I see the posting about the…

I see the posting about the erroneous inclusion on multiple Conservation Authorities in larger areas. That is indicative of the haste that results in this proposal which is erroneous in all ways.
1. There is no need for the forced amalgamation of the Conservation Authorities.
2. There is no evidence that forced amalgamation of businesses or social organizations results in improvements in service.
3. There is no argument for the reduction of local knowledge in better planning.
4. There is no public appetite for another layer bureaucracy with less accountability to the people.
Rather, this whole venture seems to be
1. An error from the start, disguised as a map in one place, buried in a massive bill elsewhere.
2. A violation of process, lacking consultation, clear evidence and/or questions
3. An affront to the municipalities whose financial contributions sustain Conservation Authorities
4. An example of overreach by a provincial government out of touch with the public
5. A worsening of land and watershed planning
6. A path to catastrophic flooding and the loss of human lives (if construction on floodplains continues)
7. An opportunity for the public to entirely lose faith in the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, the minister in charge of it, the cabinet and the government they are part of .
A full public discussion, focussed though not limited by at thoughtful Green Paper, and broad (respectful) consultations are needed if there are to be changes to Conservation Authorities.