Thank you for the chance to…

Thank you for the chance to comment on this issue. The proposal is very complex and deserves a close review of all possible consequences. Unfortunately, the presented 'solution' looks like a first draft to solve only one problem. Perhaps 36 CA's is too many and some of the problems identified are genuine. However, the proposed move to only seven regional CA's will not work well for the four largest proposed regions due to the very large distances involved and the diversity of issues. Talk to the folks who work there to find out what a typical day looks like for various staff positions. There is no magic one-size-fits-all solution. If the provincial population density was totally uniform and geography did not change, etc. then it would be easy to impose one solution based on area, population, budget or such. However, this is the real world and the CA's will differ from each other.

I would suggest that the minimum number of CA's should be 12. This breaks Huron-Superior into three and the other supersize regions in half (sketch attached). I have done this along the lines of the existing CA's. I think the number should be more like 18 to 24 (or even 36).