (by 2040).
viii. Ensure that all residents of Oshawa have access to health care, education, and housing.
ix. Ensure that all residents of Oshawa have access to basic information on local and global
progress toward sustainability (and their personal and community contributions).
x. Ensure the provision of basic services for all residents, including economic/employment
opportunities, water, food, and shelter.
xi. Provide the community with sufficient civility, understanding and means of public input
for individual and collective flourishing, i.e., sustainability (this is an aspirational target
but represents the basis of 2050 and 2100 sustainable development targets).
xii. Attitudes and actions need to reflect that the City of Oshawa is an integral part of Oshawa
CMA, Region of Durham, GTA and GTOHA, Toronto Region, Ontario, Canada and the
world.
8. Recommendations
Actions in the City of Oshawa 2020 Community Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan remain
relevant and practical. These require continued support of : the Oshawa Strategic Plan; the
Durham Community Energy Plan; the Durham Home Energy Savings Program (and similar
initiatives); the Durham Deep Retrofit Program; increased availability of EV charging facilities;
expand the City’s Active and Integrated Transportation Master Plans (A.T.M.P. and I.T.M.P.);
adherence to the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) Watershed Pl ans; high-
density mixed-use development and walkable communities; work from home options through
service delivery upgrades, and; encourage ‘green jobs’ and energy efficiency in local businesses.
Actions 1-4 of the Community Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan can be combined for all
buildings. The priority for existing and especially new buildings, is to rapidly shift away from
natural gas heating (space and hot water). Energy efficiency in buildings is also a priority. To
assess GHG emissions from electricity, the carbon intensity of Ontario’s electricity grid should
be monitored. Ideally carbon intensity should remain below 30 g CO2e/kWh. Renewables and
nuclear generation provide this low carbon source. Solar systems, often behind the grid, provide
a way to reduce demand, especially at peak carbon intensity times, e.g., hot summer days.
With a local and global lens on GHG emissions the City of Oshawa should signal to senior levels
of government and the community that the City remains committed to the 2010 Community
GHG emission reduction targets. However, this requires collaboration and clear messaging that
before 2050 (for territorial Scope 1 and 2) the community should have transitioned away from
fossil fuels in transportation, space and water heating, and electricity generation. For global
Page 69
Scope 3 emissions, residents, businesses and institutions in Oshawa should have transitioned to
all transportation (including aviation) being carbon neutral, and invested capital to have
emissions less than 40 tCO2e/$M. The City of Oshawa should inform the community on annual
progress toward these targets (annual reporting on website, with continued updating to Council
every 5 years).
The City of Oshawa should “strengthen the City’s capacity to be a leader in sustainability” by
encouraging the establishment and actively participating in a sustainability transition plan for the
Toronto Region.
Figure 6: Change in Emissions Canada, 2005-2024, and 2023-2024
From: Canadian Climate Institute, September 2025
29
Page 70
30
Box 1: City of Oshawa and the Toronto Region
On January 12, 1954, in discussing the built-up area around Toronto, the term ‘Golden
Horseshoe’ was first used by Westinghouse Electric Corporation president Herbert Rogge:
“Hamilton in 50 years will be the forward cleat in a ‘golden horseshoe’ of industrial
development from Oshawa to the Niagara River”.
Orchestrating consensus in Toronto is challenged by the advantages of acting as a ‘Toronto
Region’ versus the natural desire for independence by local governments and smaller
communities. Where borders are drawn is difficult. Clarington, and maybe Port Hope, for
example, might argue that industrial development should extend eastward beyond Oshawa, and
Kitchener-Waterloo is now as substantive a cleat as Hamilton.
Coordination within Canada’s urban regions is difficult, but arguably even more important than
removing inter-provincial barriers. Canada’s constitution, that gives inordinate power to the
provinces (at the expense of municipalities), also exacerbates the challenge of coordination. The
federal government’s ability to help coordinate further weakened as their contribution to urban
infrastructure steadily declined from providing more than a third of capital costs in the 1950s to
less than 10 percent today.
The Greater Toronto Area (GTA, or GTOHA) is the minimum urban agglomeration that should
be considered when planning service delivery, especially services like transportation, waste
disposal, water supply, economic development, and social assistance.13 Despite the increasing
need, the 30 mayors and chairs of the GTOHA, and their respective municipal staff, businesses,
and residents, rarely agree, and when they do, it may well be the province or federal government
deciding on the issue – often at odds with the local governments.
The Toronto Region (comprised of the CMAs of Toronto, Oshawa, Hamilton, Peterborough, St.
Catherines, Kitchener, Brantford, Guelph, and Barrie) urban agglomeration has more than 34
transit agencies, 17 electricity distributors, 25 school boards, eight health networks, 25 publicly
funded colleges and universities with more than 40 campuses, along with 21 upper - and separate-
tier municipalities, and 89 lower-tier municipalities.
In the four regions of Durham, Halton, Peel, and York, the 322 municipal council seats have
considerable overlap. The area is also overseen by 28 Chief Administrative Officers, and similar
numbers of chief planners, heads of public works, public websites, and municipal headquarters.
Each local government has its own Economic Development office with several staff whose
performance is measured on progress within their own municipality, often at the expense of a
neighboring community.
13 Population by Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) of the GTHA (or GTOHA) in 2021: Toronto 6,202,225;
Hamilton 785,184; Oshawa 415,311. Toronto Region inner-ring population 7.4 million. Outer-ring 2.8 million. Total
area 31,562 km2
Page 71
31
A preliminary analysis of the Toronto Region suggests that over the next 20 years, if the region
were to act more collaboratively, taking advantage of urban scaling attributes for service
efficiencies and economic growth, a minimum economic boost of $3 billion - $4 billion per year
is possible.14 This collaboration is not only critical for the economy but underpins sustainability.
14 Canada’s cities in a changing world 1920-2120: The halftime report. Hoornweg, 2025.
Page 72
32
9. References
440 Megatonnes. (2024, October 21). Canadian Emissions Intensity Database. 440 Megatonnes:
Tracking Canada’s Path to Net Zero. https://440megatonnes.ca/canadian-carbon-emissions-
database/#total_emissions
440 Megatonnes. (2025). How Ontario and Alberta’s coal phase-outs led to massive emissions
cuts and what comes next. 440 Megatonnes: Tracking Canada’s Path to Net Zero.
https://440megatonnes.ca/insight/how-ontario-and-albertas-coal-phase-outs-led-to-massive-
emissions-cuts/
2006 Census: Census Trends - Selected trend data for Oshawa (City), 2006, 2001 and 1996
censuses. (n.d.). Www12.Statcan.gc.ca. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/92-
596/P1-2.cfm?Lang=eng&T=CSD&GEOCODE=18013&PRCODE=35&TID=0
Brightest. (n.d.). Calculating Carbon Emissions from Water - CO2 Emission Factors. Brightest.
https://www.brightest.io/calculate-carbon-footprint-water-emissions
Broker Link. (2023, April 15). How Long do Cars Last in Canada? BrokerLink.
https://www.brokerlink.ca/blog/how-long-do-cars-last-in-canada
Bush, O. (2024, October 23). Cruise Industry Statistics in Canada | Made in CA. Made in CA.
https://madeinca.ca/cruise-industry-statistics-canada/
Campbell, R. (2022, August 17). Car pollution facts: from production to disposal, what impact
do our cars have on the planet? Auto Express.
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/sustainability/358628/car-pollution-production-disposal-what-
impact-do-our -cars-have-planet
Canada,. (2024a). Information archivée dans le Web | Information Archived on the Web.
Publications.gc.ca. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2024/eccc/En84-294-2024-
eng.pdf
Canada,. (2024b). The Daily — Canada’s population estimates: Subprovincial areas, 2024.
Statcan.gc.ca. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/250116/dq250116b-eng.htm
Canada, E. and C. C. (2022, June 8). Emission Factors and Reference Values. Www.canada.ca.
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pricing-
pollution-how-it-will-work/output-based-pricing-system/federal-greenhouse-gas-offset-
system/emission-factors-reference-values.html
Page 73
33
CN Rail. (n.d.). RESILIENT AND READY 2024 annual report. Retrieved May 31, 2025, from
https://www.cn.ca/-/media/files/investors/investor-annual-report/2024-cn-annual-report.pdf
Dalhousie University. (n.d.). Canada’s Food Price Report 2024. Dalhousie University.
https://www.dal.ca/sites/agri-food/research/canada-s-food-price-report-2024.html
Diesel weight to volume conversion. (2025). Aqua-Calc.com. https://www.aqua-
calc.com/calculate/weight-to-volume/substance/diesel
Driving. (2020, March 28). Home on the Range: These are the EVs with the best driving range.
Driving; Driving. https://driving.ca/features/feature-story/home-on-the-range-these-are-the-evs-
with-the-best-driving-range
Durham (Regional Municipality, Canada) - Population Statistics, Charts, Map and Location.
(n.d.). https://www.citypopulation.de/en/canada/ontario/admin/3518__durham/
Durham Post. (2023, February 17). Oshawa GDP growth projected at 2.2%. Durham Post.
https://durhampost.ca/oshawa-gdp-growth-projected-at-2-2
Durham Region. (2023a). Waste Management Annual Report. https://www.durham.ca/en/living-
here/resources/Documents/GarbageandRecycling/Annual-Reports/2023-Region-of-Durham-
Annual-Report---ACC.pdf
Durham Region. (2023b, December 12). Recommended 2024 Water and Sanitary Sewer User
Rates. https://www.durham.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/2023-F-37-2024-Water-Sewer-User-Rate-
Report.pdf
EC-MEIT. (2025). Ec-Meit.ca. https://ec-meit.ca/app.html#
Enbridge Natural Gas. (2024). Gas Composition and High Heating Value Data.
https://www.enbridgegas.com/-/media/Extranet-Pages/about-us/learn-about-natural-gas/hhv-
table.pdf?rev=ac2774b07f2f433e9cfb65e0be828afe&hash=AAA71333C39719D455D3B6D579
B3A65A
Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2023, November 15). Updated carbon intensity of
natural gas and propane. https://data-
donnees.az.ec.gc.ca/api/file?path=%2Fclimate%2Fframework%2Ffuel-life-cycle-assessment-
model%2FEnglish%2F1-Fuel%20LCA%20Model%2Fz-Archive%2FPre-publications%2FPre-
publications%20for%202023%20to%202024%2F2023.12.15%20Updated-carbon-intensity-of-
Page 74
34
natural-gas-and-propane%2FReadme-Pre-publication-Updated-carbon-intensity-of-natural-gas-
and-propane.pdf
ERI Economic Research Institute. (2024). Salary Expert - Average Salary in Ontario, Canada.
Salary Expert. https://www.salaryexpert.com/salary/area/canada/ontario
Finucane, D. (2024, September 5). 65 million travellers a year could use Toronto Pearson
Airport in Mississauga, Ontario by 2030s | INsauga. INsauga | Ontario Local News Network.
https://www.insauga.com/100-million-travellers-a-year-could-use-pearson-airport-in-
mississauga-ontario-by-2037/
Fraser, A. (2019, November 6). Are investment carbon footprints good for investors and the
climate? Policy Options. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/november-2017/are-
investment-carbon-footprints-good-for-investors-and-the-climate/
Government of Canada. (n.d.). Canada’s Aviation Climate Action Plan.
https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/files/2022-11/canada-aviation-climate-action-plan-2022-
2030.pdf
Government of Canada. (2023a). Aviation Action Plan. Gower Publishing Company, Limited.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://tc.canada.ca/
sites/default/files/2024-02/Aviation%2520Report%25202020-2021-
E%2520ACC_update%2520pg%252028.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj0rNTgwqGGAxX_GDQIHWsaC
ocQFnoECBEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3hd9DD6a9I02Ug9T8RywUR
Government of Canada. (2023b, December 19). Canada’s Electric Vehicle Availability Standard
(regulated targets for zero-emission vehicles). Www.canada.ca.
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/2023/12/canadas-electric-vehicle-
availability-standard-regulated-targets-for-zero-emission-vehicles.html
Government of Canada, National Energy Board. (2022, July 28). CER – Provincial and
Territorial Energy Profiles - Canada. Canada Energy Regulator. https://www.cer-
rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-
territorial-energy-profiles-canada.html
IEA Bioenergy. (2003). A Position Paper Prepared by IEA Bioenergy Municipal Solid Waste
and its Role in Sustainability. https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/10/40_IEAPositionPaperMSW.pdf
Page 75
35
IESO. (2024). Ontario’s Energy Future. https://www.ieso.ca/-/media/Files/IESO/Document-
Library/Decarbonization-Hub/IESO-Ontarios-Energy-Future-Spring-2024.pdf
Keever, M. (n.d.). Cruising Versus Land Vacationing: An Analysis of Vacation Carbon
Footprints in Seattle. https://foe.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/04/Comparison_of_CO2_Emissions_v2.pdf
Kolivakis, L. (2021, June 3). Behind OMERS’ Carbon Footprint Analysis. Blogspot.com;
Blogger. https://pensionpulse.blogspot.com/2021/06/behind-omers-carbon-footprint-
analysis.html
Lair-McKenty, N. (2025, March 28). Toronto Pearson Hits 4.4% Growth in 2024, Forges Ahead
with Expansion Plan. TravelpulseCA; TravelPulse Canada.
https://www.travelpulse.ca/news/airlines-airports/toronto-pearson-hits-4-4-growth-in-2024-
forges-ahead-with-expansion-plan
Macrotrends. (2024). Toronto, Canada Metro Area Population 1950-2024. Macrotrends.net.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/20402/toronto/population
Metrolinx. (2020). Regional Air Quality Study GO Rail Network Electrification Project.
https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/upload/Documents/Metrolinx/appendix_a5-
2_regional_air_quality_study_go_rail_network_electrification_project_fwl08x.pdf
Ministry of Transportation. (2019). Provincial Highways Traffic Volumes.
https://www.library.mto.gov.on.ca/SydneyPLUS/TechPubs/Theme.aspx?r=702797&f=files%2fP
rovincial+Highways+Traffic+Volumes+2019+AADT+Only.pdf&m=resource
Natural Resources Canada. (2025). Canadian Vehicle Survey 2008 Update Report. Nrcan.gc.ca.
https://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/statistics/cvs08/appendix-1.cfm?graph=6&attr=0
Nordahl, S. L., Preble, C. V., Kirchstetter, T. W., & Scown, C. D. (2023). Greenhouse Gas and
Air Pollutant Emissions from Composting. Environmental Science & Technology, 57(6), 2235–
2247. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c05846
Rodriguez, J. (2018, November 26). General Motors’ Oshawa Assembly plant: A brief history.
CTVNews. https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/autos/article/general-motors-oshawa-assembly-
plant-a-brief-history/
Sheridan, T. (2024, October 29). This infographic provides a snapshot of the net worth of
Canadian families by province and family type in 2023. In addition, there’s a focus on the most
Page 76
36
common asset and debt holdings of families. This infographic uses data from the 2023 Survey of
Financial Security. Statcan.gc.ca; Government of Canada, Statistics Canada.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2024047-eng.htm
Skyscanner. (2025). Toronto Pearson International (YYZ) Arrivals and Departures | Live Flight
Status. Skyscanner.ca. https://www.skyscanner.ca/flights/arrivals-departures/yyz/toronto-
pearson-international-arrivals-departures
SPR Associates Inc. (2021, June 29). A Critique of MTO’s Response to SPR’s Truck Parking
Study.
https://niagarafalls.civicweb.net/document/36994/SPR%20Press%20Release%20on%20Ontario
%20Truck%20Parking%20-
%20June%20.pdf?handle=0B1494CBFA1D45E39CB2AD56F1FAD4F0
Statistics Canada. (2022, July 13). Focus on Geography Series, 2021 Census of Population
Oshawa, Census metropolitan area. Statcan.gc.ca; Government of Canada, Statistics Canada.
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/fogs-
spg/Page.cfm?lang=E&topic=2&dguid=2021S0503532
Statistics Canada. (2024). The Daily — More Canadians commuting in 2024. Statcan.gc.ca.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240826/dq240826a-eng.htm
Sureshan, S. (2009). Impact of Intercity Trucking on Urban Environment Greater Toronto and
Hamilton Area Case Study . http://conf.tac-
atc.ca/english/resourcecentre/readingroom/conference/conf2009/pdf/Sureshan.pdf
The Atmospheric Fund. (n.d.). Ontario Electricity Emissions Factors and Guidelines.
https://taf.ca/custom/uploads/2024/06/TAF-Ontario-Emissions-Factors-2024.pdf
The Atmospheric Fund. (2022). Durham - 2022 GTHA Carbon Emissions Inventory.
Carbon.taf.ca. https://carbon.taf.ca/2022/regions/durham
The Atmospheric Fund. (2023). Durham - 2023 GTHA Carbon Emissions Inventory.
Carbon.taf.ca. https://carbon.taf.ca/2023/regions/durham
The Atmospheric Fund. (2025). Carbon Emissions Quantification Methodology 2025. Taf.ca.
https://taf.ca/project/emissions-quantification/
The Regional Municipality of Durham Information Report From: Commissioner of Planning and
Economic Development. (2024). https://www.durham.ca/en/living-
here/resources/Documents/2024 -INFO-80-Monitoring-of-Growth-Trends.pdf
Page 77
37
The University of British Columbia. (2019, October 3). Fossil Fuels for Transport.
C21.Phas.ubc.ca. https://c21.phas.ubc.ca/article/fossil-fuels-for-transport/
Toronto Pearson. (2024). Press release: GTAA reports 2024 Annual Results. Pearson Airport.
https://www.torontopearson.com/en/corporate/media/press-releases/2025-03-
27?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Unifor. (2025, May 2). Unifor calls for swift action as GM cuts shift due to tariffs. Unifor.
https://www.unifor.org/news/all-news/unifor-calls-swift-action-gm-cuts-shift-due-tariffs
University Of Calgary. (2018). Energy density. Energy Education.
