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

80859

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Ontario"s heritage is important to all who live here. Our heritage buildings and areas should be preserved and additional mechanisms enhanced. Protection of heritage buildings and areas should be enshrined and enhanced. Read more

Comment ID

80864

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I am opposed to this new legislation, as I fear that we will lose an important part of our heritage if it is enacted. Over the years, we have lost so much of our built heritage to make way for new construction etc. It is so important that we have these historical reminders of our past. Read more

Comment ID

80867

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Bill 23 only serves big business and big politicians. The faster homes will not be affordable, heritage homes will be knocked down, natural resources will be stripped, and towns and cities/towns will not recieve money needed to provide infrastructure and resources for the people moving in. Read more

Comment ID

80905

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
It is unclear how the proposed changes will help create more affordable or attainable housing. It is clear, however, that the changes threaten our heritage. Read more

Comment ID

80920

Commenting on behalf of

Greater Ottawa Home Builders' Association

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Paula Kulpa Heritage Branch Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism 400 University Avenue, 5th Floor Toronto, ON M7A 2R9 Dear Ms. Kulpa, Read more

Comment ID

80930

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I am very concerned that the government has decided it is necessary to threaten heritage protection of buildings in order to build new housing. It seems like an unnecessary and draconian wiping away of any impediment to developers putting up giant new condos. Read more

Comment ID

80933

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
These changes are selling our Heritage and the understanding of our past to developers. There is no need to destroy these select properties to create more housing. This will be a shadow on the conservative party for years. It will not be forgotten. One x conservative.

Comment ID

80935

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
In my view the Greenbelt is an important piece of our heritage so it ought to be protected from development. Of particular concern is the parcel identified on Map 6 of the proposed amendments. It is west of Duffins Creek nearby Seaton Trail in Rouge Park. Read more

Comment ID

80952

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I find it cynical in the extreme to use our urgent need for affordable housing as the vehicle by which to enrich property developers and land speculators. Read more

Comment ID

80963

Commenting on behalf of

South Shore Joint Initiative

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
The South Shore Joint Initiative of Prince Edward County has cultural heritage as part of its mandate to protect the South Shore of Prince Edward County. In this capacitiy we fully support the comments of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario reproduced here. Read more

Comment ID

80969

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
This is another populistic measure that doesn’t have anything common with a real ‘problems solving’. So typical for modern Canada, when governments do what is easier to do, but not what can or/and will work.

Comment ID

80989

Commenting on behalf of

Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals, Indigenous Heritage Circle, ICOMOS Canada, and National Trust for Canada

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
On behalf of Canada’s four national heritage conservation NGOs – Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals, Indigenous Heritage Circle, ICOMOS Canada, and National Trust for Canada – we would like to express our grave concerns about the potentially devastating impacts the proposed changes to th Read more

Comment ID

81003

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Today, people travel the world to see major heritage buildings and landscapes. People travel locally, to historic district for a variety of shopping, service and entertainment reasons. Read more

Comment ID

81005

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I have read the proposal, and I am dismayed at the regressive nature of this effort to impact and reduce the efficacy of Ontario's highly regarded and effective heritage legislation. Read more

Comment ID

81012

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
In general, this proposal to changes to the OHA is confusing and convoluted. If this truly applies to provincially owned and culturally significant buildings, then the MCM would be the ultimate decision-maker. Read more

Comment ID

81020

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
RE: The proposed introduction of enabling legislative authority that provides that the process for identifying provincial heritage properties under the S&Gs may permit the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism to review, confirm and revise, the determination of cultural heritage value or inte Read more

Comment ID

81022

Commenting on behalf of

Township of Puslinch

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Whereas Puslinch Council remains significantly concerned with the legislative changes in Bill 23, in addition to comments previously submitted by Puslinch Council, Council resolved as follows; Puslinch Council submits the following additional formal comments: Read more