To whom it may concern, I am…

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to express strong opposition to Bill 68 (Plan to Protect Ontario Act, 2025) and in particular its plan to amalgamate Ontario’s 36 local conservation authorities (CAs) into just seven regional bodies, overseen by the newly created Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency (OPCA).

First, there is no convincing evidence that local conservation authorities are failing in their duty, or that residents are being harmed by “lack of service” or delays in perm it approvals. For example, the Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA) — which serves Hamilton and Puslinch — recently noted that they processed 94% of major permits on time in 2024. If a CA already meets or exceeds service standards, it is unclear what problem the government is purporting to solve.

Second, the proposed consolidation will result in a severe loss of local voice and accountability. Local conservation authorities have deep, decades-long relationships with municipalities, residents, landowners, Indigenous partners, and volunteers — relationships that are rooted in local knowledge of watersheds, land use, flood risks, and ecological conditions.

Under the proposed regional model, a single board could represent dozens of municipalities across vast and ecologically diverse watersheds. As documented by several CAs, this will dilute local decision-making, weaken municipal partnership, and make governance more remote and bureaucratic.

Third, merging the system will likely undermine decades of conservation successes — including flood control infrastructure, watershed protections, habitat restoration, tree-planting, and community-based stewardship plans. For instance, across Ontario’s CAs there are billions of dollars in flood-control infrastructure, thousands of kilometres of trails, and programs that plant over a million trees annually. Replacing this local, dedicated stewardship with a large, centralized agency risks losing the specificity, responsiveness, and local buy-in that made these successes possible.

Fourth, the government has not provided a credible funding or cost-saving plan, or any clear analysis of the transition costs. As noted by HCA, merging lands, staffing, governance, IT systems, and memberships will be a major undertaking — yet there is no explanation of who will cover these costs or how the merger would result in long-term savings or service improvements.

Finally, rather than dismantling a working conservation system, the government should focus on strengthening and supporting existing CAs — by providing stable funding, equipping them with modern tools, shared databases, and ensuring consistent provincial standards where helpful. Many of the objectives of Bill 68 (efficiency, consistency, better data) could be achieved without eliminating the local, watershed-based governance that has served residents and the environment well for decades.

For these reasons, I urge the government to reject the proposed consolidation under Bill 68, and instead commit to supporting and investing in the existing network of conservation authorities to preserve local accountability, environmental protection, and community-based stewardship for generations to come.

Thank you for considering my submission.