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density
Why Oshawa. (2022). Oshawa.ca. https://www.oshawa.ca/en/investoshawa/why-oshawa.aspx
Wu, Y. H., Huang, C. Z., Huang, W. W., & Chen, X. J. (2024). Projected Changes in
Temperature and Precipitation over Canada in the 21st Century. Journal of Environmental
Informatics. https://doi.org/10.3808/jei.202400522
Young, R. (2024, November 12). Taking One Brick Out of the Worry Wall: New Data Confirm
Most Canadian Households Holding Up (But Not All). Scotiabank.com.
https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/economics-publications/post.other-
publications.insights-views.cdn-household-balance-sheets--november-12--2024-.html
Zscaler Web Access Control - scanning in progress... (2025). Weatherstats.ca.
https://oshawa.weatherstats.ca/charts/temperature-yearly.html
Page 78
38
Table A1: Ontario Tech University GHG Emissions Inventory 2024
GHG Emissions Source (By Sector)
Total GHGs (metric tonnes CO2e)
Scope 1 Scope 2
Scope 3
included in
Basic/Basic+
Other
Scope3 BASIC BASIC+ BASIC+ S3 +7
STATIONARY
ENERGY
Energy use (all emissions
except I.4.4) 1,212 1,775 994 33,001 2,988 3,981 36,982
Energy generation supplied
to the grid (I.4.4) 0
TRANSPORTATION (all II emissions) 227 0 18,828 0 227 19,054 19,054
WASTE
Waste generated in the city
(III.X.1 and III.X.2) 373 373 860 745 745 1,605
Waste generated outside
city (III.X.3) 0
IPPU (all IV emissions) 0 0 0 0
AFOLU (all V emissions) 0 0 0 0
OTHER SCOPE 3 (all VI emissions) 38,612 38,612
TOTAL 1,812 1,775 20,194 72,473 3,960 23,781 96,254
Total
Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3
I STATIONARY ENERGY
I.1 Residential buildings
I.2 Commercial and institutional buildings and facilities 1,212 1,775 994 3981
I.3 Manufacturing industries and construction 0 0 0 0
I.4.1/2/3 Energy industries 0 0 0 0
I.4.4 Energy generation supplied to the grid 0 0 0 0
I.5 Agriculture, forestry and fishing activities 0 0 0 0
I.6 Non-specified sources 0 0 0 0
I.7 Fugitive emissions from mining, processing, storage, and transportation of coal 0 0 0 0
I.8 Fugitive emissions from oil and natural gas systems 0 0 0 0
Sub-Total 1,212 1,775 994 3,981
II TRANSPORTATION
II.1 On-road transportation 227 17814 17,814
II.2 Railways 0 0 465 465
II.3 Waterborne navigation 0 0 0 0
II.4 Aviation 0 0 549 549
II.5 Off-road transportation 0 0 0 0
Sub-Total 227 18828 19054
III WASTE
III.1.1/2 Solid waste generated in the region 0 0 190 190
III.1.3 Solid waste generated outside the region 0 0 0 0
III.2.1/2 Biological waste generated in the region 0 0 20 20
III.2.3 Biological waste generated outside the region 0 0 0 0
III.3.1/2 Incinerated and burned waste generated in the region 0 0 163 163
III.3.3 Incinerated and burned waste generated outside region 0 0 0 0
III.4.1/2 Wastewater generated in the region 0 0 0 0
III.4.3 Wastewater generated outside the region 0 0 0 0
Sub-Total 373 373
IV INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES and PRODUCT USES
IV.1 Emissions from industrial processes occurring in the region boundary 0 0 0 0
IV.2 Emissions from product use occurring within the region boundary 0 0 0 0
Sub-Total 0 0 0
Page 79
39
V AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY and OTHER LAND USE
V.1 Emissions from livestock 0 0 0 0
V.2 Emissions from land 0 0 0 0
V.3 Emissions from aggregate sources and non-CO2 emission sources on land 0 0 0 0
Sub-Total 0 0 0
VI OTHER SCOPE 3
VI.1 Energy not included In I.7 & I.8 0
VI.2 Building Material 0 0 962 962
VI.3 Food not included in V 0 0 0 0
VI.4 Transportation not included in II.5 0 0 0 0
VI.5 Water 0 0 0 0
VI.6 Data Systems Management 0 860 860
VI.7 Key Infrastructure 0 0 0 0
VI.7 Invested Capital 0 0 3,790 3,790
VI.8 Other Scope 3 0 0 33,001 33,001
SUB-TOTAL 38,612 38,612
TOTAL Territorial 58,806 62,020
TOTAL Scope 1 and 2 Basic+ Reporting 1212 2002 3214
Table 2.1 2024 GHG Emissions Projected to 2030 and 2050 (tCO2e)
2007
(Territorial)
2007
(Global)
2024
(Territorial)
2024
(Global)
2030
(Territorial)
2030
(Global)
2050
(Territorial)
2050
(Global)
Building Energy
Residential - - 0 0 0 0 0 0
Building Energy ICI - - 2,988 994 5250 1978 804 668
Land Transportation - - 227 18279 454 16380 48 3981
Air and Water
Transportation - - 549 - 617 - 22 -
Waste - - - 190 - 121 - 58
Industrial Processes
and Product Uses - - - - - - - -
Agriculture, Forestry,
& Other Land Use - - - - - - - -
Other Global - - - 40066 - 64258 - 26981
Total - - 3763 59528 6321 82736 874 31687
Table 2.2 2024 GHG Emissions Projected to 2030 and 2050 (tCO2e/Student)
2007
(Territorial)
2007
(Global)
2024
(Territorial)
2024
(Global)
2030
(Territorial)
2030
(Global)
2050
(Territorial)
2050
(Global)
Building Energy
Residential - - 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Building Energy ICI - - 0.256 0.085 0.292 0.110 0.032 0.027
Land Transportation - - 0.019 1.565 0.025 0.910 0.002 0.159
Air and Water
Transportation - - 0.047 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.001 0.000
Waste - - 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.002
Industrial Processes and
Product Uses - - 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Agriculture, Forestry, &
Other Land Use - - 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Other Global - - 0.000 3.431 0.000 3.570 0.000 1.079
Total - - 0.322 5.097 0.351 4.596 0.035 1.267
Page 80
40
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Ministry of Emergency Preparedness
and Response
Office of the Minister
438 University Ave., 14th Floor
Toronto ON M5G 2K8
Ministère de la Protection civile
et de l’Intervention en cas d'urgence
Bureau de la ministre
438, av. University, 14e étage
Toronto ON M5G 2K8
DATE: December 9, 2025
MEMORANDUM TO: Heads of Council
SUBJECT: Emergency Management Modernization Act Achieves Royal
Assent
Dear Heads of Council:
I am pleased to let you know that on December 3rd, 2025, the Government of Ontario’s
Emergency Management Modernization Act, 2025, which amends the Emergency
Management and Civil Protection Act (EMCPA) received Royal Assent.
The EMCPA is Ontario’s framework for managing emergencies and defines the
authority and responsibilities of the province, municipalities and specific individuals in
emergency management.
From ice storms to flooding and wildland fire, the risks facing communities have grown
in scale and impact. That’s why under the leadership of Premier Ford, Ontario has
urgently modernized its legislation to reflect the rapidly changing landscape of
emergencies.
The amendments we have made enable a more effective, coordinated and
comprehensive approach to emergency management and ensures response plans are
tailored to local needs. Key changes now include:
• Clarifying the role of the Ministry of Emergency Preparedness and Response as
the provincial lead and one-window contact for coordinating emergency
management activities.
• Outlining Ontario Corps as a key provincial emergency resource and capability
that can be deployed to supplement local resources to support municipalities,
when requested. (An emergency declaration is not required to request provincial
support.)
• Strengthening Ontario’s commitment to facilitating coordination among
municipalities by implementing the joint emergency programs and plans for two
or more municipalities.
The legislation will be implemented in phases, with future regulations to support it.
Future work will enhance municipal emergency management by providing flexibility for
programs based on local needs and capacity. Upcoming regulations will also clarify the
process for municipal emergency declarations under the Act to ensure accountability.
Page 91
Ongoing dialogue and collaboration with municipalities and emergency management
partners will be key as the ministry continues engagement to inform future work related
to these amendments.
On a personal note, it was a pleasure to meet with many of you this summer, including
at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) conference to discuss Ontario’s
emergency management modernization. The feedback we received has been
instrumental in shaping these legislative amendments.
Thank you for your continued partnership and dedication to protect Ontario. I hope to see
you at the Rural Ontario Municipal Association Conference in January. Your commitment to
emergency management makes a difference, and I look forward to moving this important
work forward with you.
Sincerely,
The Honourable Jill Dunlop
Minister of Emergency Preparedness and Response
cc: Rob Flack, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Robin Jones, President, Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Page 92
Ministry of Emergency Preparedness
and Response
Office of the Minister
438 University Ave., 14th Floor
Toronto ON M5G 2K8
Ministère de la Protection civile
et de l’Intervention en cas d'urgence
Bureau de la ministre
438, av. University, 14e étage
Toronto ON M5G 2K8
DATE : 9 décembre 2025
NOTE DE SERVICE
À L’INTENTION DES :
Chefs de conseil
OBJET : La Loi sur la modernisation de la gestion des situations
d’urgence reçoit la sanction royale
Chers chefs de conseil,
J’ai le plaisir de vous informer que le 3 décembre 2025, la Loi de 2025 sur la
modernisation de la gestion des situations d’urgence du gouvernement de l’Ontario, qui
modifie la Loi sur la protection civile et la gestion des situations d’urgence (LPCGSU), a
reçu la sanction royale.
La LPCGSU constitue le cadre ontarien de gestion des situations d’urgence et définit
l’autorité et les responsabilités de la province, des municipalités et de certaines
personnes dans ce domaine.
Qu’il s’agisse de tempêtes de verglas, d’inondations ou de feux de végétation, les
risques auxquels font face les collectivités se sont intensifiés en ampleur et en
retombées. C’est pourquoi, sous la direction du premier ministre Ford, l’Ontario a
modernisé de toute urgence sa législation afin de refléter l’évolution rapide du contexte
entourant la gestion des situations d’urgence.
Les modifications que nous avons apportées permettent une approche plus efficace,
coordonnée et globale de la gestion des situations d’urgence et garantissent que les
plans d’intervention sont adaptés aux besoins locaux. Les principaux changements
comprennent maintenant ce qui suit :
• Préciser le rôle du ministère de la Protection civile et de l’Intervention en cas
d’urgence en tant que responsable provincial et point de contact unique pour la
coordination des activités de gestion des situations d’urgence.
• Présenter le Corps de l’Ontario comme une ressource et une capacité
provinciale clé en situation d’urgence pouvant être mobilisées, sur demande,
pour soutenir les municipalités en complément des ressources locales. (Il n’est
pas nécessaire de faire une déclaration d’urgence officielle pour demander l’aide
de la province.)
Page 93
• Renforcer l’engagement de l’Ontario à faciliter la coordination entre les
municipalités en mettant en œuvre les programmes et plans d’urgence conjoints
pour deux municipalités ou plus.
La Loi sera mise en œuvre par étapes, et des règlements ultérieurs viendront la
soutenir. Les travaux à venir amélioreront la gestion des situations d’urgence
municipale en offrant une souplesse permettant d’adapter les programmes aux besoins
et à la capacité locaux. Les règlements à venir préciseront également le processus de
déclaration de situation d’urgence municipale en vertu de la Loi afin d’assurer la
reddition de comptes.
Le maintien d’un dialogue et d’une collaboration avec les municipalités et les
partenaires de la gestion des situations d’urgence sera déterminant, tandis que le
ministère poursuit ses activités de mobilisation pour éclairer les travaux ultérieurs liés à
ces modifications.
Sur une note plus personnelle, j’ai été heureuse de rencontrer bon nombre d’entre vous
cet été, y compris à la conférence de l’Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO),
afin d’échanger sur la modernisation de la gestion des situations d’urgence en On tario.
La rétroaction que nous avons reçue a joué un rôle déterminant dans l’élaboration de
ces modifications législatives.
Merci de votre partenariat continu et de votre dévouement à protéger l’Ontario. J’espère
vous voir à la conférence annuelle de la Rural Ontario Municipal Association en janvier.
Votre engagement envers la gestion des situations d’urgence est essentiel, et j’ai hâte de
poursuivre cet important travail avec vous.
Cordialement,
L’honorable Jill Dunlop
Ministre de la Protection civile et de l’Intervention en cas d’urgence
c. c. : Rob Flack, ministre des Affaires municipales et du Logement
Robin Jones, présidente de l’Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Page 94
GANARASKA REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
November 27, 2025 (Hybrid)
GRCA 06/25
1. Welcome, Land Acknowledgement and Call to Order
The Chair called the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA) Board of
Directors meeting to order at 4:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vicki Mink, Chair - Municipality of Port Hope
Randy Barber, Vice-Chair - Town of Cobourg
Mark Lovshin - Township of Hamilton
Miriam Mutton - Town of Cobourg
Lance Nachoff - Township of Cavan Monaghan
Adam Pearson - Municipality of Port Hope
Tracy Richardson - City of Kawartha Lakes
Joan Stover - Township of Alnwick/Haldimand
Margaret Zwart - Municipality of Clarington
Willie Woo - Municipality of Clarington
ALSO PRESENT: Linda Laliberte, CAO/Secretary-Treasurer
Cory Harris, Watershed Services Coordinator
Ken Thajer, Planning and Regulations Coordinator
Pam Lancaster, Conservation Lands Coordinator
ABSENT WITH
REGRETS:
ALSO ABSENT:
Land Acknowledgement
The Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority respectfully acknowledges that the land
on which we gather is situated within the traditional and treaty territory of the
Mississauga’s and Chippewa’s of the Anishinabek, known today as the Williams
Treaties First Nations. Our work on these lands acknowledges their resilience and their
longstanding contribution to the area. We are thankful for the opportunity to live, learn
and share with mutual respect and appreciation.
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
None.
Page 95
Minutes GRCA Board of Directors 06/25 Page 2
3. Minutes of Last Meeting
GRCA 41/25
MOVED BY: Joan Stover
SECONDED BY: Adam Pearson
THAT the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority approve the minutes of the October
16, 2025, meeting.
CARRIED.
4. Adoption of the Agenda
Randy Barber asked that the agenda be amended to Item 7
GRCA 42/25
MOVED BY: Randy Barber
SECONDED BY: Miriam Mutton
THAT the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority adopt the agenda.
CARRIED.
7. Business Arising from Minutes:
a) 2026 Municipal Levy
The CAO/Secretary-Treasurer explained the weighted vote procedure to the Board of
Directors.
GRCA 43/25
MOVED BY: Joan Stover
SECONDED BY: Randy Barber
A recorded vote is required.
Randy Barber – Town of Cobourg (10.6284%) - Yes
Mark Lovshin - Township of Hamilton (10.7473%) - Yes
Vicki Mink - Municipality of Port Hope (8.3628%) - Yes
Miriam Mutton - Town of Cobourg (10.6284%) - Yes
Lance Nachoff - Township of Cavan Monaghan (0.2062%) - Absent
Adam Pearson – Municipality of Port Hope (8.3628%) - Yes
Tracy Richardson - City of Kawartha Lakes (0.0895%) - Yes
Joan Stover - Township of Alnwick/Haldimand (0.9747%) - Yes
Willie Woo – Municipality of Clarington (25.0%) - Yes
Margaret Zwart - Municipality of Clarington (25.0%) - Yes
The total percentage present to vote was 99.7938%. To carry the motion, 51% total of
those present, or 50.8948% is required and cannot be from a single municipality.
THAT the GRCA Board of Directors approve the staff report that includes the 2026 levy in
the amount of $1,357,798.00 and a 3.0% increase in the salary grid effective January 1,
2026.
CARRIED.
Page 96
Minutes GRCA Board of Directors 06/25 Page 3
6. Delegations
None.
7. Presentations
a) Ganaraska Forest Recreational Users Committee (RUC) Annual Report
Bob Gallagher, Chair of the Ganaraska Forest Recreational Users Committee, presented
his annual report to the Board of Directors. Members asked questions with regards to the
committee and there was a brief discussion with regards to the terms of reference for the
committee. It was suggested that the terms of reference be forwarded to the committee for
discussion prior to finalizing.
Randy Barber left the meeting.
GRCA 44/25
MOVED BY: Mark Lovshin
SECONDED BY: Miriam Mutton
THAT the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority receive the Ganaraska Forest
Recreational Users Committee (RUC) Annual Report for information.
CARRIED.
Lance Nachoff came into the meeting.
b) Ganaraska Forest Year In Review
Pam Lancaster, Conservation Lands Coordinator, gave a presentation highlighting
projects and initiatives undertaken in 2025 within the Ganaraska Forest. The Board of
Directors asked questions with regards to volunteers working in the forest.
GRCA 45/25
MOVED BY: Adam Pearson
SECONDED BY: Margaret Zwart
THAT the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority receives the Ganaraska Forest
Year in Review presentation for information.
CARRIED.
8. Correspondence
a) 03/25 Charlotte Batty email re: Mountain Biking Access
b) 04/25 Julie Hunt email re: Ganaraska Forest
GRCA 46/25
MOVED BY: Tracy Richardson
SECONDED BY: Lance Nachoff
THAT the Board of Directors forward the correspondence items 03/35 and 04/25 to the
Ganaraska Forest Recreational Users Committee.
CARRIED.
Page 97
Minutes GRCA Board of Directors 06/25 Page 4
c) 05/25 Essex Conservation re: Resolution 90/25 (Bill 68 and ERO Posting 025-1357)
d) 06/25 United Counties of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry re: Resolution 2025-159
GRCA 47/25
MOVED BY: Mark Lovshin
SECONDED BY: Joan Stover
THAT the Board of Directors receive correspondence items 05/35 and 06/25 and note and
file.
CARRIED.
9. Applications under Ontario Regulation 41/24 and Conservation Authorities Act:
Permits approved by Executive:
GRCA 48/25
MOVED BY: Adam Pearson
SECONDED BY: Tracy Richardson
THAT the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority receive the permits for information.
CARRIED.
Permit Application requiring Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors
discussion:
None.
10. Committee Reports:
Ganaraska Forest Recreation Users Committee Minutes
GRCA 49/25
MOVED BY: Lance Nachoff
SECONDED BY: Mark Lovshin
THAT the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority receive the Ganaraska Forest
Recreation Users Committee Minutes of November 6, 2025, for information.
CARRIED.
11. New Business:
a) CA Act Amendments as per Bill 68 Update
There was discussion regarding the significant implication of Bill 68 and the Environmental
Registry of Ontario (ERO) proposal number 025-1257 ‘Proposed boundaries for the
regional consolidation of Ontario’s conservation authorities’.
