Omnibus Budget Bill 229, schedule 6.

Schedule 6 , deals with amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act. It gives an MZO absolute power to override the provinces 36 Conservation Authorities, which are responsible for the protection and restoration of land , water and natural habitat in their communities. Mostly wetlands and flood plains. This bill would break the Conservation Authorities protection from political interference that they have had since 1946. In this year alone the minister has issued more than 35 MZO's, some on environmentally sensitive lands that would normally not allow development. I would assume that most on this site would consider themselves pro wetlands. How do people feel about schedule 6? I feel that it is good for the developers, not so much for the environment. . Ford tried to give permission for developers to develop the greenbelt. When the poop hit the fan about that, he had to back peddle. Maybe schedule 6 is his way of fulfilling his obligations to them. As has been said before...follow the money.

This should get interesting as generally this group is pro Conservative.

I fear that is why it was not brought up before...No matter what political party you vote for, schedule 6 is just plain wrong. I wonder how many posts we will have, before someone blames Trudeau.

Only good for the the money that's what they want and need. Who cares about these protected when they need money right lol.

They should leave them alone and build else where. Why spend 80 years to save just to let it go?

Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk

With the Conservatives having a majority is a done deal.

Speculating but I have a feeling it may be due to something like this:

"after transfer, Algonquin lands will be subject to municipal jurisdiction, including the same land use planning and development approvals and authorities as other private lands"

https://www.ontario.ca/page/algonquin-land-claim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Schedule 6 , deals with amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act. It gives an MZO absolute power to override the provinces 36 Conservation Authorities, which are responsible for the protection and restoration of land , water and natural habitat in their communities. Mostly wetlands and flood plains. This bill would break the Conservation Authorities protection from political interference that they have had since 1946. In this year alone the minister has issued more than 35 MZO's, some on environmentally sensitive lands that would normally not allow development. I would assume that most on this site would consider themselves pro wetlands. How do people feel about schedule 6? I feel that it is good for the developers, not so much for the environment. . Ford tried to give permission for developers to develop the greenbelt. When the poop hit the fan about that, he had to back peddle. Maybe schedule 6 is his way of fulfilling his obligations to them. As has been said before...follow the money.

---

I think the Conservation authorities had a little to much power and basically were more about "telling you what not to do on your land" instead of actually helping.

I had the opportunity in recent years to purchase two adjoining parcels of land to my own. It was a nightmare to contact, speak to ,get answers from the local conservation authority. I was expected to PAY THEM to come out to the land so that they could TELL ME what I could not do with it. So one parcel was a big upland marsh/swamp surrounded by a lot of old growth tree's, some of which should be harvested .Out of the 50 acres after looking at it and a set back, I would have been left with 23 acre' s to harvest, not really for the money, but to open it up for hunting and improve the wildlife habitat. They also had an ANSI on it
which consisted of "granite outcroppings to the surface" LOL I think pretty common on the Canadian Shield.
Anyway the Conservation folks stated the MNR placed the designation, the MNR said the Conservation folks made the designation and back and forth they went.
A local logger said he would probably pass on cutting as it was to much bother with all the set back nonsense. Basically a 300 feet set back all around the swamp and some more for EP ZONE.

In the end I did not buy the land and its sits as it has for decades.

On the other hand, 'telling you what not to do on your land', could be a good thing. Say you buy a property designated 'wetland' and want to fill it in with dirt, is it not a good thing, that they can tell, you that you can't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

On the other hand, 'telling you what not to do on your land', could be a good thing. Say you buy a property designated 'wetland' and want to fill it in with dirt, is it not a good thing, that they can tell, you you can't?

---

No its a good thing because you have bought it at a price point that reflects its value as wetland and should know what your getting into. But my point about CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES is they had to much power and had to be consulted to often.

The funny thing was I recently witnessed CROWN LAND logged adjoining my land and wetlands. The set back I was expected to comply with in regards to the land I was going to buy was not equally applied to the Crown land, in fact they cut within yards of the wetlands but that's a whole other story.

Can a Conservation Authority over rule the Crown? I think Federal land is whole different ball of wax. Pickering Airport lands come to mind, the regional Conservation Authority said it should be a no go. The Feds said, to bad, we will develop the land if we want to.