Comments

View the comments this notice received through the registry. You can either download them all or search and sort below.

Some comments will not be posted online. Learn more about the comment status and our comment and privacy policies.

Download comments

Search comments

Comment ID

81691

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Overdevelopment and inappropriate development, including that on flood plains, led to major flooding and property damage in the 50's and 60's. We learned something from that, and we established science-based organisations to regulate human deveopment in key areas: Conservation Authorities. Read more

Comment ID

81698

Commenting on behalf of

South Shore Joint Initiative

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
The Prince Edward County South Shore Joint Initiative strongly opposes the proposed changes to the definition of watercourses and the 30m setback from wetlands. We support the objections made by Quinte Conservation and the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists. Read more

Comment ID

81702

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I firmly oppose any changes that reduce the protections for wetlands, surface waterways, underground waters and any other natural areas that are labelled as 'hazards' or otherwise. Read more

Comment ID

81722

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
In a time when we are seeing increasing severe weather, effects of climate change, environmental degradation, and species and habitat loss, the need has never been greater to have conservation authorities on the job. Read more

Comment ID

81728

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
The proposed changes to the Conservation Authority Act are simply another demonstration of this governments total disregard for our environment. Bill 23 must be repealed before more damage is done to our environment and surrounding communities. Read more

Comment ID

81733

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Do these plans/policies remove land from the existing or former Greenbelt for development? Do these plans destroy wetland for development? If yes then I would like to register my opposition to the policy/ plan with this comment. Read more

Comment ID

81755

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
CA have too much authority...... Crowe Valley Conservation Authority in particular. I am all in favor of regulations however they need to be enforced in a timely and professional manor. Read more

Comment ID

81758

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Creating a single provincial regulation that ensures clear and consistent requirements across all conservation authorities while addressing local differences is valuable, however, I have several major concerns about the proposed changes described in the consultation guide. Read more

Comment ID

81764

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
As a farmer, I welcome any changes to the CA act regulations that currently restrict farmers from bringing new land into production, or prevent us from maintaining our existing drainage systems. Currently "development activities" is intended to prevent building in a wetland. Read more

Comment ID

81767

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
This is yet another unnecessary and dangerous legislative endeavour. The premise that this legislation will get "more Homes Built Faster" is false, with no hard evidence to support its efficacy. Read more

Comment ID

81779

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
The assertion that the revised regulation of development would offer adequate protection from natural hazards in Ontario rests on the dubious premise that neither the frequency nor the severity of such natural hazards will increase as a result of the proposed updates. Read more

Comment ID

81785

Commenting on behalf of

The Corporation of the Township of Perth South

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Comments in regards to Proposed Updates to the Regulation of Development for the protection of people and property from natural hazards in Ontario Read more

Comment ID

81803

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I am concerned that there is no mention of pollution or land conservation in these proposed changes and that there is no definition for a provincially significant wetland. 30 Meters is too small for provincially significant wetlands. Its not clear what low risk activities are. Read more

Comment ID

81805

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
With all due respect, Bill 23 threatens wildlife in Ontario! Bill 23 and other proposed legislative and policy changes would affect natural heritage conservation, urban and rural land-use planning, and environmental protections through multiple and complex changes to: Read more