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

183047

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
It's unclear why a property inspection (formerly an option during Stage 1 assessment) to confirm current conditions within a project area, which assists in evaluating and determining archaeological potential, has been move to a Stage 2 activity. Read more

Comment ID

183081

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
The current requirements for receiving an archaeological license are exclusionary of academics whose field experience and expertise different from CRM; the language of the bulletin does not even account for or include them, presenting archaeology as a static resource rather than the cultural belongi Read more

Comment ID

183095

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
The need to overhaul and update the archaeology act is needed : Unfortunately this Act totally fails to address right of private property ownership - especially lands owned fee simple - and the alternative land ownership, which are Crown Lands. Read more

Comment ID

183121

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Is private property Ceded Land? If so then how can a Native Land claim for a archaeological dig be valid. More over who ever is claiming interest should also pay for what ever kind of assessment that is being done. Read more

Comment ID

183142

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Unbelievable... So you didn't listen to a single thing from First Nations or the folks who actually work in this industry. You are creating more bureaucracy and red tape! This will slow everything down. Just wait and see. Good luck on Treaty lands! Absolutely asinine this is.

Comment ID

183390

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Page 52, Continuing temporary avoidance + protection of sites: states protected are must consist of the site limits plus a 20m protective buffer where Stage 3 AA has been completed. Read more

Comment ID

183524

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Moving property inspections to Stage 2 doesn't make any sense; especially for northern Ontario. Recommendations can't be made without verification, so Stage 2 is basically always going to be recommended in order for a client to be able to do anything with their property/development. Read more

Comment ID

183556

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed changes. I have two comments for consideration: Read more

Comment ID

183559

Commenting on behalf of

Municipality of Kincardine

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
In regards to an Archaeological assessment, there needs to progressive controls implemented to allow Municipalities and developers to advance a project , while still maintaining impact controls for a development. Read more

Comment ID

183695

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
This proposal should include changes to the application process for new licenses in Ontario Archaeology. Currently the requirement for an applied research license is a degree in archaeology or area of archaeology, with proof of degree saying archaeology. Read more

Comment ID

183701

Commenting on behalf of

London Development Institute

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
LDI letter in support of proposed changes to the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists Read more

Comment ID

183702

Commenting on behalf of

Climate Action Newmarket Aurora

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Modernizing Ontario’s archaeological framework can be beneficial if it improves clarity, transparency, and effectiveness. Read more

Comment ID

183736

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
A review of the draft 2026 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists highlights several deficiencies and practical gaps when applied to Municipal Class Environmental Assessments (Class EAs), particularly for long, linear corridor projects that frequently exceed 20 m in width. Read more

Comment ID

183780

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I have the following questions and comments: • Will the 50 m protective buffer after Stage 2 be applied retroactively to current sites? • Will the 20 m protective buffer after Stage 3 for partial clearance be applied retroactive to current sites? Read more

Comment ID

183783

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Fundamental misfit between Class EA corridors and “project area” logic The 2026 draft replaces the long standing concept of “property” with “project area”, requiring archaeologists to precisely define and justify the spatial limits of assessment at the PIF stage. Read more

Comment ID

183784

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
The 2026 draft introduces formal “limited assessment” standards for Stage 1 and Stage 2 work, intended to streamline smaller or discrete projects. Deficiency for Class EAs While helpful for small footprints, these standards: • Are designed for contained areas, not linear systems Read more

Comment ID

183785

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Once corridors exceed ~20 m, which is typical of many Class EAs they begin to resemble developable parcels, triggering more work/recommendations: The 2026 standards: • Provide no scaling logic for width vs function • Provide contradictory definitions of corridors in Table 1.1. and glossary Read more

Comment ID

183802

Commenting on behalf of

Township of Alnwick/Haldimand

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Changes that will result in cost and time savings for applicants are welcome by the Township of Alnwick/Haldimand. Read more