GRCA 50/25
MOVED BY: Joan Stover
SECONDED BY: Miriam Mutton
WHEREAS the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors
acknowledges and supports the Province’s goals of improved efficiency of watershed
management, through the implementation of digital applications and permitting system,
Page 98
Minutes GRCA Board of Directors 06/25 Page 5
consistent policies, flood standards, fees, and technology; and
WHEREAS consistent policies, and resources across the existing conservation
authority boundaries could be achieved without structural consolidation through
direction and tools such as technical guidelines provided by the Ministry of the
Environment, Conservation and Parks; or Conservation Ontario; and
WHEREAS conservation authorities are locally based, grassroots organizations formed
by municipal governments in response to the challenges posed by a changing
landscape; especially, the increased exposure to flooding and erosion hazards and the
resulting risks to lives and property. In the case of GRCA, supported by its seven
municipalities, this vision has proven a successful model for nearly 80 years; and
WHEREAS the GRCA, with the guidance and support of our seven member
municipalities, demonstrates fiscal prudence in conservation delivery, ensuring stable
growth through stable funding. GRCA has successfully leveraged funding to support
programs and services that are locally important and are driven by community
engagement through GRCA’s Conservation Land Strategy and the Watershed Based
Resource Management Strategy; and
WHEREAS GRCA consistently meets or exceeds provincial service standards, and
participates in staff-sharing initiatives with neighbouring conservation authorities that
already deliver many of the efficiencies the Province seeks; and
WHEREAS plans to regionalize conservation authorities through consolidation would
dilute local accountability and municipal partnership and is contrary to the basic
principle that decisions are best made closest to the communities they affect. Effective
representation by municipal partners remains core to the success of conservation
authorities. The GRCA, while not unique among conservation authorities in this respect,
is effective in working with our community to support sustainable development, and
keeping communities safe; and
WHEREAS being front-line means being responsive and accountable to the community
by delivering the services that are essential and valued to the best interest of the
community. The front line of provincial priorities on housing, the economy,
infrastructure, and climate resilience are in the decisions between municipalities working
together to address issues around floodplain (and hazard) protection and resilient
upland and landscape management. Further, staff and Board are responsive and
accountable to the needs of the watershed community, while meeting or exceeding
provincial service standards. The staff and Board are reachable through publicly
available contact information. Local governance and direction combined with local
service provision allows GRCA to continue to be responsive to our community; and
WHEREAS consolidation will result in substantial transition costs, not the least of which
is time. In all facets, that would divert resources from front-line service delivery and
delay desired outcomes. Further, the loss of local watershed knowledge and community
relationships will add greater uncertainty, loss of trust, and delay for our watershed
residents. This includes the agricultural community, businesses, builders, developers,
and our municipal partners that seek timely and effective local advice, which is provided
Page 99
Minutes GRCA Board of Directors 06/25 Page 6
through local pre-consultation; and
WHEREAS a proposed regional watershed would create a geographically vast and
administratively complex organization when joining the seven conservation authorities
as proposed in Eastern Lake Ontario. This would be considerably worse if local offices
do not remain available and accountable to its membership, partners and the
communities they serve.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
THAT the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors does not
support the proposed “Eastern Lake Ontario Regional Conservation Authority” boundary
configuration as outlined in Environmental Registry Notice 025 -1257; and
FURTHER THAT meaningful modernization can occur within the current watershed -
based governance framework; and
FURTHER THAT the GRCA Board endorses further provincial evaluation of a more
focused specific model as a geographically coherent, cost-effective and locally
accountable alternative that advances the government’s priorities of efficiency, red -tape
reduction and timely home construction; and
FURTHER THAT the Board asks that the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation
and Parks engage directly with affected municipalities and conservation authorities
across Eastern Lake Ontario through a working group; and
FURTHER THAT the Board of Directors direct staff to make a submission to the
Environmental Registry of Ontario consultations asking the Province to pause any
consolidation until more consultation can take place ; and
FURTHER THAT a letter from the Chair containing this resolution, be forwarded to:
-the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and his Opposition critics;
-the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (CA Office);
-Ontario’s Chief Conservation Executive, Hassaan Basit;
-Local Member of Provincial Parliament David Piccini, Northumberland – Peterborough
South and
-All local watershed municipalities, all municipalities in Ontario, and Counties within
GRCA ‘s watershed.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12.Other Business
None.
13.Public Question Period
None.
14.In Camera
Page 100
Minutes GRCA Board of Directors 06/25 Page 7
GRCA 51/25
MOVED BY: Mark Lovshin
SECONDED BY: Tracy Richarson
THAT the Board of Directors go in camera.
CARRIED.
GRCA 52/25
MOVED BY: Joan Stover
SECONDED BY: Tracy Richardson
THAT the Board of Directors go out of camera.
CARRIED.
GRCA 53/25
MOVED BY: Joan Stover
SECONDED BY: Lance Nachoff
THAT the Board of Directors receive the verbal report for information.
CARRIED.
15.Adjourn
GRCA 54/25
MOVED BY: Margaret Zwart
THAT the meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
CARRIED.
_________________________ ____________________________
CHAIR CAO/SECRETARY-TREASURER
Page 101
December 16, 2025
The Mayor and Members of Council
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street,
Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
Via email: afoster@clarington.net
clerks@clarington.net
RE: Kawartha Conservation 2026 Preliminary Budget
Dear Mayor Foster and Members of Council:
We are pleased to provide our 2026 Preliminary Operating and Capital Budget, supported in principle by our
Board of Directors, and approved for a 30-day review period by Resolution #140/25:
RESOLVED, THAT, the Draft 2026 budget be approved for consultation purposes, AND
THAT, a Notice of Meeting to approve the budget is provided to participating
municipalities for January 29, 2026.
CARRIED
The 2026 Draft Budget document outlines the programs and services proposed for delivery in 2026 in accordance
with our Strategic Plan, and associated funding requirements.
Our Board of Directors provided guidance to develop our 2026 Budget with a 2.5% increase in the Municipal
Operating levy. However, due to inflationary costs, the approved budget for 2026 has an increase of 5.3% in the
Municipal Operating Levy.
The 2025 Operating Levy was used as a baseline to support the framework for the 2026 apportionment
represented through General Operating, Mandatory (Category 1) and Other (Category 3) Programs and Services
shared by the municipal partners based on apportionment percentages supplied to us by the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Forestry. The apportionment percentage is based on current value assessment (CVA) information
generated by MPAC. Individual municipal increases or decreases vary due to changes in the CVA apportionment
year over year. We have provided a summary below and further information on apportionments can be found on
page 10 of the budget document.
Page 102
Ministry Supplied Apportionment Percentages 2025
Apportionment
2026
Apportionment
Increase
(decrease)
Total
Our total request for 2026 funding is $1,059,003.
The Region of Durham’s preliminary general operating levy for 2026 (inclusive of Base Operations Program and
Land management expenditures) is $800,975 which meets the Region’s guidelines which includes land
management expenditures of $15,000.
Our preliminary budget for Special Projects (Category 2 Municipal Programs and Services) for the Region of Durham
totals $152,171.
We submit one-time Special Request for funding for the following programs and services:
The Watershed Planning project has been extended to provide expertise and the most up to date
information for municipal decision making related to natural features in the Region. The project cost is
$32,805 with the Region providing the full apportionment as the sole benefactor for the project.
As well as the Joint Forestry program with the City of Kawartha Lakes where the apportionment is 50%
allocated to each municipality. The project cost is a total of $79,800 where the cost for Durham Region is
$39,900. 
Additionally, we submit Special Requests for continued support totalling $33,152:
Environmental Monitoring Strategy project - $9,088
The implementation of our 10-year Asset Management Plan Implementation - $18,612
Information Technology Strategy - $5,453
These projects implement important strategic goals to improve our customer service, invest in service delivery
efficiency and effectively plan for the future.
We are currently completing the consultation period on the draft budget and provide notice of meeting that our
Board of Directors will hold the weighted and final vote on the 2026 Operating and Capital Budget and associated
municipal apportionments on January 29, 2026. Information on the weighted vote can be found on page 9.
Municipal Programs and Services (previously known as Special Benefitting projects) proceed based on municipal
funding approvals.
Page 103
If you have any comments, or if we can provide further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at
extension 215 or Luisa Bita Director, Corporate Services, at extension 233.
Yours truly,
Mark Majchrowski
Chief Administrative Officer
Encls.
2026 Operating and Capital Budget
cc: M. Dempster, Chief Administrative Officer
T. Pinn, Deputy CAO, Finance and Technology / Treasurer
Page 104
2026
DRAFT
Budget
Information for
Member
Municipalities
Page 105
Table of Contents
Title
Table of Contents
Guiding Principles
Governance
2026 Budget Overview
Categories of Programs and Services
Budget Process Overview
Weighted Vote
Municipal Levy Apportionment
2026 Preliminary Budget
Statement of Revenue and Expenditures
Overview Statement of Revenue and Expenditures
Planning and Development Services
2025 Highlights
A Vision for 2026
Key Deliverables
Natural Hazard Planning Services Budget (Category 1)
Section 28 Permit Administration and Compliance Budget (Category 1)
Drinking Water Source Protection Budget (Category 1)
CKL - Risk Management Official, Clean Water Act Part IV, Enforcement (Category 2)
Flood Plain Mapping (Category 2)
Integrated Watershed Management
2025 Highlights
Mandatory Programs and Services
Special Projects
A Vision for 2026
Key Deliverables
Key Deliverables Special Projects
Integrated Watershed Management Support Budget (General Operating)
Provincial Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring Budget (Category 1)
Flood Forecasting and Warning and Low Water Response Budget (Category 1)
Local Environment Monitoring Budget (Category 3)
Lake Management Implementation, Science Budget (Category 2)
CKL - Lake Health Monitoring Budget (Category 2)
Region of Durham - Lake Management Implementation, Science Budget (Category 2)
Region of Durham - Watershed Planning Budget (Category 2)
Stewardship and Conservation Lands
2025 Highlights
Mandatory and Other Programs and Services
A Vision for 2026
Key Deliverables
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
23
24
27
27
29
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
40
43
43
2Page 106
Table of Contents cont.
Conservation Areas and Lands Budget (Category 1)
Durham East Cross Forest Conservation Area Budget (Category 1)
Conservation Education and Community Outreach Budget (Category 3)
Fleetwood Creek Natural Area Budget (Category 3)
Habitat Compensation Program Budget (Category 3)
City of Kawartha Lakes - Lake Plan Implementation, Stewardship Budget (Category 2)
Joint Project - Forestry and Tree Planting Stewardship Budget (Category 2)
Region of Durham - Lake Management Implementation, Stewardship Budget (Category 2)
Corporate Services
2025 Highlights
A Vision for 2026
Key Deliverables
Corporate Services General Operating Budget
Schedule A - General Administration and Overhead Budget
General Benefitting Projects
2026 Budget Highlights
General Benefitting Projects Budget
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
56
57
58
59
60
62
3Page 107
2026 Budget Guiding Principles
Our Vision
Engaged communities that love, respect and appreciate our natural environment.
Our Mission
To champion watershed health as the recognized leader in natural asset
management.
Our Corporate Values
Our values guide our actions, as they shape the kind of organization that we are part
of. In all of our decision-making, we will:
Act with Integrity
Value Knowledge
Promote Teamwork
Achieve Performance Excellence
Foster Innovation
ENGAGE & INSPIRE
RESTORE & PROTECT
INNOVATE & ENHANCE
4Page 108
Governance
The municipalities within the boundaries of the watershed govern Kawartha Conservation
through a Board of Directors comprised of nine representatives. Directors are responsible
for making decisions as a collective, working for the benefit of the whole watershed. They
act as liaisons between their municipalities and Kawartha Conservation.
2026 Board of Directors
CHAIR
Pat Warren
City of Kawartha Lakes
VICE CHAIR
Harold Wright
Township of Scugog
DIRECTORS
Tracy Richardson
City of Kawartha Lakes
Mark Doble
City of Kawartha Lakes
Cria Pettingill
Township of Brock, Region of Durham
Lloyd Rang
Municipality of Clarington, Region of
Durham
Robert Rock
Township of Scugog, Region of
Durham
Gerry Byrne
Township of Cavan Monaghan
Peter Franzen
Municipality of Trent Lakes
Jeff Forbes
Mississaugas of Scugog Island First
Nation
We would like to acknowledge that many
Indigenous Nations have longstanding
relationships, both historic and modern,
with the territories upon which we are
located.
Today, this area is home to many
Indigenous peoples from across Turtle
Island. We acknowledge that our
watershed forms a part of the treaty and
traditional territory of the southeastern
Anishinaabeg.
It is on these ancestral and treaty lands
that we live and work. To honor this
legacy, we commit to being stewards of
the natural environment and undertake
to have a relationship of respect with our
Treaty partners.
Member Municipalities
City of Kawartha Lakes
Region of Durham
Township of Scugog
Municipality of Clarington
Township of Brock
Municipality of Trent Lakes
Township of Cavan Monaghan
5Page 109
2026 Budget Overview
The 2026 Kawartha Conservation budget focuses on supporting critical operational and capital
needs while addressing long-term sustainability and environmental stewardship. This budget
aligns with strategic priorities under three main categories: Mandatory Programs and Services
(Category 1), Municipal Programs and Services (Category 2), and Other Programs and Services
(Category 3).
Operating Budget
The 2026 Operating Budget totals approximately $1.9 million reflecting an increase of 5.3% in the
municipal operating levy. This increase supports Category 1 programs such as flood forecasting,
natural hazards, and conservation lands, as well as Category 3 initiatives that enhance community
engagement and environmental outreach ensuring safety and environmental health.
General operating expenses refers to any operating expense that is not directly associated with
delivering a specific program or service provided by the authority.
Capital Budget
There are no capital budget items proposed for the 2026 budget.
Supporting Sustainability
The funds provided through municipal levies and partnerships directly support our ability to
deliver high-quality services, implement strategic initiatives, and maintain critical infrastructure.
These investments strengthen our resilience in protecting watersheds, ensuring public safety, and
providing enriching outdoor experiences for our communities.
The 2026 budget demonstrates our commitment to transparency, collaboration, and long-term
planning to sustain the natural environment and meeting community needs.
Special Benefiting and General Benefitting
General Benefitting projects improve the overall organization and are funded by municipalities,
projects include Asset Management Plan, Information Technology updates and Environmental
Monitoring Strategy.
The Category 2 programs are funded through special levies contributed by benefiting
municipalities. Key special benefitting projects include Lake Management Plan Implementation,
Lake Health Monitoring as well as Forestry initiatives to improve the municipalities environmental
health.
6Page 110
Category 1: Mandatory Programs and Services
These programs are required under Ontario Regulation 686/21 and include activities like
managing natural hazards, conserving lands owned by Kawartha Conservation, and implementing
source protection responsibilities under the Clean Water Act. They also cover duties related to
provincial groundwater and stream monitoring programs. These essential services are funded
using municipal levies or agreements and ensure compliance with provincial mandates.
Category 2: Municipal Programs and Services
Programs in this category are designed to address specific priorities or challenges identified by
municipal partners. These services, funded through municipal agreements, often focus on unique
local needs like floodplain mapping, development and implementation of lake management plans,
or other tailored initiatives. Municipal programs leverage funding partnerships and deliver
measurable benefits to participating municipalities.
Category 3: Other Programs and Services
These optional programs support broader conservation goals beyond provincial and municipal
requirements. They include initiatives like community engagement, education programs, and local
environmental monitoring. While often funded through municipal levies or external agreements,
these programs help enhance the overall health and sustainability of the watershed.
Categories of Programs and Services
7Page 111
Budget Drafting and Determining Amounts Owed
Revenues and expenditures are forecasted, with costs categorized as Category 1, 2, 3, or general.
Expenses are apportioned either across all participating municipalities or among benefiting
municipalities.
Approval of the Draft Budget
The drafted budget is reviewed and voted on by the Board using a "one-member-one-vote"
method. Once approved, the draft is shared with municipalities and published online for
consultation.
Approval of Amounts Owed
Municipalities are given a minimum 30-day notice to review and consult on the draft budget. The
Board then votes on the budget and levy using a weighted voting system based on the Current
Value Assessment apportionment.
2026 Budget Process Overview
The budget process is divided into four key phases, ensuring transparency, collaboration,
and compliance with provincial regulations:
Budget drafting
and Determining
amounts owed
Approval of the
Draft budget
Approval of
Amounts Owed
(Municipal Levy)
Final Budget
8Page 112
Weighted Vote
The 2026 weighted vote is distributed amongst Directors as follows:
Region of Durham
1st of 4 representatives 11.1090
2nd of 4 representatives 11.1090
3rd of 4 representatives 11.1090
4th of 4 representatives 11.1090
Municipality of Trent Lakes
1 representative 5.0924
Final Budget Approval
Following the consultation and voting process, the final budget is approved, ensuring all legislative
requirements are met.
City of Kawartha Lakes
1st of 3 representatives 16.6667
2nd of 3 representatives 16.6667
3rd of 3 representatives 16.6667
Township of Cavan Monaghan
1 representative 0.4716
9Page 113
Municipal Levy Apportionment
Municipal Levy - Summary
The overall municipal levy apportionment for the 2026 budget is provided below. Levy requests for
all categories of programs and services are summarized which include the general operating budget,
projects performed in agreement with municipalities and generally benefiting projects.
Municipal Operating Levy
The municipal operating levy for the 2026 budget is provided below. This portion of the 2026 budget
is for general expenses, mandatory programs and services identified by the Province, and programs
and services beneficial to carry out for local watershed purposes.
