I am writing to express my…

I am writing to express my support for the Hamilton Conservation Authority’s (HCA) submission and my opposition to the Province’s proposed conservation authority merger.

HCA serves the City of Hamilton and the Township of Puslinch, managing a 570-square-kilometre watershed that supports approximately 650,000 people and includes 11,744 acres of conservation lands. These lands are essential to our local recreation, environmental health, and quality of life. HCA also plays a critical role in reviewing development applications, issuing permits, and protecting people, property, and infrastructure from flooding, erosion, and other natural hazards.

Because this work directly affects our community, I believe decisions about how our lands and waters are managed must remain grounded in local priorities and local knowledge. The proposed merger would shift funding and decision-making to a much larger regional authority. My concern is that as governance becomes more centralized, it will be harder to protect local interests and ensure that community voices remain central to decisions that directly affect us.

I do not support the proposed merger for several reasons:

First, the Province has not provided clear evidence demonstrating why this merger is necessary. While the proposal suggests that a regional approach is needed to address inefficiencies and streamline permitting, no data has been shared to show where existing conservation authorities are underperforming. Issues such as inconsistent service or outdated systems could be addressed without restructuring the entire conservation system.

Second, local decision-making would be significantly weakened. Currently, Hamilton and Puslinch fund approximately 35% of HCA’s operations and have direct input into watershed decisions, while the Province contributes less than 1%. In a merged authority representing 28 municipalities, our local voice would carry far less weight, even though municipalities would continue to fund much of the work.

Third, mergers are costly, and there is no clear funding plan. Integrating conservation lands, visitor services, staffing, governance, memberships, and IT systems would be complex and expensive. The Province has not explained who would cover these transition costs or how long-term savings would be achieved.

Fourth, HCA already provides efficient and reliable service. In 2024, HCA processed 94% of major permits on time, meeting or exceeding provincial expectations. Rather than reorganizing high-performing authorities, the focus should be on supporting and resourcing them appropriately.

Fifth, effective conservation depends on strong local relationships. For more than six decades, HCA has built trusted partnerships with municipalities, landowners, community organizations, volunteers, foundations, and Indigenous partners. A larger, more remote agency risks eroding the local collaboration that is essential to successful conservation outcomes.

Finally, many key details remain unclear, including governance structures, costs, timelines, staffing impacts, land management practices, branding, and community impacts. Moving forward without this information creates unnecessary risk for both communities and the environment.

Instead of pursuing a merger, I believe Ontario would achieve better outcomes by setting clear and consistent provincial standards for all conservation authorities, investing in shared technology within the existing system, providing stable provincial funding to strengthen core programs, and meaningfully engaging municipalities, Indigenous partners, conservation authorities, and residents before making major structural changes.

For these reasons, I urge the Province to reconsider the proposed merger and to maintain conservation decision-making that is rooted in local knowledge, accountability, and community priorities.