As a resident of Ontario…

As a resident of Ontario that works in the archaeological resource management industry, I am deeply concerned about the proposed changes to the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA), outlined in Bill 5, Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025. In particular, it would grant the Lieutenant Governor in Council the authority to exempt certain projects from archaeological assessment based on identified “provincial priorities.” While the Act is suggesting it is a response to President Trump’s tariffs, the Act is actually just creating legislation that diminishes regulations designed to protect the environment and Ontario’s collective heritage. What we see here is that Bill 5 gives the province authority to exempt certain projects from archaeological assessment if they relate to priorities like “Transit, Housing, Health and Long-Term Care, Other Infrastructure, and other priorities as may be prescribed.” In essence, 100% of all archaeology can be deemed exempt from requirements in the future. Therefore, 50 years of heritage legislation, regulation, and best practices for managing Ontario collective archaeological heritage will be effectively eliminated. This is a radical proposal from the government.

I have never seen legislation so captured by a singular industry’s interest. In good faith, I challenge the merits of the arguments presented for this Bill and the issues that will result from it. My comments here will exclusively pertain to the Exemption for property clause. All other amendments seem okay in my considerations. My comments are informed by years of work in the industry that stretched from a Field Technicians, to Field Supervisor, to Project Manager and a Professional Licence holder.

1. The Bill can have the potential of destroying the archaeological resource management industry in the province. Rough estimates suggest that 1,200+ people are employed in the province in the industry, which also includes First Nation Field Liaisons (FLR) – providing paid and meaningful work to these communities. For example, it was conveyed to me by an FLR that up to 5% of the entire Mississauga of the Credit First Nation is employed in this industry. Legislators will need to be accountable for the termination of these employed persons, equivalent to a whole factory – a factory that produces more and more knowledge on Ontario’s collective heritage and history which can be shared and celebrated.

The industry includes actors of various sizes from large multi-national engineering/consulting firms (e.g. WSP, Stantec, AECOM), to large archaeological specific actors (e.g. ASI, ARA, Timmins-Martelle) to smaller owner run companies (e.g. Parslow Heritage, Archaeological Consultants Canada, AMICK, Detritus, Earthworks, Woodland Heritage Northwest, etc). Archaeology has been a requirement in the development industry since 1983. It has long since been integrated as a “cost of doing business” and a robust set of archaeological businesses have developed to compete for clientele in that regulatory environment. Bill 5 will have serious ramifications for these businesses that have developed over decades and destroy the livelihoods of many.

2. The Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025 Exemption for property details also fails to understand how archaeology operates in the province and how sites/burials are identified. This is particularly in regards to the clause that states: “Examples of where a property might not be considered for an exemption could include: former Indian Residential School sites, burials and significant archaeological sites. MCM plans to consult separately on potential criteria for exemptions.” For background - Ontario Archaeology has four stages; where 1) The first is a desktop research and visual property inspection; 2) The Second involves systematic testing through shovel pit excavation and/or pedestrian survey; 3) The Third involves a series of test excavations on sites identified through Stage 2. and 4) The fourth is the mitigation/mass excavation of the site that is found to contain further cultural heritage value and interest during the Stage 3. Unless a site was identified in the past, there is no way to know for certain if a parcel of land slated for development is free of burials or a significant archaeological site if there isn’t some form of archaeological assessment to identify that a site even exists on said parcel. You cannot preserve a site for further archaeological assessment, and free from the exemption, if you have not completed the work to know it is even there... Furthermore, unless you conduct Stage 3-4 archaeological assessment, there is no way to know whether an archaeological site is “significant” or contains burials. First Nation archaeological sites do not contain surface markers (ie. gravestone), and I can say from personal experience that there are often “surprise” burial discoveries during the excavation of indigenous sites. This amendment is therefore logically incoherent. The risk of disturbing indigenous First Nation human remains and unmarked historic (18th through early 20th century) Euro-Canadian settler burials during development is high without prior archaeological assessments.

