I'm no expert, but it sounds…

I'm no expert, but it sounds like some of these proposed 'updates' to the conservation authorities act would make it harder for the conservation authorities to oversee building activity and also allow it to be easier to build on potential riparian areas. I am against these changes for those reasons. The changing of the term 'watercourse' from identifiable depression to a defined stream or creek has the great possibility of removing riparian ( sometimes under water but mostly not) areas from protection. Water travels in depressions, that is how those depressions were formed in the first place in most cases. By limiting the definition of a watercourse to somewhere where water already is, it is removing the protection around the upper end of the headwaters- where water may flow in wet seasons and rains to collect in the areas where water is more clearly defined.
Stream-lining approvals for 'low risk activities' is a dangerous game. Who gets to define 'low-risk'? is it the development industry? Most of these changes the government has made in the last 6 months seem to be tailored specifically towards this industry and I would be very concerned with what they, or the current government, define as 'low risk'. These changes must be rooted in science, and they must favour conservation over short-term industry gain.
Why you would want to limit the conditions under which a conservation authority may attach to a permit seems funny to me. Why would you want to limit the conditions under which a conservation authority can conserve the environment?

I do not trust that the Doug Ford government has the interests of the public as foremost in their minds in all of these pro-development changes as of late. I believe these changes are being made in the interest of the development industry, with a few wealthy stakeholders able to lobby the government for these changes, primarily benefitting.