Consistent standards and…

Consistent standards and resource sharing for Conservation Authority (CA) activities such as mapping, development processes, etc. may be positive outcomes of Bill 68. However, Category 3 programs are often very localized concerns of small scale and it may not be efficient, or effective to have decisions for these programs made by the new, larger CA organizations proposed in Bill 68. Implementing a large, complex layer of bureaucracy may not be well matched to the types of decisions regularly needed for Category 3 programs, which have similarities to typical municipal services. Category 3 programs are funded by their local users and should have appropriate localized decision/management structures. It could be difficult for decision makers (eg. board members) of a larger organization to have sufficient understanding Category 3 programs and to make well informed decisions.

Possible improvements to Bill 68 could include; Implementing sub-committees, or similar structures with localized representation for Category 3 programs and/or increasing staff decision making responsibility. These proposals could allow decisions to be made more effectively, quickly, efficiently and avoid taking focus from important Category 1 strategic decision making. Careful consideration would be needed as some Category 3 items may benefit from scale. eg. curriculum, communications development.

Amalgamating some CAs, particularly smaller CAs to ensure reasonable scale, may make sense, particularly for Category 1 programs. The proposed CA organizations are extremely large and the province has implemented a new layer of bureaucracy above CAs. I fear the current proposed changes in Bill 68 may cause outcomes at odds with the rationale for Bill 68's changes.