This a case both of over-reach; and a failure to be persuasive by outlining/discussing real concerns.
Conservation authorities by definition manage large swaths of natural heritage lands (forests/wetlands/waterways etc.)
Those stretched mandates that are directly related to managing said lands, such as invasive species control, promoting biodiversity, conducting/facilitating research on the function and health of said lands, reforestation, recreation of wetlands and the like should absolutely be maintained, made part of core mandates and funded appropriately.
That said, there are some over-reaches that could and probably should be, dialed back.
Looking at the TRCA, it has the Living City program which is about everything from energy conservation to sustainable building materials to green energy which to me really does over-reach their mandate.
It soaks up dollars that could be redirected to naturalization efforts and/or land acquisition
There is some other room for trimming too, though I would favour reinvesting those dollars back into what I see as core mandates rather than assuming a net savings.
Instead of narrowly focusing on promoting some improved efficiency and reprioritization of resources.........they wander off on a seemingly ideological tangent that makes no particular sense. Sigh