Total $1,823,018 $111,000
Category 1:
Mandatory
Category 1:
Mandatory
Programs and Programs and
Services
(MCVA)
Services
(Agreement)
-
Category 1:
General
Benefitting
$66,200 $743,976
Proposed 2026 Levy
Category 2:
Municipal
Category 3:
Other
Programs and Programs and
Services Services
$75,095
Category 3:
General
Benefitting
$25,000
2026 Total
Municipal Levy
82,871
1,059,003
7,675
$2,844,289
$1,694,740
Total
Operating
Municipal
Levy
689,975
79,072
7,323
$1,898,113
$1,121,743
Total
Municipal
Levy
78,478
1,001,948
7,174
$2,665,993
$1,578,393
Approved 2025
Total
Operating
Municipal
Levy
$1,802,198
Levy Dollar
Increase
(Decrease)
$95,915 5.3%
Year over Year
Levy
Percentage
Increase
(Decrease)
-
-
-
-
Region of Durham
City of Kawartha Lakes
Municipality of Trent Lakes
Township of Cavan Monaghan
75,943
$1,077,364
662,678
7,033
111,000
255
24,064
39,123
2,758
224,876
519,100
3,128
27,297
$44,379
290
14,774
96
1,041
9,088 654,451
75,721
6,922
$1,065,104 $56,639
$3,351
$401
$35,524
5.3%
4.4%
5.8%
5.4%
Total
MUNICIPAL OPERATING
LEVY
$1,823,018 $75,095
Proposed 2026 Levy
Category 1:
Mandatory
Programs
and
Services
(MCVA)
Category Total 2025 MCVA 2026 MCVA 3: Other
Programs
and
Services
Increase Operating
Municipal
Levy
Apportion
ment
Apportion
ment (decrease)
$1,898,113 $ 1,802,198.00
Approved 2025
$95,915
Year over Year
$0
Levy
Dollar
Increase
Levy
Total Operating Percentage
Increase Levy 2025
(Decrease) (Decrease)
Region of Durham
Township of Cavan
Monaghan
City of Kawartha Lakes
Municipality of Trent Lakes
36.3140
4.2016
59.1002
0.3841
100.00
36.3506
4.1658
59.0978
0.3858
100.00
0.0017
0.0366
(0.0358)
(0.0024)
0.00
75 ,9 43
6 62 ,6 78
7 ,0 33
$1,077,364
290
3,128
27,297
$44,379
689,975
79,072
7,323
654,451
6,922
$1,121,743 $ 1 ,065,104.00
75,721
401
3,351
35,524
$56,639
4.2%
5.1%
5.0%
5.5%
10Page 114
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Preliminary Budget
STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES
Budget Budget Variance to
2025 2026 2025 Budget
REVENUE
Municipal levy
Category 1: Mandatory Programs and Services (MCVA)1,776,949$ 1,889,218$ 112,269$
Category 1: Mandatory Programs and Services (Agreement)134,700 138,140 3,440
Category 2: Municipal Programs and Services 846,050 868,725 22,675
Category 3: Other Programs and Services 90,850 75,095 (15,755)
2,848,549 2,971,178 122,629
Municipal Agreements
CKL, Risk Management Official, Clean Water Act 60,000 60,000 -
Region of Durham, Climate Change Funding 18,000 - (18,000)
Township of Scugog 46,450 59,309 12,859
124,450 119,309 (5,141)
Self-Generated Revenue
Category 1: Mandatory Programs and Services (MCVA)587,000 539,500 (47,500)
Category 1: Mandatory Programs and Services (Agreement)300 300 -
Category 2: Municipal Programs and Services 82,000 105,349 23,349
Category 3: Other Programs and Services 136,250 81,468 (54,782)
805,550 726,617 (78,933)
Donations, Grants and Transfers
Category 1: Mandatory Programs and Services (MCVA)126,300 111,300 (15,000)
Category 1: Mandatory Programs and Services (Agreement)78,300 - (78,300)
Category 2: Municipal Programs and Services 239,000 508,500 269,500
Category 3: Other Programs and Services - 31,250 31,250
443,600 651,050 207,450
Reserve Funds
Transfer from Restricted (Drinking Water Protection)6,580 6,580
Transfer from (to) Windy Ridge 12,850 - (12,850)
12,850 6,580 (6,270)
Total Revenue 4,234,999$ 4,474,734$ 239,735$
Budget Budget Variance to
2025 2025 2024 Budget
EXPENDITURES
General Operating Programs and Services
Corporate Services 971,600$ 970,600$ (1,000)
Integrated Watershed Management 226,549 229,318 2,769
Amortization of tangible capital assets 70,000 70,000 -
Vehicle and equipment pool (25,000) (25,000) -
1,243,149 1,244,918 1,769
Category 1: Mandatory Programs and Services
Planning and Development Services 673,150$ 717,345$ 44,195
Integrated Watershed Management 172,950 181,229 8,279
Stewardship and Conservation Lands 590,450 503,266 (87,184)
Drinking Water Source Protection 81,700 83,280 1,580
1,518,250 1,485,120 (33,130)
11Page 115
Total Expenditures
Operating Expenditures
Annual Surplus (Deficit)
Category 2: Municipal Agreements
CKL, Risk Management Official
Category 3: Other Programs and Services
Integrated Watershed Management
Stewardship and Conservation Lands
Category 2: Municipal Programs and Services
City of Kawartha Lakes
Region of Durham
City of Kawartha Lakes & Region of Durham
$
$
$
4,279,999
60,00
0
60,00
0
77,300
149,800
227,100
686,700
253,950
290,850
1,231,500
4,279,999
(45,000)
$
$
$
4,519,734
1,069,594
226,140
246,149
1,541,883
4,519,734
60,00
0
60,00
0
59,589
128,224
187,813
(45,000)
$
$
$
239,735
239,735
-
-
382,894
(27,810
)
(44,701
)
310,383
(17,711
)
(21,576
)
(39,287
)
-
12Page 116
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Preliminary Budget
OVERVIEW STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES
SOURCES OF REVENUE Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Total
Municipal levy 1,975,218$ 743,976$ 100,095$ 2,819,289$
Municipal Agreements - 119,309 - 119,309
Provincial Transfers 101,300 - - 101,300
Provincial Grants - 118,000 - 118,000
Employment Grants 10,000 5,000 - 15,000
Federal Grants - - - -
Other Grants - 385,500 31,250 416,750
Reserve Funds 33,720 124,749 - 158,469
Self Generated Revenues 49,800 105,349 81,468 236,617
Permits and Fees 210,000 - - 210,000
Large Scale Fill 10,000 - - 10,000
Planning Fees 200,000 - - 200,000
Interest Income 70,000 - - 70,000
Total Revenue 2,660,038$ 1,601,883$ 212,813$ 4,474,734$
SOURCES OF EXPENDITURES Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Total
Salary, wages & benefits 2,222,788$ 711,717$ 111,713$ 3,046,218$
Administration and overhead (Schedule A)267,550 - - 267,550
Advertising and Communications 6,600 8,800 500 15,900
Board of Directors & Governance 7,050 - - 7,050
Contracted services 10,000 233,266 24,000 267,266
Cost of sales - 45,500 - 45,500
Equipment 19,300 31,300 1,800 52,400
Infrastructure maintenance and repairs 28,900 - - 28,900
Laboratory Fees - 129,000 2,500 131,500
Landowner Grants - 125,000 - 125,000
Legal 10,000 - - 10,000
Membership 2,500 - - 2,500
Ontario Low Water Response 200 - - 200
Professional Development & Training 20,300 3,700 2,000 26,000
Professional services 17,500 5,000 14,500 37,000
Property Taxes 9,000 - - 9,000
Road and parking maintenance 30,250 - - 30,250
Supplies and materials 95,950 102,000 8,400 206,350
Travel 28,100 36,800 3,250 68,150
Utilities 6,800 - - 6,800
Program administration 22,400 169,800 19,150 211,350
Program administration, cost recovery (211,350) - - 211,350-
Amortization of tangible capital assets 70,000 - - 70,000
Vehicle and Equipment pool (25,000) 25,000-
General Benefitting 66,200 25,000 91,200
Total Expenditures 2,705,038$ 1,601,883$ 212,813$ 4,519,734$
Annual Surplus (Deficit)(45,000)$ -$ -$ (45,000)$
Budget
13Page 117
Planning and Development Services
The Planning and Development Services department is dedicated to ensuring that development
within the watershed adheres to provincial legislation and environmental standards, protecting
people and infrastructure from floodplains, steep slopes, unstable soils and other areas that pose
risks to development. The team reviews permit and planning applications, providing expert
guidance to support sustainable growth, the protection of natural resources and drinking water.
Through collaboration with municipalities, landowners, and stakeholders, the department plays a
key role in balancing development needs with the long-term health and sustainability of the
watershed.14Page 118
Hosted an outreach session with Real Estate Professionals.
Provided input on over 350 planning submissions.
Supported landowners and applicants through 100 pre-consultation meetings.
Issued more than 260 permits to protect development from natural hazards.
Updated internal systems, user forms, and policies to align with Ontario
Regulation 41/24, and drafted legislative updates for the Plan Review and
Regulations Policy.
Expanded the Information Management System to include compliance files and
digitized 11,850 historic records, integrating them directly into the system to
improve access and efficiency.
Demonstrated strong service performance in permit processing, with
consistently high approval efficiency and exceptional turnaround times
throughout the second half of the year.
2025 Highlights
The following programs and services are part of Mandatory Programs and Services
(Category 1).
15Page 119
Advance floodplain mapping with improved LiDAR data to enhance natural hazard
management and inform community planning.
Support municipal partners by administering and enforcing Section 28 permitting and
compliance under the Conservation Authorities Act.
Host a public consultation session to educate stakeholders on regulated area mapping,
source water, planning and permitting processes.
Progress opportunities to assist local municipalities to enhance service delivery.
Deliver a minimum of 95% success rate of meeting Client Service Standards for
Conservation Authority Plan and Permit Review timeframes.
In 2026, the Planning and Development Services department envisions a streamlined, proactive
approach to supporting development within the watershed. By utilizing updated mapping,
ongoing staff training, and improved processes, the team will provide accurate, efficient, and
timely reviews of permit and planning applications, with a continued focus on compliance and
exceptional customer service.
The department will continue to assist municipalities in their development approvals, and
landowners who invest in their properties in an environmentally safe way. Through collaboration,
innovation, and a commitment to public safety, Planning and Development Services will ensure
that development aligns with the principles of safety, sustainability, and community well-being.
A Vision for 2026
Key Deliverables
16Page 120
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
Natural Hazard Planning Services
Category 1
Apportionment Method: Modified Current Value Assessment
Budget Budget Budget
2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Municipal Levy, Category 1 101,300$ 151,152$ 49,852$
Planning Fees 225,000 200,000 (25,000)
TOTAL REVENUE 326,300$ 351,152$ 24,852$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits 294,300$ 320,652$ 26,352$
Contracted services 5,000 5,000 -
Legal 10,000 10,000 -
Membership 1,000 - (1,000)
Professional Development & Training 3,500 3,500 -
Professional services 5,000 5,000 -
Supplies and materials 6,000 6,000 -
Travel 1,500 1,000 (500)
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 326,300$ 351,152$ 24,852$
Surplus/(Deficit)-$ -$ -$
17Page 121
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
Section 28 Permit Administration and Compliance
Category 1
Apportionment Method: Modified Current Value Assessment
Budget Budget Budget
2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Municipal Levy, Category 1 104,350$ 146,193$ 41,843$
Permits and Fees 232,500 210,000 (22,500)
Large Scale Fill 10,000 10,000 -
TOTAL REVENUE 346,850$ 366,193$ 19,343$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits 329,100$ 348,443$ 19,343$
Contracted services 5,000 5,000 -
Legal 2,500 - (2,500)
Membership 250 - (250)
Professional Development & Training 2,000 2,000 -
Professional services - 2,500 2,500
Supplies and materials 6,000 6,250 250
Travel 2,000 2,000 -
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 346,850$ 366,193$ 19,343$
Surplus/(Deficit)-$ -$ -$
18Page 122
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
Drinking Water Source Protection
Category 1
Apportionment Method: N/A
Budget Budget Budget
2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Provincial Transfers 76,700 76,700 -
Deferred Drinking Water Source Protection 6,580 6,580
Employment Grants 5,000 - (5,000)
TOTAL REVENUE 81,700$ 83,280$ 1,580$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits 69,400$ 70,980$ 1,580$
Supplies and materials 4,400 4,400 -
Travel 500 300 (200)
Program administration 7,400 7,600 200
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 81,700$ 83,280$ 1,580$
Surplus/(Deficit)-$ -$ -$
19Page 123
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
City of Kawartha Lakes - Risk Management Official, Clean Water Act Part IV, Enforcement
Category 2
Apportionment Method: Agreement
Budget Budget Budget
2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Municipal Agreement 60,000$ 60,000$ -$
TOTAL REVENUE 60,000$ 60,000$ -$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits 52,300$ 52,300$ -$
Supplies and materials 1,500 1,500 -
Travel 1,000 1,000 -
Program administration 5,200 5,200 -
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 60,000$ 60,000$ -$
Surplus/(Deficit)-$ -$ -$
Note: This budget is funded through a municipal agreement and is not considered part of the municipal levy for
the City of Kawartha Lakes.
1720Page 124
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
City of Kawartha Lakes - Flood Plain Mapping
Category 2
Apportionment Method: Agreement
Budget Budget Budget
2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Municipal Agreement -$ 17,309$ 17,309$
TOTAL REVENUE -$ 17,309$ 17,309$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits -$ 10,043$ 10,043$
Contracted services 6,066 6,066
Program administration - 1,200 1,200
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 60,000$ 17,309$ 17,309$
Surplus/(Deficit)(60,000)$ -$ -$
Note: This budget is funded through a municipal agreement and is not considered part of the municipal levy for
the City of Kawartha Lakes.
21Page 125
Integrated Watershed Management
The Integrated Watershed Management department plays a vital role in protecting and improving
the health of our watershed. Through science, technology, and collaboration, the team monitors
environmental conditions, analyzes data, and develops strategies with our community to address
challenges like flooding, water quality, and climate change. From tracking water levels to planning
for a changing climate, Integrated Watershed Management’s work helps ensure that our natural
resources remain healthy and sustainable for future generations. Their efforts support not just the
environment, but also the people and communities who depend on the watershed everyday.
22Page 126
General Operating Programs and Services
Modernized day-to-day GIS operations by integrating automation, streamlining processes to
support more consistent, efficient, and service-focused delivery.
Showcased our innovations in GIS at the annual Conservation Authorities Collaborative
Information Sessions.
Completed a draft climate vulnerability assessment for the Kawartha watershed.
2025 Highlights
Local Monitoring
Sampled 15 urban stream sites for aquatic invertebrates, highlighting areas for improvement
through stormwater management.
Completed biological sampling to determine water quality health as part of the Kawartha
Water Watch program.
Deployed 32 water temperature data loggers on sensitive cold-water streams, identifying
vulnerabilities to climate change.
The following programs and services are part of Mandatory Programs and Services (Category 1)
and Other Programs and Services (Category 3) and provide successes achieved in the past year.
Partnered with Fleming College’s Conservation
Biology program to sample near shore fish
communities on Lake Scugog, helping to assess
habitat health, understand species presence, and
support long term monitoring of local aquatic
ecosystems.
Ontario Low Water Response
Initiated Low Water Response Team
in August, holding two meetings due
to Low water conditions experienced
across our watershed.
Declared 3 Low Water Conditions
statements
23Page 127
Flood and Water Level Monitoring
Issued 19 flood messaging statements, supporting proactive watershed safety.
Activated two flood patrol crews in early April as portions of the watershed experienced
flooding, ensuring real time field verification, early detection of changing conditions, and
timely communication to municipal partners and the public.
Installed a new real time weather station at Indian Point Provincial Park to improve localized
monitoring, strengthen forecasting capabilities, and support more accurate flood and low
water assessments across the watershed.
Enhanced precipitation monitoring at one of our provincial groundwater monitoring wells.
Ensured internal real-time precipitation and water levels dashboard remained current,
enhancing its content by adding surrounding stations outside our watershed to help with
predictive forecasting.
Installed a new real-time flow station at Nonquon River.
Conducted monthly flow discharge measurements at 4 locations across our watershed.
Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring
Monitored water quality across 11 sites for the Provincial (Stream) Water Quality Monitoring
Network program and conducted groundwater sampling on 13 wells under Provincial Ground
Water Monitoring Network.
Established a new logger site at the Nonquon River to begin continuous data collection,
including monthly groundwater readings and regular conductivity monitoring, improving our
understanding of local water conditions.
Continued collaboration with Health Canada and Trent University on groundwater studies for
pesticides and microplastics.
Special Projects
The following programs and services are a part of Municipal Programs and Services
(Category 2).
Erosion and Sediment Control
Continued to use drone technology to assess erosion on construction sites, improving water
quality running into lakes and streams.
Provided erosion risk assessment mapping and conducted water quality and sediment
sampling to establish turbidity rating curves for two construction projects within Lindsay.
Conducted 20 construction site inspections to ensure proponent led solutions are being used
to address deficiencies.
Certified three staff for Certified Inspector of Sediment and Erosion Control (CISEC).
City of Kawartha Lakes Lake Management Implementation, Science
24Page 128
Community Science
Advanced community science with 28 volunteers collecting 140 nearshore water samples
from local lakes to track water quality, identify emerging issues early, and support long term
lake health monitoring.
Implemented Lake Scugog as a new lake for nearshore water sampling.
Established partnerships with Kawartha Lakes Stewards Association, Scugog Lake Stewards
and Balsam Lake Association, receiving $8,700 in grant funding to help support program.
Stormwater Management
Initiated monitoring network along Albert Creek sampling multiple sites for nutrients, fecal
matter, salts and heavy metals.
Conducted winter chloride sampling all outlets.
Deployed an auto sampler at Albert Creek outlet to track water quality during rain events.
Collected continuous hydrology and water quality data at Jennings, Distillery, Albert St.,
Sinister Creek and new site at Sucker’s creek, identifying contamination sources and assessing
the Scugog River's sensitivity to stormwater inputs.
Completed fish and aquatic plant sampling at 20 Scugog River locations for the Stormwater
Monitoring Program, providing data that tracks urban drainage impacts and supports
planning for future development in Lindsay.
Bobcaygeon Dam Project
Established a collaborative partnership with Parks Canada and used drone imagery and
videography to map high quality habitats and support shared conservation priorities.
Classified substrate habitat at the Bobcaygeon Dam into high, medium, and low quality to
better understand local habitat conditions.
Conducted spawning walleye population estimates at easy to access locations.
Profiled project through social media, receiving over 30,000 views.
Gathered water quality data for dissolved oxygen, water temperature and water levels.
Piloted a flow manipulation under low water conditions to better understand how controlled
changes affect habitat.
City of Kawartha Lakes Lake Health Monitoring
Initiated year 1 of the project by focusing on Balsam, Cameron, Pigeon, Sturgeon, and the
north end of Lake Scugog, revisiting 12 lake sites and 14 tributary sites from previous Lake
Management Plans to update water quality data and track long term changes in watershed
health.
Completed Shoreline survey on Sturgeon Lake in partnership with Parks Canada.
Completed lake wide aquatic vegetation survey for Sturgeon Lake.
Continuous water level logging at 4 hydrology sites.
