I have serious concerns…

I have serious concerns about this proposed amalgamation, starting with the fact that the Bill that enabled this proposed restructuring was pushed through without any consultation. That is not democracy.

Furthermore, the provided information states:
"No changes would be proposed to the overall extent of conservation authority jurisdiction within the province, and under consolidation the new regional conservation authorities would remain independent organizations operating with municipal governance and oversight, in accordance with requirements under the Conservation Authorities Act, as administered by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. In addition, the important work that conservation authorities do to protect people and property from the risks of flooding and other natural hazards will not change. The regional conservation authorities would continue to fulfill provincially mandated programs such as drinking water source protection under the Clean Water Act, regulating, development and other activities in areas at risk of natural hazards like flooding and erosion (e.g. floodplains, shorelines, watercourse and wetlands), flood forecasting and warning, and managing their lands and recreational trails so that Ontarians have access to local natural areas and outdoor activities.Regional conservation authorities would continue to provide municipal and other watershed programs and services set out under the Conservation Authorities Act, such as tree planting, data collection, restoration and other integrated watershed management activities that enhance the resilience of local watersheds and educate and engage local communities."

Based on the above, what actual changes are being proposed in how the CA's are being run? The only mention in the document states the proposed amalgamation would "reduce duplicative administrative fees" However, there is no objective data providing documentation as to the variation in fees, turnaround times on permit approvals, etc, so then what is the expected savings? What is in place to be able to objectively state that this potential amalgamation is "successful" (should it go through)? Not to mention, the amount of time and money spent restructuring in order to be able to reduce "administrative fees" may end up making this more expensive rather than saving costs. It should be mentioned that the potential job loss for "duplicate" roles could leave many CA's with insufficient levels of staff to be able to perform their stated duties. What is the plan for this? How would these regional authorities prioritize staffing across these areas? Is part of the discrepancy in fees / permits not due to the operating costs of CA's? If this was to be "streamlined", could this not seriously impair the ability of the CA to be able to properly function, leaving environmental areas susceptible & the people who live in these areas (especially those in either prime real estate locations or incredibly sensitive areas with endangered / at risk species)?. The list of questions goes on.

I think the following statement (from the document) sums up what this is really about..."this has led to unpredictable and inconsistent turnaround times for approvals across all conservation authorities, creating uncertainty and delays for builders, landowners and farmers seeking permits..." I must again ask, where is the objective data showing that this is a concern? What is the current turnaround for these permits? What conservation authority(s) is struggling with these timelines? What have they done to address this? Has it been successful? Without providing any data, we are just expected to take someone's word for it that it's a "problem"? Show us proof. Show us it is an actual problem rather than a hypothetical issue that nods to more of the same when it comes to the Premier's previous track record with environmental projects (Greenbelt scandal).

And on that note, what safeguards are going to be put in place to ensure the protection of the environment & fragile ecosystems over political favours?

As it stands, this proposed amalgamation stinks. It has been pushed through and no objective data has been provided to prove that the "problems" are actually an issue or just words someone is using to push through an agenda. And I for one, can't help but ask, is this really just another way for favours to be exchanged more easily in the name of "savings" and "efficiency"? We deserve better.