-There are better ways to…

-There are better ways to standardize processes and gain efficiencies across the system
without the costs and disruption that would be caused by mergers. It will be less costly and less
risky to improve what exists.
-The costs of consolidation to taxpayers are unacceptable. Taxpayers do not want to
foot the bill for this plan that they did not ask for and that will only lead to a decline of important
functions and services on which they rely.
- Creating another level of bureaucracy is inefficient and its creation adds costs to over
burdened taxpayers. There is no reason to create an Agency to achieve the objectives the
government has outlined. And, while they will have to bear the costs, local citizens, and their elected representatives, will now have virtually no say on how CAs operate in their area.
-The purpose of the Bill is counter to the core mandate of Conservation Authorities. The government should not be compromising public safety and ignoring serious economic losses by pressuring CAs to focus on facilitating development over their core mandate.
-The areas covered by the current Conservation Authorities are right-sized. Local knowledge will be diluted. Management of such vast geographical areas will be difficult. Connections to critical, local community partners will be fractured as the centre of decision making moves to distant CA headquarters and a provincial agency.
-The consolidation lessens local decision-making, accountability and transparency. Transparency will be lost as local governments and their citizens will be in the dark about how the Agency makes decisions that have a profound impact on their communities. This is simply not acceptable.
7. This proposal is Ministerial Overreach. The advice of local experts with deep technical knowledge should not allowed to be overridden by an elected official with no expertise!!!!!
- Do not implement Bill 68