Developed an online dashboard to highlight key findings.
25Page 129
Completed a video highlighting 20 years of monitoring Lake Scugog.
Analyzed feedback from 2024 consultations and proposed a new study design for 2026 to
ensure the work reflects community input, improves data quality, and supports better
decision making.
Deployed five new water level and water quality loggers in Lake Scugog, and 3 in Nonquon
River.
Worked with Ontario Tech and Environment Canada to submit a research article to the
Canadian Water Resources Journal examining how water quality in the Lake Scugog
watershed has changed over the past 20 years and how land use and climate have influenced
those changes.
Continued to work with Brock University on carbon and metals within Lake Scugog.
Secured $33,400 in funding to support fish habitat rehabilitation in Lake Scugog.
Region of Durham - Lake Management Implementation Science
Conducted shoreline survey of Lake Scugog’s shoreline, identifying key areas of ecological
importance and invasive species.
Conducted lake wide aquatic vegetation survey for Lake Scugog.
Updated ELC to 2024 spring imagery to community series mapping and undertook field
verification on satellite derived wetlands.
Region of Durham - Watershed Planning
26Page 130
General Operating Programs and Services
Launch an interactive ArcGIS online web app to make Integrated Watershed
Management content more accessible and educational.
Development of an Open Data Strategy to enhance transparency and data sharing.
Enhance documentation on GIS operations by implementing process maps.
Finalize and publish a Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment.
Local Monitoring
Sample 15 urban stream sites for aquatic invertebrates, highlighting areas for
improvement through stormwater management.
Deploy 32 water temperature data loggers on sensitive cold-water streams, identifying
vulnerabilities to climate change.
With a focus on innovation, collaboration, and environmental stewardship, our 2026
initiatives aim to strengthen watershed health, engage the community, and build a
sustainable future for the Kawartha Lakes region.
A Vision for 2026
Key Deliverables
The following deliverables are part of Mandatory Programs and Services (Category 1)
and Other Programs and Services (Category 3).
27Page 131
Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring
Monitor water quality across 11 sites for the Provincial (Stream) Water Quality
Monitoring Network program and conducted groundwater sampling on 13 wells under
Provincial Ground Water Monitoring Network.
Establish a new logger site and ensure high-frequency data collection with monthly
groundwater monitoring and bi-monthly conductivity logging.
Flood and Water Level Monitoring
Continue daily monitoring of precipitation, water levels, and watershed conditions to
provide accurate flood forecasting.
Upgrade Emily Creek Provincial Park weather station with new logger and all year-
round precipitation gauge.
Strengthen expertise through participation in Provincial and GTA Flood Forecasting
workshops.
Continue to support over 50 volunteers for our Climate Change Action Program who
are helping to fill data gaps brought about by changing climates.
28Page 132
City of Kawartha Lakes Health Monitoring
To administer collection of lake health data to provide critical information about the
ongoing state of the lakes and to monitor progress on the planning targets set out in
every Lake Management Plan.
Track key indicators of lake health through water quality, nutrient loading, aquatic
plant and shoreline development characterization across priority tributaries and lakes,
including Canal and Mitchell, Head Lake, Four Mile, Shadow Lake and Dalrymple.
Conduct comprehensive Shoreline and aquatic vegetation survey on Pigeon Lake.
Incorporate key findings to the Lake Health Monitoring online dashboard
Dissemination of key findings through social media posts, media releases and annual
report.
City of Kawartha Lakes Lake Management Implementation, Science
Erosion and Sediment Control
Continue to track sediment and erosion risks with local developers to improve
construction site runoff management.
Conduct 20 construction site inspections to assess and enhance erosion control
measures while maintaining expertise by ensuring renewal of Inspectors of Sediment
and Erosion Control. Inspections will be performed by industry standard certified staff.
Comprehensive review of erosion and control sediment guidelines at Kawartha
Conservation and consolidate guidelines with City of Kawartha Lakes.
Stormwater Monitoring
Continue to evaluate stormwater monitoring at five urban streams, leveraging loggers
and autosamplers to track high-loading rain events.
Evaluated 20 sites for fish and aquatic plants along the Scugog River to assess
ecosystem health, track changes over time, and support ongoing monitoring and
management efforts.
Key Deliverables Special Projects
The following deliverables are part of Municipal Programs and Services (Category 2).
29Page 133
Bobcaygeon Dam ProjectCollaborate with Parks Canada and partners to assess fishspawning habitat, water flow, and wetland conditionsdownstream of the Bobcaygeon Dam.Map lake-bed conditions at provincially significantwetlands.Conduct spring Walleye Watch surveys and habitatassessments to identify opportunities for ecologicalimprovement.Pilot flow manipulation and testing under high flowconditions, specifically the vortex conditions.
Community Science
Establish a new partnership with a watershed lake based association to strengthen
local collaboration, share data, and support community driven lake stewardship.
Recruit up to 10 new community volunteers in nearshore water sampling across
priority lakes, sharing results through dashboards, reports, and social media.
Bobcaygeon Dam Project
Collaborate with Parks Canada and partners to assess fish spawning habitat, water
flow, and wetland conditions downstream of the Bobcaygeon Dam.
Map lake-bed conditions at provincially significant wetlands.
Conduct spring Walleye Watch surveys and habitat assessments to identify
opportunities for ecological improvement.
Piloted flow manipulation and testing under high flow conditions, focusing on the
vortex that forms at the dam, to better understand how these currents influence
walleye spawning and local habitat conditions.
Region of Durham - Lake Management Implementation, Science
Monitor water quality at 8 tributary and 6 lake sites for the Lake Scugog
Environmental Management Plan to compare results with past data and identify
changes over time that support ongoing watershed planning.
Implementation of 3 fish habitat improvement sites on Lake Scugog
Region of Durham - Lake Management Implementation,
Watershed Planning
Use Drone Technologies to Map Shoreline Erosion and Fish Habitat on Lake
Scugog and fill in data gaps for unverified wetlands.
30Page 134
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
Integrated Watershed Management Support
General Operating
Apportionment Method: Modified Current Value Assessment
Budget Budget Budget
2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Municipal Levy, Category 1 226,049$ 228,818$ 2,769$
Self Generated Revenues 500 500 -
TOTAL REVENUE 226,549$ 229,318$ 2,769$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits 202,449$ 206,718$ 4,269$
Membership 2,500 2,500 -
Professional Development & Training 2,000 2,300 300
Supplies and materials 18,900 16,600 (2,300)
Travel 700 1,200 500
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 226,549$ 229,318$ 2,769$
Surplus/(Deficit)-$ -$ -$
31Page 135
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
Provincial Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring
Category 1
Apportionment Method: Modified Current Value Assessment
Budget Budget Budget
2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Municipal Levy, Category 1 55,150$ 52,841$ (2,309)$
TOTAL REVENUE 55,150$ 52,841$ (2,309)$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits 46,200$ 40,241$ (5,959)$
Equipment 3,750 5,700 1,950
Professional Development & Training 600 600 -
Supplies and materials 1,250 1,200 (50)
Travel 3,350 5,100 1,750
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 55,150$ 52,841$ (2,309)$
Surplus/(Deficit)-$ -$ -$
32Page 136
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
Flood Forecasting and Warning and Low Water Response
Category 1
Apportionment Method: Modified Current Value Assessment
Budget Budget Budget
2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Municipal Levy, Category 1 78,200$ 78,788$ 588$
Provincial Transfers 24,600 24,600 -
TOTAL REVENUE 102,800$ 103,388$ 588$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits 93,100$ 87,588$ (5,512)$
Equipment 2,800 5,200 2,400
Ontario Low Water Response - 200 200
Professional Development & Training 1,500 900 (600)
Supplies and materials 2,200 1,900 (300)
Travel 3,200 7,600 4,400
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 102,800$ 103,388$ 588$
Surplus/(Deficit)-$ -$ -$
33Page 137
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
Local Environmental Monitoring
Category 3
Apportionment Method: Modified Current Value Assessment
Budget Budget Budget
2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Municipal Levy, Category 3 52,000$ 59,289$ 7,289$
Self Generated Revenues 300 300 -
TOTAL REVENUE 52,300$ 59,589$ 7,289$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits 35,900$ 43,889$ 7,989$
Equipment 1,000 1,000 -
Laboratory Fees - 2,500 2,500
Professional Development & Training 2,000 2,000 -
Supplies and materials 5,000 2,500 (2,500)
Travel 3,600 2,300 (1,300)
Program administration 4,800 5,400 600
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 52,300$ 59,589$ 7,289$
Surplus/(Deficit)-$ -$ -$
34Page 138
Lake Management Implementation, Science
Category 2
Apportionment Method: Benefits Based
Budget Budget Budget
Science 2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Municipal Levy, Category 2 121,784 155,200 33,416
Municipal Levy, Category 2, Deferred 57,966 42,871 (15,095)
Municipal Agreement 32,100 32,100
Employment Grants 5,000 - (5,000)
Federal Grants 15,000 - (15,000)
Other Grants 40,000 - (40,000)
Self Generated Revenues 12,200 12,200
TOTAL REVENUE 239,750$ 242,371$ 2,621$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits 111,350$ 126,671$ 15,321$
Equipment 12,100 8,800 (3,300)
Laboratory Fees 79,420 66,300 (13,120)
Professional Development & Training 1,200 1,200
Supplies and materials 9,600 4,300 (5,300)
Travel 5,480 9,100 3,620
Program administration 21,800 26,000 4,200
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 239,750$ 242,371$ 2,621$
Surplus/(Deficit)-$ -$ -$
35Page 139
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
City of Kawartha Lakes - Lake Health Monitoring
Category 2
Apportionment Method: Benefits Based
Budget Budget Budget
2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Municipal Levy, Category 2 80,000$ 82,000$ 2,000$
Municipal Levy, Category 2, Deferred 15,700 18,827 3,127
Employment Grants 2,500 2,500
TOTAL REVENUE 95,700$ 103,327$ 7,627$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits 61,000$ 61,427$ 427$
Equipment 5,250 4,900 (350)
Laboratory Fees 14,400 18,000 3,600
Supplies and materials 1,700 1,900 200
Travel 4,650 6,000 1,350
Program administration 8,700 11,100 2,400
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 95,700$ 103,327$ 7,627$
Surplus/(Deficit)-$ -$ -$
36Page 140
Region of Durham - Lake Management Implementation, Science
Category 2
Apportionment Method: Benefits Based
Budget Budget Budget
2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Municipal Levy, Category 2 85,900$ 87,100$ 1,200$
Municipal Levy, Category 2, Deferred 23,800 28,764 4,964
Municipal Agreement 40,000 - (40,000)
Employment Grants 5,000 2,500 (2,500)
TOTAL REVENUE 154,700$ 118,364$ (36,336)$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits 34,700$ 37,564$ 2,864$
Equipment 13,250 15,600 2,350
Laboratory Fees 14,900 44,700 29,800
Professional services 2,000 - (2,000)
Supplies and materials 1,500 3,400 1,900
Travel 2,950 4,400 1,450
Lake Scugog Enhancement Project 71,300 - (71,300)
Program administration 14,100 12,700 (1,400)
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 154,700$ 118,364$ (36,336)$
Surplus/(Deficit)-$ -$ -$
37Page 141
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
Region of Durham - Watershed Planning
Category 2
Apportionment Method: Benefits Based
Budget Budget Budget
2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Municipal Levy, Category 2 30,400$ 32,805$ 2,405$
TOTAL REVENUE 30,400$ 32,805$ 2,405$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits 22,900$ 26,305$ 3,405$
Equipment 3,000 1,500 (1,500)
Supplies and materials 500 500 -
Travel 1,200 1,000 (200)
Program administration 2,800 3,500 700
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 30,400$ 32,805$ 2,405$
Surplus/(Deficit)-$ -$ -$
3538Page 142
Stewardship and Conservation Lands
The Conservation Lands and Stewardship departments work together to protect and
enhance Kawartha Conservation’s properties and natural resources, creating vibrant,
accessible, and ecologically healthy spaces for the community. By maintaining trails and
facilities, promoting outdoor recreation, and fostering environmental stewardship on
public and private lands, these teams inspire connections with nature while supporting
stormwater management, biodiversity and habitat restoration. Through initiatives like tree
planting, waterfront naturalization, and landowner and community grants, our team
empowers individuals and communities to take action, improving water quality and climate
resilience across our watershed. By balancing public access with environmental protection,
they play a vital role in ensuring the long-term health of our natural resources and
deepening the bond between people and the natural world.39Page 143
Conservation Areas
Responded to severe ice storm damage across all properties and completed major repairs,
including replacing 70 feet of the floating marsh boardwalk and installing 2,500 feet of fencing
to secure Tuck’d Away Trail Conservation Area.
Relaunched The Talking Forest Trail App and installed updated trail signage at Windy Ridge
Conservation Area to enhance visitor experiences, and introduced new Ken Reid Conservation
Area merchandise to support visitor engagement.
Hosted more than 40 lands management professionals from across Ontario for the annual
Conservation Areas Workshop at Ken Reid Conservation Area, showcasing our work,
innovations, and on the ground approaches to conservation area management.
Achieved 94 days of facility rentals through 18 unique bookings, providing a welcoming place
for people to gather, celebrate milestones, and create lasting memories through weddings,
private events, and educational programs.
2025 Highlights
The following deliverables are part of Municipal Programs and Services (Category 2).
Fleetwood Creek Natural Area
Cleared extensive ice storm damage and hosted a wedding at the Valley Trail lookout.
Partnered with the Ontario Heritage Trust to install parking lot activity sensors,
improving how we monitor use and manage parking areas.
40Page 144
2025 Highlights
Durham East Cross Forest
Worked with Hydro One to streamline their operations for the Durham Kawartha Hydro
project on our property, ensuring clear access and coordinated use of the site.
Advanced major restoration work by planting 120 large caliper trees and 1,500 native plants
and shrubs to help restore historically degraded habitat and support long term ecosystem
recovery.
In partnership with Canadian Trees for Life, Landscape Ontario Durham Chapter, and the
Greenbelt Foundation, established a Tiny Forest demonstration site using the Miyawaki
planting method, dedicated to local heroes.
Installed new gates and collaborated with Durham Regional Police Services to address illegal
access and enhance property protection.
Education and Outreach
Engaged more than 440 children in educational programming and over 2,000 community
members through Christmas at Ken Reid and Illuminated Forest, supported by $14,000 in
grants and over $5,000 in sponsorship revenue.
Secured $6,337 from the Greenbelt Foundation to host five free guided hikes for 110
participants celebrating the Greenbelt’s 20th anniversary.
Delivered seven forest therapy walks (corporate and community) promoting mental wellness
and connection to nature.
Expanded our Innovation Hub by hosting four training sessions, including two Ontario Building
Code Part 8 courses generating $12,800 in revenue and two Ontario Biomonitoring Network
certification sessions attended by 17 participants.
41Page 145
2025 Highlights
Region of Durham Lake Management Implementation and
Stewardship
Delivered seven on-the-ground water quality improvement projects through $20,000 in
landowner and community grants, leveraging $65,900 in additional investment for well
decommissions, septic upgrades, manure management, and waterfront naturalization.
Secured $10,199 from the Invasive Species Action Fund to control a 712 m² Japanese
Knotweed infestation in Port Perry and led community education to prevent further spread.
Obtained $27,500 through the Resilient Agricultural Landscapes Program (RALP) to
implement two ecological restoration projects, including a 225-tree shelterbelt and seven
pollinator strips adjacent to active farmland.
Maintained and monitored the Port Perry Bioretention Demonstration Site to support urban
stormwater management and public awareness.
Joint Project - Forestry and Tree Planting Stewardship
Planted 34,144 trees across the watershed, restoring 30.5 ha of forest and sequestering an
estimated 201.5 tonnes of carbon.
Raised over $137,000 in grants and self-generated revenue and hosted two community tree-
planting events involving 60+ youth and volunteers in hands-on environmental action.
City of Kawartha Lakes Lake Management Implementation and
Stewardship
Awarded $68,500 in community and landowner grants, leveraging $249,000 in matching
investment to complete 23 water quality improvement projects, including agricultural BMPs,
naturalizations, and septic upgrades.
Engaged 210 landowners through free site consultations and presented at 21 community
events, reaching 760 participants with stewardship education and restoration skills.
Restored 1,083 ft of shoreline, sold 2,163 native plants, and implemented three agricultural
BMP projects improving soil health and water quality under the Talbot River Healthy
Environment Initiative.
Raised $250,000 in external grants to expand stewardship programming and launched ALUS
Kawarthas Peterborough Northumberland, supporting farmers in implementing ecological
restoration projects on marginal farmland through per-acre payments.
Engaged the public through high-visibility outreach at the East Central Farm Show, Kawartha
Country Living Show, and Lindsay Exhibition.
The following programs and services are a part of Municipal Programs and Services
(Category 2).
Stewardship
42Page 146
Education and Outreach
Engage over 3,000 participants through community festivals, educational programs,
and guided nature experiences, including Kawartha Fall Fest, Christmas at Ken Reid,
and the Illuminated Forest.
Deliver 10 guided summer hikes, 7 community, and 5 corporate forest therapy walks
to support mental wellness, community connection, and team building.
Provide educational sessions for 300 children and expand partnerships with schools
and community groups to foster environmental literacy.
Host five Innovation Hub training sessions, including Ontario Building Code Part 8 and
OBBN Certification courses, supporting local workforce development and generating
self-sustaining revenue.
In 2026, our Stewardship and Conservation Lands departments aim to leverage the
capacity we built in 2025 to build out our programming by engaging more community
members in the protection and enhancement of our natural environment and conservation
lands. The team will see its greatest variety of programs and services, including more
support for local farms, stronger tree planting programs, re-opened and protected trails
and improved access to our conservation areas. By offering more ways for people to enjoy
nature and take part in hands-on stewardship, we hope to strengthen their connection to
the land. Together, our work will help protect healthy ecosystems, support vibrant
communities, and ensure that our natural spaces can be enjoyed for years to come.
A Vision for 2026
Key Deliverables
The following deliverables are part of Mandatory Programs and Services (Category 1) and Other
Programs and Services (Category 3).
43Page 147
Region of Durham Lake Management Implementation & Stewardship
Award $20,000 in landowner and community grants to advance local water quality
improvement projects.
Secure funding to rehabilitate the Port Perry Bioretention Demonstration Site in partnership
with the Township of Scugog Public Works.
Deliver the third year of Japanese Knotweed Control in Port Perry, paired with ongoing
community education.
