The ‘one size fits all’…

The ‘one size fits all’ approach is simply wrong. As the late Hazel McCallion would say “do your homework folks”.
I submit the following comments -
- Could a few CAs benefit from mergers? Yes. It would help with resources and capacity for small rural underfunded CAs.
- Would all CAs benefit from mergers? No. You also need to consider population density (a rural county like Perth is not the same as an urban city like Burlington).
- If you have too many priorities, you end up having no priorities. CAs are watershed based organizations, having 25 or 30 watersheds under a merged CA is not an improvement over a CA that has oversight of a few watersheds.
- Merger will improve efficiency. No. If that was true the City of Toronto would not have a budget shortfall like it does every year since amalgamation, asking for provincial bailouts year after year. Bigger is not better.
- CAs should be consistent. Yes. Regulatory changes implemented by this government are accomplishing this objective successfully already.
- Governance. Municipalities fund CAs. They have a voice. Mass scale mergers will severely weaken the local municipal voice with merged CAs covering the geography of 20, 30, 40 or more municipalities. If local tax dollars fund CAs local officials have a seat at the board - full stop. Governance will be a disaster.
- Role of CAs. Stop listening to BILD and a few developers with access to this government. CAs don’t slow development, CAs ensure houses are not built where floods happen or in environmental sensitive areas. The role of CAs is essential and must be strengthened not weakened.
Conclusion -
The proposed change is a solution that will create many more problems than it purports to solve. Your timeline of one year is arbitrary and if you want meaningful change take the time to get it right.