Where is the evidence that a…

Where is the evidence that a merger is needed?
The Province plan notes that a regional approach is required to address inefficiency and streamline permit approvals but doesn’t provide details on where existing CAs are falling short. Before embarking on an expensive merger, I believe we should first establish what (if any) are the current issues and try to correct them within the existing organizational structure (if any correction is required). Change on this scale is rarely simple and never easy, to be successful it requires a level of thought and planning not evident in this proposal.

Local decision-making will be harder to maintain.
Currently, Hamilton and Puslinch fund approximately 35% of HCA’s work and have a direct say in watershed decisions. The Province contributes less than 1%. In a 28-municipality organization, our local voice will carry less weight, but municipalities will still be funding the work. We, the taxpayers, will be expected to foot the bill but have little to no representation in the decision-making process.

Mergers are expensive, and there’s no funding plan.
Bringing together conservation lands, visitor services, memberships, staff structures, and IT systems would be a major undertaking. The Province has not explained who will pay for these costs or how combining the systems will save money down the line. A government proposal without a business plan or a funding model is not democracy at work, it is pollical doctrine driven either by dogma or ulterior motives.

HCA already provides efficient, reliable service.
In 2024, we processed 94% of major permits on time, meeting or exceeding provincial expectations. The focus should be on improving resources where needed, not reorganizing authorities that already perform well. The existing conservation authorities have managed the water table efficiently for decades, what is the motivation for change?

Strong conservation depends on local relationships.
For more than six decades, HCA’s conservation efforts have been supported by deep, local partnerships with municipalities, community groups, landowners, volunteers, foundations, and Indigenous partners. A larger, more removed agency could erode the local collaboration that makes conservation effective. Local knowledge will be lost, with the local taxpayers both funding this folly and suffering the consequences of any resulting flooding.

Key details remain unknown.
Governance, costs, timing, staffing, land management, branding, and community impact have not been explained, which leaves the potential effects of the merger uncertain.