Collaborate with Durham Region and partner Conservation Authorities to implement farm-
based ecological restoration projects that improve soil and water quality.
Conservation Areas
Complete major infrastructure improvements, including reopening the Point Loop Trail and
repairing boardwalks at Ken Reid and Pigeon River Headwaters Conservation Areas.
Upgrade Ken Reid’s Outdoor Classroom to enhance environmental learning opportunities.
Improve visitor experience and accessibility through trail rerouting, new footbridges, and
infrastructure upgrades.
Host the official opening of Tuck’d Away Trail Conservation Area as a new public natural
space.
Durham East Cross Forest
Develop new Talking Forest Trail content highlighting restoration and Tiny Forest projects.
Install a Wind Phone and commemorative bench in the Tiny Forest Site to encourage
reflection and visitor engagement.
Joint Project – Forestry and Tree Planting Stewardship
Plant 46,000 trees across the watershed, restoring habitat and sequestering an estimated 330
tonnes of carbon.
Raise over $170,000 in grants and self-generated revenue to support large-scale restoration
and carbon sequestration efforts.
44Page 148
City of Kawartha Lakes Lake Management Implementation and
Stewardship
Award $70,000 in community and landowner grants and leverage over $400,000 in
matching contributions for water quality, soil health, and restoration projects.
Engage 3,500+ residents through site visits, workshops, and events, including the State
of the Lakes Symposium, LID Information Night, and Agricultural Open House.
Implement five agricultural BMP demonstration projects in the Upper Talbot River
Subwatershed and restore 500 m of stream bank.
Enhance 20 acres of marginal farmland through ALUS Kawarthas Peterborough
Northumberland while launching 3–5 Low Impact Development projects with City of
Kawartha Lakes and RBC funding.
Support private restoration by selling 3,000 native plants and providing technical
assistance to landowners across the watershed.
45Page 149
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
Conservation Areas and Lands
Category 1
Apportionment Method: Modified Current Value Assessment
Budget Budget Budget
2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Municipal Levy, Category 1 295,300$ 305,826$ 10,526$
Employment Grants 20,000 10,000 (10,000)
Reserve Funds 12,850 (12,850)
Self Generated Revenues 49,000 49,000 -
TOTAL REVENUE 377,150$ 364,826$ (12,324)$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits 286,000$ 273,276$ (12,724)$
Advertising and Communications 6,000 4,000 (2,000)
Equipment 7,400 7,500 100
Infrastructure maintenance and repairs 13,850 16,900 3,050
Professional Development & Training 1,500 1,500 -
Property Taxes 2,600 3,000 400
Road and parking lot maintenance 28,500 27,250 (1,250)
Supplies and materials 21,100 19,500 (1,600)
Travel 5,100 5,900 800
Utilities 5,100 6,000 900
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 377,150$ 364,826$ (12,324)$
Surplus/(Deficit)-$ -$ -$
46Page 150
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
Durham East Cross Forest Conservation Area
Category 1
Apportionment Method: Agreement Method (Region of Durham)
Budget Budget Budget
2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Municipal Levy, Category 1 108,300$ 111,000$ 2,700$
Municipal Levy, Category 1, Deferred 26,400 27,140 740
Federal Grants 78,300 - (78,300)
Self Generated Revenues 300 300 -
TOTAL REVENUE 213,300$ 138,440$ (74,860)$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits 100,100$ 83,040$ (17,060)$
Advertising and Communications 1,100 1,100 -
Contracted services 21,000 - (21,000)
Equipment 6,400 900 (5,500)
Infrastructure maintenance and repairs 12,000 12,000 -
Professional Development & Training 3,000 3,000 -
Property Taxes 6,000 6,000 -
Road and parking lot maintenance 3,000 3,000 -
Supplies and materials 37,300 9,800 (27,500)
Travel 3,400 4,000 600
Utilities 600 800 200
Program administration 19,400 14,800 (4,600)
Amortization of tangible capital assets -
Gain/loss on disposal of capital assets -
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 213,300$ 138,440$ (74,860)$
Surplus/(Deficit)-$ -$ -$
47Page 151
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
Conservation Education and Community Outreach
Category 3
Apportionment Method: Modified Current Value Assessment
Budget Budget Budget
2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Municipal Levy, Category 3 13,850$ 15,806$ 1,956$
Other Grants 31,250 31,250
Self Generated Revenues 117,800 68,900 (48,900)
TOTAL REVENUE 131,650$ 115,956$ (15,694)$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits 65,900$ 58,556$ (7,344)$
Advertising and Communications 1,950 500 (1,450)
Contracted services - 24,000 24,000
Equipment 1,500 100 (1,400)
Professional services 31,700 14,500 (17,200)
Supplies and materials 18,100 5,500 (12,600)
Travel 500 400 (100)
Program administration 12,000 12,400 400
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 131,650$ 115,956$ (15,694)$
Surplus/(Deficit)-$ -$ -$
48Page 152
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
Fleetwood Creek Natural Area
Category 3
Apportionment Method: N/A
Budget Budget Budget
2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Self Generated Revenues 8,850$ 9,457$ 607$
TOTAL REVENUE 8,850$ 9,457$ 607$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits 7,600$ 7,657$ 57$
Equipment 150 200 50
Supplies and materials - 200 200
Travel 300 400 100
Program administration 800 1,000 200
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 8,850$ 9,457$ 607$
Surplus/(Deficit)-$ -$ -$
49Page 153
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
Habitat Compensation Program
Category 3
Apportionment Method: N/A
Budget Budget Budget
2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Self Generated Revenues 9,300$ 2,811$ (6,489)$
TOTAL REVENUE 9,300$ 2,811$ (6,489)$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits 7,000$ 1,611$ (5,389)$
Equipment 500 500 -
Supplies and materials 180 200 20
Travel 420 150 (270)
Program administration 1,200 350 (850)
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 9,300$ 2,811$ (6,489)$
Surplus/(Deficit)-$ -$ -$
50Page 154
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
City of Kawartha Lakes - Lake Management Implementation, Stewardship
Category 2
Apportionment Method: Benefits Based
Budget Budget Budget
Stewardship 2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Municipal Levy, Category 2 236,060$ 242,000$ 5,940$
Municipal Levy, Category 2, Deferred 58,690 34,287 (24,403)
Provincial Grants - 118,000 118,000
Other Grants 39,500 294,400 254,900
Self Generated Revenues 17,000 17,900 900
TOTAL REVENUE 351,250$ 706,587$ 355,337$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits 147,900$ 264,087$ 116,187$
Stipends 2,000 2,000
Advertising and Communications 2,400 6,000 3,600
Contracted services 70,000 182,500 112,500
Cost of sales 15,000 15,500 500
Equipment 50 500 450
Landowner Grants 70,000 105,000 35,000
Professional Development & Training 1,000 1,000
Professional services 5,000 5,000
Supplies and materials 9,300 39,000 29,700
Travel 4,700 10,300 5,600
Program administration 31,900 75,700 43,800
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 351,250$ 706,587$ 355,337$
Surplus/(Deficit)-$ -$ -$
51Page 155
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
Joint Project - Forestry and Tree Planting Stewardship
Category 2
Apportionment Method: Agreement Method (CKL & Durham)
Budget Budget Budget
2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Municipal Levy, Category 2 73,350$ 79,800$ 6,450$
Municipal Agreement 18,000 - (18,000)
Other Grants 134,500 91,100 (43,400)
Self Generated Revenues 65,000 75,249 10,249
TOTAL REVENUE 290,850$ 246,149$ (44,701)$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits 93,300$ 88,449$ (4,851)$
Advertising and Communications 3,250 2,600 (650)
Contracted services 82,000 44,700 (37,300)
Cost of sales 28,000 30,000 2,000
Professional Development & Training - 1,000 1,000
Supplies and materials 54,900 49,000 (5,900)
Travel 3,000 4,000 1,000
Program administration 26,400 26,400 -
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 290,850$ 246,149$ (44,701)$
Surplus/(Deficit)-$ -$ -$
52Page 156
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
Region of Durham - Lake Management Implementation, Stewardship
Category 2
Apportionment Method: Benefits Based
Budget Budget Budget
Stewardship 2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Municipal Levy, Category 2 62,400$ 65,071$ 2,671$
Municipal Agreement 6,450 9,900 3,450
TOTAL REVENUE 68,850$ 74,971$ 6,121$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits 38,500$ 42,871$ 4,371$
Advertising and Communications 1,000 200 (800)
Landowner Grants 20,000 20,000 -
Professional Development & Training 500 500 -
Supplies and materials 1,800 2,400 600
Travel 750 1,000 250
Program administration 6,300 8,000 1,700
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 68,850$ 74,971$ 6,121$
Surplus/(Deficit)-$ -$ -$
53Page 157
Corporate Services
The Corporate Services department is the foundation of Kawartha Conservation, providing
essential support to ensure the organization operates effectively and efficiently. From
managing infrastructure and technology to overseeing financial systems and governance,
the team plays a critical role in enabling the success of programs and services across all
departments. By prioritizing innovation, resilience, and sustainability, Corporate Services
ensures that the organization remains adaptable to changing needs while maintaining a
commitment to fiscal responsibility and operational excellence. Their work supports a
thriving, future-focused organization that serves the watershed and its communities.54Page 158
Modernized technology infrastructure by updating digital infrastructure, deploying remote
support software, and replacing end-of-life equipment with a next-generation firewall to
enhance cybersecurity and network performance.
Improved organizational resilience with the start of the back-up generator installation (full
implementation expected by early 2026).
Developed a two-year implementation plan for Microsoft InTune and M365 E5 Security and
Compliance to strengthen data protection and system management.
Enhanced field and safety operations through automated drone video capture for shoreline
surveys, reducing risk and improving data efficiency.
Continued focus on workplace safety and service excellence through regular inspections, JHSC
meetings, and prioritized permitting for compassionate cases.
2025 Highlights
The following programs and services are essential general expenses required to run the
organization, support its offerings, and highlight successes achieved in the past year.
Advanced staff skills and organizational
capacity with completion of multiple micro-
credentials in finance, fundraising, volunteer
management, digital marketing, and grant
writing, along with participation in sector-
specific professional training and technology
webinars.
55Page 159
Strengthen financial governance by refining reporting processes to ensure accuracy,
transparency, and compliance with legislative standards.
Implement Phase 2 of the 10-Year Asset Management Plan to support long-term
infrastructure sustainability and strategic investment planning.
Enhance cybersecurity through expanded backup systems, ransomware recovery
protocols, and deployment of InTune for secure, efficient device management.
Foster a culture of continuous improvement by delivering professional development
opportunities that build staff capacity and service excellence.
Assess organizational and operational transition requirements related to the Ontario
Provincial Watershed Agency initiative to ensure proactive readiness and alignment.
In 2026, the Corporate Services department envisions a streamlined, innovative, and
resilient organization that supports the delivery of exceptional programs and services. By
prioritizing infrastructure upgrades, enhancing cybersecurity, and improving operational
efficiency, the department will ensure that Kawartha Conservation remains adaptable to
evolving needs. Through strategic investments in technology, facilities, and processes,
Corporate Services will empower staff, strengthen organizational capacity, and maintain a
commitment to sustainability and fiscal responsibility.
A Vision for 2026
Key Deliverables
The following deliverables are part of general expenses required to run the
organization, and benefit the programs and services offered by the organization.
56Page 160
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
Corporate Services
General Operating
Apportionment Method: Modified Current Value Assessment
Budget Budget Budget
2025 2026 Variance
SOURCES OF REVENUE
Municipal Levy, Category 1 876,000$ 834,400$ (41,600)$
Interest income 70,000 70,000 -
TOTAL REVENUE 946,000$ 904,400$ (41,600)$
EXPENDITURES
Salaries, wages & benefits 798,100$ 791,850$ (6,250)$
Stipends -
Administration and Overhead (Schedule A)254,350 267,550 13,200
Advertising and Communications 1,500 1,500 -
Board of Directors & Governance 7,050 7,050 -
Professional Development & Training 6,500 6,500 -
Professional services 10,000 10,000 -
Supplies and materials 30,300 30,300 -
Travel 1,000 1,000 -
Program administration, cost recovery (162,800) (211,350) (48,550)
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 946,000$ 904,400$ (41,600)$
Surplus/(Deficit)-$ -$ -$
5457Page 161
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
Schedule A - General Administration and Overhead
General Operating
Apportionment Method: Modified Current Value Assessment
Budget Budget Budget
2025 2026 Variance
EXPENDITURES
Administration building utilities 13,000$ 13,000$ -$
Administration building maintenance 33,500 34,500 1,000
Office equipment leases and maintenance 3,000 3,000 -
Telephone & internet 14,200 14,200 -
Audit & legal 35,300 37,300 2,000
Banking & administration fees 3,600 3,600 -
Insurance 60,000 65,000 5,000
Website hosting, licenses, ecommerce 9,000 9,000 -
Conservation Ontario membership 26,300 26,500 200
Information Technology & Corporate Software 45,000 50,000 5,000
Human Resources & Safety 11,450 11,450 -
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 254,350$ 267,550$ 13,200$
58Page 162
General Benefiting Projects
59Page 163
The initiatives in this section outline projects that provide broad value across all participating
municipalities, supported through a levy apportioned by the Modified Current Value Assessment
(MCVA) method. These projects align with Kawartha Conservation's strategic goals and long-term
sustainability objectives.
2026 Budget Highlights
Environmental Monitoring Strategy Implementation (Year 4 of 10)
Budget: $25,000
Continuing the phased rollout of the Environmental Monitoring Strategy, this initiative
supports critical data collection and analysis to guide decision-making for natural hazard
management and watershed health. Infrastructure upgrades to real-time capabilities will continue
to be our focus in 2026, modernizing our weather stations to be consistent across our network.
Asset Management Plan Implementation (Year 2 of 10)
Budget: $51,200
Initiating the second phase of a long-term Asset Management Plan, this initiative establishes a
foundation for sustainable funding and consistent levy contributions, ensuring Kawartha
Conservation's infrastructure and resources are effectively managed for the future.
Information Technology (Year 1 of 2)
Budget: $15,000
Implementation of a two year plan for Microsoft InTune and M365 E5 Security and Compliance,
including the deployment of InTune for secure, efficient device management and strengthened
data protection.
60Page 164
Key Changes
The Climate Change project, funded at $15,000 in 2025, has been postponed and removed from the
2026 budget as the deliverables associated with this project will be completed with full funding
from project partner. Climate change will be reintroduced into general benefitting once the project
partner delivers the report outlining future actions to be taken.
The total budget for General Benefitting Projects increased from $65,600 in 2025 to $91,200 in
2026, reflecting new priorities and ongoing strategic commitments.
Municipal Contributions (2026 Levy Apportionment)
City of Kawartha Lakes: $53,897 (59.1%)
Region of Durham: $33,152 (36.3%)
Municipality of Trent Lakes: $3,799 (4.2%)
Township of Cavan Monaghan: $252 (0.4%)
These contributions support projects that enhance shared environmental stewardship,
infrastructure management, and community well-being, ensuring equitable distribution of costs
among participating municipalities.
61Page 165
KAWARTHA CONSERVATION
2026 Budget
General Benefitting Projects
Apportionment Method: MCVA
Budget Budget Budget
Project Category 2025 2026 Variance
Information Technology (Year 1/2)Mandatory P&S 15,000$ 15,000$ -$
Environmental Monitoring Strategy Implementation (Year 4/10)Other P&S 25,000 25,000 -
Asset Management Plan Implementation (Year 2/10)Mandatory P&S 25,600 51,200 25,600
TOTAL REVENUE 65,600$ 91,200$ -$
Municipality
2026 MCVA
Apportionment 2025 Levy 2026 Levy Variance
City of Kawartha Lakes 59.0978 38,770$ 53,897$ 15,127$
Region of Durham 36.3506 23,822 33,152 9,330
Municipality of Trent Lakes 4.1658 2,756 3,799 1,043
Township of Cavan Monaghan 0.3858 252 352 100
Total 100 65,600$ 91,200$ 25,600$
62Page 166
December 17, 2025
Proposed boundaries for the regional consolidation of Ontario’s Conservation
Authorities (ERO#025-1257)
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Submission
_____________________________________________________________________
The Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA) has reviewed the Province of
Ontario’s proposal to amend the Conservation Authorities Act and consolidate Ontario’s
36 Conservation Authorities into seven regional bodies overseen by a new provincial
agency (ERO Posting #025-1257). The GRCA does not support consolidation.
This proposal represents the most significant change to Ontario’s environmental
management system in 80 years.
Historically, the Province funded up to 50% of Conservation Authority operations;
today, provincial support has fallen to less than 2%, leaving municipalities to fund the
majority of the operations. GRCA is concerned that the proposed restructuring would shift
governance away from the municipalities who created and fund Conservation Authorities,
resulting in a significant loss of local decision-making, community accountability, and rural
representation.
While GRCA supports provincial goals to improve consistency and modernize digital
permitting, these objectives can be achieved without removing local governance or
amalgamating watershed agencies into large provincial structures.
Summary of GRCA’s Position
The Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA) does not
support consolidation for the following reasons.
1. Consistent policies, and resources across the existing conservation authority
boundaries can be achieved without structural consolidation through direction and tools
such as technical guidelines provided by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation
and Parks; or Conservation Ontario.
2. Conservation authorities are locally based, grassroots organizations formed by
municipal governments in response to the challenges posed by a changing landscape;
especially, the increased exposure to flooding and erosion hazards and the resulting risks
to lives and property. GRCA has been supported by its seven municipalities, this vision
has proven a successful model for nearly 80 years.
3. There has been no cost-benefit analysis prepared by the province demonstrating the
fact that if consolidation were to take place, there would be a cost benefit. Furthermore,
conservation authorities and municipalities were not consulted about the
proposed consolidation.
Page 167
December 17, 2025
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
Response to ERO 025-1257 Page 2
Key Factors for Not Supporting Consolidation
Several key factors have been identified for not supporting the proposed consolidation.
1.The Approach to the Proposed Changes Lacks Transparency – GRCA Supports
Timely Approvals for the Development of Resilient Communities
GRCA is concerned about the limited information provided to support the restructuring
proposal. Municipalities and Indigenous communities received minimal advance notice,
no cost-benefit analysis or transition plan has been released, and the proposal offer s no
clarity on how land transfers, municipal service agreements, risk management offices, or
emergency response roles would function. As the primary funders of Conservation
Authorities, municipalities must be properly consulted and engaged in any proposed
changes to the existing system.
The ERO posting also does not reference Bill 68 (Schedule 3) — the legislation enabling
consolidation — making it difficult for the public to understand the full scope of
changes. The proposed changes were introduced within an omnibus bill without the
benefit of a standalone legislative process that would allow for comprehensive public
input, stakeholder consultation, or sufficient scrutiny regarding their long-term
environmental, financial, and public safety implications.
Despite claims of inefficiency, GRCA issues over 99% of permits within provincial
timelines, and provincial reports. It is important to note that the Province’s Housing
Affordability Task Force Report, does not identify Conservation Authorities as barriers to
housing or development.
GRCA plays an essential role in helping municipalities meet their development targets:
100% of planning reviews and development-related screenings are completed within
municipal timelines, and GRCA staff work directly with municipal planners, developers,
and property owners to resolve issues early, reduce delays, and support local economic
growth.
In 2023, the Province removed Conservation Authorities’ ability to provide natural
heritage reviews and hydrogeological services for municipalities. This change has not
worked for rural Ontario, forcing municipalities to hire private consultants at higher cost,
with longer timelines, and with less local knowledge — undermining the coordinated,
affordable service model that previously supported rural development.
2. Rationale for Consolidation has not been Justified
GRCA has built relationships with municipal partners to address their needs and provide
quality service. GRCA currently serves 7 municipalities in whole or in part with a
population of 190,470. Under the proposed regional model there are 48
Page 168
December 17, 2025
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
Response to ERO 025-1257 Page 3
municipalities and a population which is 6.5 times or 1,250,000. With an increase
in service area there will be a decrease in efficiency of service delivery.
The Province imposed timelines are being met for development
applications. Furthermore, GRCA staff always answer the telephone. Callers get a
senior staff person to speak to when inquiring. GRCA staff offer that any applicant may
have a meeting with staff via an online platform within one week of any submission to get
initial comments. GRCA staff have worked hard to build trust with our community, such
that they have a local expert that they can deal with when contacting the Authority about
their inquiry or application.
GRCA staff are experts in many fields in addition to planning and permitting. These staff
include a GIS department that updates mapping quickly (often within a day or two) and
uses cutting-edge technology. GRCA staff have effectively managed
the Ganaraska Forest which continues to benefit our watershed as a flood prevention
measure as well as being an extremely popular recreational
attraction. GRCA staff monitor watershed conditions and provide flood notifications and
recommendations. GRCA staff undertake in-house floodplain mapping that is cost-
effective for our municipal partners and allows staff to update the watershed models and
mapping on a regular basis. The GRCA, in partner with member municipalities offer a
diversity of stewardship programs to engage watershed residents in watershed protection
and restoration. Furthermore, GRCA has been and continues to be a fiscally responsible
organization.
GRCA has a history of effectively and efficiently sharing staff with other Conservation
Authorities to ensure required staff resources are available in all program areas.
3. Cost Efficiencies have not been Identified
The Province is establishing the Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency
(OPCA). The Province may provide funding for the establishment of the OPCA for the
first couple of years however it has not been stated how the OPCA will be funded in
future years. It is anticipated the funding will come from municipalities. This results
in municipalities contributing to all or a significant share of the OPCA’s budget without
having any meaningful role in shaping its governance, its priorities, or its strategic
direction. The OPCA would require significant resources while local watershed advisory
boards would still be needed to guide priorities and provide oversight.
The province has not developed a business case to support the proposed
changes. GRCA believes these changes will not improve services and create
efficiencies. The cost of consolidation has not been provided, and it has not
been established who will pay for these costs. As a local organization, GRCA is
responsive to community needs.
Page 169
December 17, 2025
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
Response to ERO 025-1257 Page 4
Municipalities, landowners, and community partners drive the services and priorities of
the organization. If the OPCA is going to provide strategic direction to Conservation
Authorities, and Conservation Authorities are consolidated into seven regional
Conservation Authorities, then this would mean less municipal input on service priorities.
GRCA is deeply concerned about whether the needs of rural communities and
the agricultural sector will be adequately recognized and prioritized in this
consolidation, particularly since the lead Conservation Authority is expected to be an
urban one in each region.
A core priority for GRCA is reducing the risk of loss of life and community damage caused
by flooding and erosion. We are responsible for approving development in or near natural
hazard areas, ensuring that new construction and additions are not at risk from flooding
or erosion in floodplains or along the Lake Ontario shoreline. GRCA has a proven track
record of effectively approving development consistent with applicable legislation and
guidelines as well as ensuring that existing development downstream is not further
impacted from development activities upstream. The GRCA and our community are
particularly aware of flooding impacts as a result of the 1980 storm that affected the
Ganaraska River causing considerable damage in Port Hope. GRCA’s contributions to
hazard management continue to result in significant benefits including safety of
residents, a reduction in damage to property and cost -savings to residents, our
municipalities and the province thereby ensuring our communities remain safe and
resilient from the impacts of natural hazards.
The GRCA permitting process is efficient and consistent— in 2024, the average time to
process all types of permits was just 5.7 days. From start to finish, our staff work closely
with landowners, emphasizing customer service and helping them identify safe building
locations outside hazardous areas. Will the proposed digital permitting platform be able
to match our turnaround times and maintain this high level of customer experience?
Additionally, what will the costs be for developing and maintaining this platform? The
average time for reviewing and issuing permits by all Conservation Authorities
is 12.5 business days.
ERO Discussion Questions and Answers
What do you see as key factors to support a successful transition and outcome of
regional conservation authority consolidation?
Political and staff support from key partners, specifically, municipalities, is key to the
ongoing success of conservation authorities in Ontario. GRCA watershed municipalities
do not support the proposed regional consolidation for many reasons including loss of
local service delivery, expertise and in-house capacity for environmental and technical
services provided by conservation authorities. The scale of the regional consolidation
may be too large to preserve successful watershed management functions so any new
Page 170
December 17, 2025
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
Response to ERO 025-1257 Page 5
model must be grounded in the fundamentals of watershed management with an ability
to introduce collaboration and flexibility, both in the proposed approach and the timelines
for implementation. This will be critical to ensure that the transition does not
introduce unnecessary processes, added bureaucracy, or uncertainty.
What opportunities or benefits may come from a regional conservation authority
framework?
Consistent standards and policies are a potential benefit of regional consolidations. That
said, the same consistency can exist if consolidations do not occur. Conservation
Ontario can assist in standardizing program delivery and policies for the conservation
authorities to follow. Conservation Authorities already pool resources and share
technical expertise in a collaborative manner.
Do you have suggestions for how governance could be structured at the regional
conservation authority level, including suggestions around board size, make-
up and the municipal representative appointment process?
With regards to the suggested governance model at the regional level, a 12-to-18-
member Board of Directors is a manageable size that is effective. Given this number of
representatives, it would be very difficult to appoint members and still have the
expectation of adequately representing the interests of 48 municipalities. These changes
will cause some municipalities to lack representation at the regional conservation
authority level. One potential solution to avoid entirely disenfranchising many
municipalities is to create a tiered governance structure whereby regional conservation
authorities are authorized to establish subregional watershed councils to more
effectively represent local watershed issues and interests. These councils could be given
the responsibility of appointing representatives to the Regional Conservation
Authority Board.
Do you have suggestions on how to maintain a transparent and consultative
budgeting process across member municipalities within a regional conservation
authority?
Within the regional conservation authority there will be various priorities and budget
pressures among the 48 municipalities, which will make budget
deliberations very difficult, and the process may seem inequitable to some
municipalities. As suggested in the previous point, subregional watershed councils could
be created within the proposed regional conservation authority and could continue to
follow a modified version of the existing budgeting process. The proposed subregional
budgets and apportionments could then be proposed to the regional conservation
authority for final approval. The regional conservation authority could have the authority
to approve the budgets or amend and approve the budgets. This would allow for the
continuation of a familiar budgeting process within a new structure. Another key factor to
consider during the transition to consolidation is protecting watershed reserves,
Page 171
December 17, 2025
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
Response to ERO 025-1257 Page 6
infrastructure, and land assets. Many watershed municipalities and conservation
authorities are concerned how locally funded reserves, land assets, and long-term capital
programs will be treated within a consolidated structure.
How can regional conservation authorities maintain and strengthen relationships
with local communities and stakeholders?
For the regional conservation authorities to maintain and strengthen relationships
with local communities, existing local offices should be maintained and remain visible
within the community. This will also result in watershed-
specific expertise remaining locally and accessible to the residents. The implementation
of sub-regional watershed councils described above would ensure continued presence of
a local voice in priority setting and decision-making. In addition, subregional offices must
be maintained to ensure conservation authorites remain responsive to local needs. This
includes not only offices, but includes brand identity, infrastructure, programming, and
staffing. Attempts should be made to maintain the existing names of local conservation
authorities in the naming of subregional watershed councils as they represent a rich
legacy of serving their local communities and the names often have indigenous origins
(i.e. Ganaraska, Nottawasaga, Otonabee, Quinte, Mississippi, Mattagami, Crowe, etc.).
Alternative Amalgamation
GRCA does not support the proposed regional consolidations and believes the best,
most effective and cost efficient option is to remain as the 36 conservation authorities.
However, there may be merit in exploring alternative amalgamations.
Board of Directors Resolution
GRCA 50/25
MOVED BY: Joan Stover
SECONDED BY: Miriam Mutton
WHEREAS the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors
acknowledges and supports the Province’s goals of improved efficiency of watershed
management, through the implementation of digital applications and permitting system,
consistent policies, flood standards, fees, and technology; and
WHEREAS consistent policies, and resources across the existing conservation authority
boundaries could be achieved without structural consolidation through direction and tools
such as technical guidelines provided by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation
and Parks; or Conservation Ontario; and
WHEREAS conservation authorities are locally based, grassroots organizations formed
by municipal governments in response to the challenges posed by a changing landscape;
especially, the increased exposure to flooding and erosion hazards and the resulting risks
Page 172
December 17, 2025
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
Response to ERO 025-1257 Page 7
to lives and property. In the case of GRCA, supported by its 7 municipalities, this vision
has proven a successful model for nearly 80 years; and
WHEREAS the GRCA, with the guidance and support of our 7 member municipalities,
demonstrates fiscal prudence in conservation delivery, ensuring stable growth through
stable funding. GRCA has successfully leveraged funding to support programs and
services that are locally important and are driven by community engagement through
GRCA’s Conservation Land Strategy and the Watershed Based Resource Management
Strategy; and
WHEREAS GRCA consistently meets or exceeds provincial service standards, and
participates in staff-sharing initiatives with neighbouring conservation authorities that
already deliver many of the efficiencies the Province seeks; and
WHEREAS plans to regionalize conservation authorities through consolidation would
dilute local accountability and municipal partnership and is contrary to the basic principle
that decisions are best made closest to the communities they affect. Effective
representation by municipal partners remains core to the success of conservation
authorities. The GRCA, while not unique among conservation authorities in this respect,
is effective in working with our community to support sustainable development, and
keeping communities safe; and
WHEREAS being front-line means being responsive and accountable to the community
by delivering the services that are essential and valued to the best interest of the
community. The front line of provincial priorities on housing, the economy, infrastructure,
and climate resilience are in the decisions between municipalities working together to
address issues around floodplain (and hazard) protection and resilient upland and
landscape management. Further, staff and Board are responsive and accountable to the
needs of the watershed community, while meeting or exceeding provincial service
standards. The staff and Board are reachable through publicly available contact
information. Local governance and direction combined with local service provision allows
GRCA to continue to be responsive to our community; and
WHEREAS consolidation will result in substantial transition costs, not the least of which
is time. In all facets, that would divert resources from front-line service delivery and delay
desired outcomes. Further, the loss of local watershed knowledge and communit y
relationships will add greater uncertainty, loss of trust, and delay for our watershed
residents. This includes the agricultural community, businesses, builders, developers,
and our municipal partners that seek timely and effective local advice, which is provided
through local pre-consultation; and
WHEREAS a proposed regional watershed would create a geographically vast and
administratively complex organization when joining the seven conservation authorities as
proposed in eastern Lake Ontario. This would be considerably worse if local offices do
Page 173
December 17, 2025
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
Response to ERO 025-1257 Page 8
not remain available and accountable to its membership, partners and the communities
they serve.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
THAT the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors does not support
the proposed “Eastern Lake Ontario Regional Conservation Authority” boundary
configuration as outlined in Environmental Registry Notice 025 -1257; and
FURTHER THAT meaningful modernization can occur within the current watershed-
based governance framework; and
FURTHER THAT the GRCA Board endorses further provincial evaluation of a more
focused specific model as a geographically coherent, cost -effective and locally
accountable alternative that advances the government’s priorities of efficiency, red -tape
reduction and timely home construction; and
FURTHER THAT the Board asks that the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and
Parks engage directly with affected municipalities and conservation authorities across
Eastern Lake Ontario through a working group; and
FURTHER THAT the Board of Directors direct staff to make a submission to the
Environmental Registry of Ontario consultations asking the Province to pause any
consolidation until more consultation can take place ; and
FURTHER THAT a letter from the Chair containing this resolution, be forwarded to:
- the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and his Opposition critics; and
- the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (CA Office); and
- Ontario’s Chief Conservation Executive, Hassaan Basit; and
- Local Member of Provincial Parliament David Piccini, Northumberland – Peterborough
South and
- All local watershed municipalities, all municipalities in Ontario, and Counties within
GRCA ‘s watershed.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed
boundaries for the regional consolidation of Ontario’s conservation authorities
(ERO#025-1257).
Page 174
100 WHITING AVENUE OSHAWA ON L1H 3T3 | P. 905 579 0411 | F. 905 579 0994 | CLOCA.COM
Healthy watersheds for
today and tomorrow.
December 18, 2025
Via email
Subject: ERO notice proposing the consolidation Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities into
regional conservation authorities.
CLOCA File# ACAF54
At our meeting of December 16, 2025, the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) Board of
Directors passed the following Resolution:
Res. #87/25 Moved by R. Hooper
Seconded by M. Shahid
WHEREAS the Province of Ontario has posted Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO)
Posting #025-1257 proposing the consolidation of Ontario’s 36 Conservation Authorities
into 7 Regional Conservation Authorities;
WHEREAS the proposed Eastern Lake Ontario Regional Conservation Authority would
consolidate Central Lake Ontario with Kawartha Region, Otonabee Region, Ganaraska
Region, Lower Trent Region, Crowe Valley CA, Quinte Region Conservation Authority’s,
resulting in significant changes to governance, service delivery, financial structures, land
management, and municipal oversight;
WHEREAS the proposed consolidation raises substantial concerns and risks related to
local decision-making authority, municipal representation, transition funding, asset
ownership, service disruption and the protection of local programs;
WHEREAS there is a need for meaningful consultation and engagement with stakeholders
to address identified concerns and risks of the proposed consolidation;
WHEREAS the objects of the Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency (OPCA) can
accomplish the same goals and objectives of consolidation of conservation authorities
without service disruption and interference that will come with consolidation.
Cont’d
Page 175
Page | 2
Healthy watersheds for
today and tomorrow.
WHEREAS there is a need to undertake a full cost -benefit analysis of alternative
consolidation models;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the CLOCA Board of Directors requests the
Province of Ontario to pause any decision to consolidate conservation authorities to
allow:
• the OPCA to completed it first 3-year term and a subsequent assessment of the
need for consolidation
• for meaningful engagement needed to address the concerns and risks of the
proposed consolidation
• for the review of alternative consolidation models and processes that would result
in better outcomes
THAT the commentary in Staff Report #5962-25 and Attachment 3 be endorsed and
submitted to the Province of Ontario as CLOCA’s comments regarding Environmental
Registry Posting 025-1257;
THAT the resolution be forwarded to all municipalities within CLOCAs watershed.
CARRIED
Please contact me if you have any questions with respect to this matter.
Yours truly,
Chris Darling, MCIP, RPP
Chief Administrative Officer
CD/lv
Encl. CLOCA Staff Report #5962-25 and attachments
Cc: clerks@ajax.ca
clerks@clarington.net
clerks@oshawa.ca
clerks@pickering.ca
clerks@scugog.ca
clerk@whitby.ca
dleroux@uxbridge.ca
clerks@durham.ca
Page 176
DATE: December 16, 2025
FILE: ACAF54
S.R.: 5962-25
TO: Chair and Members, CLOCA Board of Directors
FROM: Chris Darling, Chief Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: Bill 68 Amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act and an ERO notice proposing
the consolidation Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities into regional conservation
authorities.
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to provide the Board of Directors with an overview of the changes to the Conservation Authoriti es
Act contained as a result of Bill 68, Plan to Protect Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2025 and a proposal posted on the
Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO 025-1257) to consolidate conservation authorities.
Background:
Bill 68- Schedule 3
On November 6, 2025, the province introduced Bill 68, Plan to Protect Ontario Act (Budget Measures) which includes
Schedule 3 amending the Conservation Authorities Act to establish a Provincial Conservation Agency and outline its objects,
responsibilities and functions such that the new Agency would now govern conservation authorities, have power to issue
directions and collect fees from conservation authorities to cover its expenses. Bill 68 received Royal Assent on November
27, 2025.
The following provides a summary of the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act:
• Establishment of an Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency (OPCA) with the following objects:
1) Oversee the governance of authorities and other aspects of authorities such as their operations, including
the programs and services they provide, to further the purposes of the Act.
2) Oversee the transition to a regional watershed-based framework for authorities in Ontario.
3) Promote consistent policies, standards and fees for programs and services provided by authorities.
4) Assess and report on the effectiveness of authorities in furthering the conservation, restoration, development
and management of natural resources in watersheds in Ontario, including outcomes related to the
implementation of their programs and services.
5) Oversee and evaluate the financial performance of authorities to ensure their long -term operational and
capital financial sustainability, including the financial sustainability of their programs and services.
6) Guide and evaluate the strategic planning by authorities to ensure it aligns with provincial objectives.
7) Support the development and implementation of a standardized and centralized system for processing
applications for permits issued by authorities.
8) Lead the development and implementation of digital strategies and shared services to support the operations
of authorities, including their programs and services.
9) Support strategic investment in programs and services provided by authorities, including leveraging funding
available to Ontario and authorities.
10) Advise the Government of Ontario in respect of the programs and services authorities provide under the Act
and any matters related to the objects of the Agency.
11) Any other objects prescribed by regulation.
Cont’d
REPORT
____________________________CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
Page 177
FILE: ACAF54 December 16, 2025
S.R.: 5962-25
• The Agency will consist of at least five and not more than 12 Board members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor
in Council who shall form the board of directors of the Agency and the agency will be staffed.
• Where the Minister considers it to be in the public interest to do so, the Minister may issue directions to the Agency.
• The Agency may issue directions and/or guidelines to one or more authorities, to address matters such as service
standards, information technology, procurement, budgeting, asset management plans and strategic planning.
• The Minister may provide funding to the Agency and Agency may establish and require the payment of fees related
to the performance of its duties and the exercise of its powers under this Act.
• For the purpose of recovering the costs and expenses the Agency incurs, the Agency may determine the amounts of
the costs and expenses that the authorities collectively owe to the Agency and apportion those amounts to the
authorities.
Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO 025-1257)
On November 7, 2025, the Province posted a proposal on the ERO (ERO 025 -1257) seeking feedback on proposed
boundaries and criteria for the regional consolidation of Ontario’s 36 CAs (see link https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/025-1257)
The deadline for comments is Dec 22, 2025. The proposal would consolidate the 36 conservation authorities into 7 regional
conservation authorities. The posting includes a map depicting the boundaries of the proposed regional conservation
authorities refer to attachment 1 and 2. CLOCA would be consolidated into an Eastern Lake Ontario Regional Conservation
Authority which is a consolidation of the following seven conservation authorities: • Central Lake Ontario CA • Kawartha
Region CA • Otonobee Region CA • Ganaraska Region CA • Lower Trent Region CA • Crowe Valley CA • Quinte Region CA.
Municipalities that would fall within the proposed Eastern Lake Ontario Regional Conservation Authority include: City of
Belleville, City of Kawartha Lakes, City of Oshawa, City of Peterborough, City of Pickering, City of Quinte West, Prince Edwa rd
County, Municipality of Brighton, Municipality of Centre Hastings, Municipality of Clarington, Municipality of Hastings
Highlands, Municipality of highlands East,• Municipality of Marmora and Lake, Municipality of Port Hope, Municipality of Tren t
Hills, Municipality of Trent Lakes, Municipality of Tweed, Town of Ajax, Town of Cobourg, Town of Deseronto, Town of Greater
Napanee, Town of Whitby, Township of Addington Highlands, Township of Alnwick/Haldimand, Township of Asphodel -
Norwood, Township of Brock, Township of Cavan Monagha, Township of Central Frontenac, Township of Cramahe, Township
of Douro-Dummer, Township of Faraday, Township of Hamilton, Township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen, Township of
Limerick, Township of Loyalist, Township of Madoc, Township of North Frontenac, Township of North Kawartha, Township of
Otonabee-South Monaghan, Township of Scugog, Township of Selwyn, Township of South Frontenac, Township of Stirling -
Rawdon, Township of Stone Mills, Township of Tudor and Cashel, Township of Tyendinaga, Township of Uxbridge, and the
Township of Wollaston.
The Province used the following criteria for determining the proposed boundaries for regional conservation authorities:
• Maintaining watershed-based jurisdictions – Aligning with natural hydrological boundaries to support effective flood
and water management, consistent with drinking water Source Protection Areas and Regions.
• Relationships between conservation authorities and municipalities – Reducing administrative duplication and overlap
for municipalities and conservation authorities to simplify accountability and strengthen local partnerships.
• Balancing expertise and capacity across conservation authorities – Enhancing technical skills and resources across
conservation authorities to improve service and program delivery.
• Service Continuity – Ensuring uninterrupted delivery of local conservation authority programs – including flood
forecasting and warning, permitting, and source water protection – through and after consolidation.
Cont’d
Page 178
FILE: ACAF54 December 16, 2025
S.R.: 5962-25
The ERO notice lists the following discussion questions to assist in receiving feedback:
• What do you see as key factors to support a successful transition and outcome of regional conservation authority
consolidation?
• What opportunities or benefits may come from a regional conservation authority framework?
• Do you have suggestions for how governance could be structured at the regional conservation authority level,
including suggestions around board size, make-up and the municipal representative appointment process?
• Do you have suggestions on how to maintain a transparent and consultative budgeting process across member
municipalities within a regional conservation authority?
• How can regional conservation authorities maintain and strengthen relationships with local communities and
stakeholders?
Consolidation is not intended to be initiated until after municipal elections in October 2026; existing board members would
continue to serve until the expiration of their terms next year.
Analysis and Comments
The Province indicates that the new OPCA and the proposed consolidation is required to modernize conservation authorities
and achieve consistent standards and service delivery, increase technical capacity, update data systems and avoid
duplication. Conservation Ontario, CLOCA and other conservation authorities have made significant progress on
modernization. For example, we deliver timely development approvals achieving 100% compliance with permit timelines, use
state-of-the-art modern digital permitting system, have robust hazard mapping, developed current technical guidelines and
policies, apply transparent budgeting and governance and deliver watershed management programs and services that
respond to the needs of our local community.
The proposed consolidation into seven regional conservation authorities would merge a large geographic area with drastically
different watershed characteristics, municipal planning priorities, flood infrastructure profiles, ecological conditions, and
development pressures under a single agency. The proposed consolidation raises many concerns including:
• Loss of local autonomy, accountability, engagement and transparency
• Loss of local governance
• Fair and equitable governance representation
• Loss of effective and efficient decision making
• Loss of effective local customer service
• Shift in governance from local based to large regional and provincial based.
• Loss of financial reserves for local priorities
• The need to retain independent corporations to ensure no loss of donated land assets
• Financial cost of consolidation transition
• Complexity of managing seven watersheds with distinct and unique characteristics and needs
• Loss of local technical capacity through dispersal
• Weakening well-functioning systems through administrative complexity and diluted oversight
• Significant operational disruptions, impacting our ability to provide timely decisions
Rationale for Pausing Proposed Consolidation
CLOCA recognizes the importance of modernization and supports efforts to enhance both efficiency and environmental
protection across the province. A system that delivers services more consistently, transparently, and predictably will benefi t
municipalities, developers, and communities alike, particularly as Ontario continues to grow and climate-related risks intensify.
The creation of the OPCA aims to provide centralized leadership, efficient governance, and strategic direction for all
conservation authorities. OPCA can help ensure faster, more consistent permitting and provide the oversight needed to align
conservation authorities with modern standards and best practices.
Cont’d
Page 179
FILE: ACAF54 December 16, 2025
S.R.: 5962-25
The objects of the OPCA address the same objects of consolidation such that , if the OPCA is successful in achieving its goals
the need for consolidation is either diminished or eliminated. Further, the OPCA can achieve the goals of consolidation without
the risk of destabilization and disruption of service that can result in counter productivity. As a result, it is recommended that
the proposal for consolidation be paused until the first term of the OPCA has been completed. Following the first term, a nee ds
assessment for consolidation should be revisited.
The proposed consolidation would create a large watershed management unit consisting of different watershed
characteristics, municipal planning priorities, and development pressures under a single agency and risks outcomes that are
counter productive to the province’s objectives. Consideration should be given to alterative consolidation models that could
deliver better outcomes such as:
• the consolidation on a smaller more effective scale and size such as consolidation of two neighboring conservation
authorities having similar watershed conditions. This would still result in efficiencies and capacity building but would
limit service disruptions and maintain local autonomy and relationships.
• consolidation of only those conservation authorities that don’t have the capacity to undertake critical natural hazard
management programs
• consolidation of one or two conservation authorities as a case study prior to implementing consolidation province
wide
• using a voluntary consolidation process like the public health unit consolidation process that involved an expert panel
to examine challenges and make recommendations regarding organizational structure, governance and integration
Consideration of consolidation should be paused to allow for meaningful engagement and a cost -benefit analysis of alternative
consolidation models.
Consolidation of such a large scale will bring many logistical and administrative challenges disruptions such as:
• harmonizing accounting and financial systems, human resource policies, and health and safety practices and policies
• different IT systems, and integrating them requires careful assessment and planning and often upgrades to IT
infrastructure, all of which takes time and financial resources
• transfer of assists that have conditions attached in favour of local conservation authorities
These challenges will result in significant disruptions that will take staff resources away from the delivery of critical of natural
hazard and heritage management responsibilities. Consolidation should be paused to ensure that these challenges are
addressed prior to consolidation.
Responses to Questions posed in ERO Posting 025-1257
The ERO notice proposing the consolidation contains 5 specific questions relating to the transition into regional conservation
authorities, governance considerations, and approaches to ensure strong relationships with municipalities and communities
within the new structure. The responses to the questions contained in Attachment 3 are based on a number of fundamental
principles of effective watershed management such as:
• Local municipal representation and local watershed scale decision-making are essential to effective natural hazard
management and local accountability
• Local governance, autonomy, accountability and local relationships
• Partnership with local municipal partners, the development community, and landowners with timely, reliable service
• Enhancing the economic, environmental, and community health of the watershed
• Providing meaningful opportunities for people to connect with nature
• Effective and adaptable organizations that meet the demands of a rapidly growing region.
Should the government decide to proceed with consolidation, the ERO responses contained in Attachment 3 provide
recommendations aimed at mitigating the identified risks and concerns .
Cont’d
Page 180
FILE: ACAF54 December 16, 2025
S.R.: 5962-25
RECOMMENDATIONS:
WHEREAS the Province of Ontario has posted Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) Posting #025-1257 proposing
the consolidation of Ontario’s 36 Conservation Authorities into 7 Regional Conservation Authorities;
WHEREAS the proposed Eastern Lake Ontario Regional Conservation Authority would consolidate Central Lake
Ontario with Kawartha Region, Otonobee Region, Ganaraska Region, Lower Trent Region, Crowe Valley CA, Quinte
Region Conservation Authority’s, resulting in significant changes to governance, service delivery, financial
structures, land management, and municipal oversight;
WHEREAS the proposed consolidation raises substantial concerns and risks related to local decision -making
authority, municipal representation, transition funding, asset ownership, service disruption and the protection of
local programs;
WHEREAS there is a need for meaningful consultation and engagement with stakeholders to address identified
concerns and risks of the proposed consolidation;
WHEREAS the objects of the Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency (OPCA) can accomplish the same goals and
objectives of consolidation of conservation authorities without service disruption and interference that will come
with consolidation;
WHEREAS there is a need to undertake a full cost-benefit analysis of alternative consolidation models;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the CLOCA Board of Directors requests the Province of Ontario to pause any
decision to consolidate conservation authorities to allow:
• the OPCA to completed it first 3-year term and a subsequent assessment of the need for consolidation
• for meaningful engagement needed to address the concerns and risks of the proposed consolidation
• for the review of alternative consolidation models and processes that would result in better outcomes
THAT the commentary in Staff Report #5962-25 and Attachment 3 be endorsed and submitted to the Province of
Ontario as CLOCA’s comments regarding Environmental Registry Posting 025-1257;
THAT the resolution be forwarded to all municipalities within CLOCAs watershed;
Attach. 1 Map of proposed consolidation
2 Map of proposed Eastern Lake Ontario Regional Conservation Authority
3 Response to ERO Notice 025-1257
CD/lv
s:\reports\2025\sr5962-25.docx
Page 181
Maps
Map of Proposed Regional Conservation Authorities
Attachment 1
Page 182
Map of Proposed Eastern Lake Ontario Regional Conservation Authority
Attachment 2
Page 183
Responses to Questions posed in ERO Posting 025-1257
What do you see as key factors to support a successful transition and outcome of regional
conservation authority consolidation?
•Consideration of consolidation should be paused to allow for a measured approach with
meaningful engagement. Engagement should include
o a cost benefit analysis of alternative consolidation models that could have better
outcomes such as:
▪the consolidation on a smaller more effective scale and size of two neighboring
conservation authorities having similar watershed conditions, such as CLOCA and
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. This would still result in efficiencies
and capacity building but would limit service disruptions and maintain local
autonomy and relationships.
▪consolidation of only those conservation authorities that don’t have the capacity to
undertake critical natural hazard management programs
▪consolidation of one or two conservation authorities as a case study prior to
implementing consolidation province wide
▪using a voluntary consolidation process similar to the public health unit
consolidation process that involved an expert panel to examine challenges and
make recommendations regarding organizational structure, governance and
integration.
▪Establishment of regional conservation authority service corporations that could
be separate not-for-profit corporations which could provide regional wide
corporate service functions such as finance, IT, and HR support.
•Maintain local governance, autonomy, accountability and local relationships by:
o maintaining existing conservation authority administration offices staff to ensure
accessibility, effective customer service and continuity, local science-based decision-
making, deep knowledge of local properties, issues and preservation of staff relationships
with local municipalities and stakeholders.
o Retaining the responsibility for planning advice (development planning) and regulation
administration, including permit decisions with staff in local administration offices and
local boards where local expertise exists, and informed decisions can be made.
o maintaining local watershed boards that would provide advice and recommendations to
regional boards on matters related to budgeting, and the provision of program and
services that meet the needs of the local community , including oversight of local
development planning and regulation matters
•Province must fund all costs associated with consolidation. The cost of implementing
consolidation not be financed by diverting funding away from the implementation of critical
watershed management programs and services.
•The OPCA must provide:
o a transition plan that includes guidance from experts having experience in consolidations.
o a communication plan that proves information to all stakeholders on the transition process
and any changes in governance and responsibilities
Attachment 3
Page 184
•Consideration must be given to protecting watershed reserves and land assets. Protective
measures are required to ensure that conservation authority resources and assets are
maintained as intended, such as land donations that include an agreement that the property will
remain in the ownership of the current named conservation authority . The Conservation
Authorities Act should include a reference that the current entities (i.e. Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority) are continued under the new name of the consolidated conservation
authority.
•The Conservation Authorities Act should be amended to remove the provision allowing for the
dissolution of conservation authorities. The proposed changes may not be well received by
some municipalities and consolidation must not result in a loss of the important watershed
management services.
•Restore conservation ability to provide land use planning natural heritage technical advice to
municipal partners based on a willing municipality model. This will support faster development
approvals.
•Ensure consolidation transition timing aligns with the necessary budgeting consultations
between conservation authorities and municipalities.
•The OPCA has the ability to levy funding from conservation authorities. Levying conservation
authorities should only occur once financial savings have been realized from the work achieved
by the OPCA and the levy amount should not exceed the financial savings . The OPCA should
also be accountable to the conservation authority by reporting annually on outcomes of the levy
support.
What opportunities or benefits may come from a regional conservation authority framework?
NOTE: The following benefits can be achieved through OCA objects as well.
•Improved capacity of smaller conservation authorities that lack sufficient capacity to effectively
carry out mandated programs. However, consolidation risks weakening well -functioning
systems through administrative complexity and diluted oversight. Increasing capacity of smaller
conservation authorities must not come at the cost of diminishing capacity of other conservation
authorities.
•Greater consistency in policies, standards, fees and service delivery levels (OPCA can also
address this). However, the object of achieving consistency must recognize the needs for some
variability to address the diversity in watershed characteristics.
•Consolidation of IT systems, GIS data bases could result in economies of scale and faster and
more informed decision. Implementation of universal permitting content management /GIS
platform can modernize service delivery. CLOCA has developed a Conservation Authority
Content Management System that is currently being used by a number of conservation
authorities and could be further developed and deployed.
•Well-functioning conservation authorities have the technical knowledge and methodologies that
can be leveraged across the regional conservation authorities to elevate Integrated Watershed
Management programs and services in smaller conservation authority jurisdictions. This could
result in more robust/consistent publicly accessible data sets across the province and reduce
the development communities’ reliance on high-cost consultant generated information.
Attachment 3
Page 185
However, increasing capacity of smaller conservation authorities must not come at the cost of
diminishing capacity of other well-functioning conservation authorities.
•With a more consistent approach to integrated watershed management being employed across
the province, conservation authorities would be best positioned to role out provincially funded
conservation programs to implement high-value conservation projects that align with provincial
interests (for example, increasing access to the Wetland Conservation Partnership Program and
the Species Conservation Fund). This would reduce the time spent by CAs competing for
available funding and instead focusing on generatin g significant results in faster timelines.
Prioritizing CAs for this existing provincial funding would effectively increase RCA operation
budgets at no additional cost to the province.
Do you have suggestions for how governance could be structured at the regional conservation
authority level, including suggestions around board size, make -up and the municipal
representative appointment process?
•Board membership size needs to be small enough to allow for effective deliberation and
decision-making. Currently the seven conservation authorities included in the proposed eastern
consolidation have a total of 85 Board Members – far too many to effectively govern.
•A tiered governance structure should be implemented. Maintenance of a local boards is needed
to ensure local accountability and relationships at a manageable and reasonable scale for
efficient and effective representation and administration. The local board could include a higher
percentage of non-elected officials than what is currently prescribed in the CA ACT and be
responsible for providing advice and recommendations to a regional board on matters related
to budgeting, and the provision of program and services that meet the needs of the local
community, including oversight of local development planning and regulation matters. This
tiered system would support greater consistency, centralized leadership, economies of scale,
while enabling strong, local governance that facilitates effective and efficient watershed
management.
•In such a tiered structure, consideration should be given to a regional board made up of the
Chairs from the various local boards (with an appointed alternate). Consideration should be
given to the allowance of one or two additional Boa rd Members to ensure representation is
commensurate with funding obligations. The regional board would be responsible for budget
approval, Corporate Strategic Planning, S. 28 hearings, Corporate Services, CAO staffing
decisions, policy and guidance approval, and overall governance authority.
•Maintain local municipal service agreements so that locally funded initiatives—such as land
acquisition, land management, trail maintenance, restoration projects, or capital works remain
under local control and not be redirected without municipal consent.
•To ensure continuity and retention of institutional knowledge of large consolidation organization,
the Conservation Authorities Act should be amended to allow for Chairs of a regional board to
set for a 2- year term with an option of another additional 2-years.
Attachment 3
Page 186
Do you have suggestions on how to maintain a transparent and consultative budgeting process
across member municipalities within a regional conservation authority?
•Maintain local boards so that they can provide budgetary advice to a regional board on local
watershed management needs.
•Consideration should be given to establishing upper-tier municipalities as participating
municipalities under the Conservation Authorities Act.
•Maintain current process of transparent draft budget preparation and consultation with
participating municipalities including a 5-year budget forecast.
•Requirements for annual report to be circulated to member municipalities
How can regional conservation authorities maintain and strengthen relationships with local
communities and stakeholders
•
•
•
•
Attachment 3
Page 187