3. I invite legislators and career bureaucrats in the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM) to explore alternative options to increase efficiencies and reduce scheduling times to help expedite development for governmental and private developers. The whole sale exemption of archaeological assessment is a drastic approach to take when other options can be pursued. I’m sure industry leaders have shared many more ideas with the MCM but some ideas that readily come to mind include:
a) Invest more resources into the Archaeology Branch of the MCM
- Hire more report reviewers
- Train said report reviewers to all be consistent and remove the likelihood of double work or inconsistent reviews.
- enhance the capabilities of the Past Portal website to streamline the archaeological research conducted by licensees for reports.
- hire additional licence review staff
- hire additional staff that reviews methodology requests before and while projects are occurring
b) Take a larger leading role in the archaeological processes and take on more accountability, particularly in relation to private archaeology firms and their engagement with First Nations. This includes more ministry final says on methodology.

4. The current arrangement of this Act is a clear gateway to conflicts of interest – i.e. corruption. In this I follow the words posted on social media by a leading firm “Archaeological Research Associates”
- How and with what criteria will the exemptions be established?
- Who will ensure that they are not doled out to friends or supporters of the government?”
This will violate the idea of procedural fairness. All proponents will seek exemption since the assessment requirements will no longer be universal. The government will now have the power to pick “winners of losers” for who needs to bear the costs of assessments and who does not. I can say that the ultimate “loser” will be the citizens of Ontario and their collective heritage when their heritage is destroyed outright. With the existing Greenbelt Scandal not far in the rear view mirror, this legislation creates a tempting option for bad faith actors to profit off dolling exemption to friends, business associates, etc. Conflicts of interest will abound. It is not a question of if a scandal related to this Act will occur, it is more a matter of when.

5. Bill 5 will have significant ramifications for Indigenous peoples of Ontario. Artcle 11 of UNDRIP, to which Canada is a signatory, states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature.”

In my daily work with First Nation communities of Ontario – I can tell you with 100% confidence that the vast majority of communities do not want to see the destruction of their archaeological heritage and the physical human remains of their ancestors. Archaeological assessments and mitigation are often the minimal requirements in their eyes where they would actually prefer avoidance and protection. Therefore, any exemptions to archaeology assessment will also be throwing away all clauses of the 2024 Provincial Policy Statement as it relates to First Nations engagement in land planning. A list of such clauses that would be completely disregarded by this bill, while not exhaustive, includes:
a) Page 2: “Ontario recognizes the unique role Indigenous communities have in land use planning and development, and the contribution of Indigenous communities’ perspectives and traditional knowledge to land use planning decisions. The Province recognizes the importance of consulting with Aboriginal communities on planning matters that may affect their section 35 Aboriginal or treaty rights.”
b) All of Secton 4.6, but particularly subsection (5) “Planning authorities shall engage early with Indigenous communities and ensure their interests are considered when identifying, protecting and managing archaeological resources, built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.”

In a more practical or realpolitik consideration, I can confidently predict that passing and actively using this legislation will lead to treaty, engagement, and reconciliation crises. First Nations are more emboldened than ever to fight for their treaty rights and take action against real or perceived infringements on these rights. Even in the current regulatory framework, they actively protest in favour of engagement on archaeological sites and take a vigilant interest of sites that contain their ancestral remains. Once again, it’s not a question of if but when the wide use of archaeological exemptions will lead to widespread site blockages and protests. If this Bill is passed and used, I honestly believe that the government is staring down at the prospect of monthly Ipperwash, Oka, and Fox-Gate style crises across the province on a monthly basis. Let me reiterate what I have mentioned above, THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW IF AN INDIGENOUS SITE HAS HUMAN REMAINS WITHOUT AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT. From my experience with First Nation Field Liaisons, they are always cautious to assume there is a potential for human remains unless proven otherwise by learning more about the nature of a site through the means of archaeological assessment. Development blockages, extra costs to policing and security, news images of police having confrontations with First Nation protesters will become more common over sites that may have, or may be perceived to have, indigenous human remains. Let me also be clear, a “successful” use of exemptions will also lead to stories of indigenous human burials being disturbed by means of mechanical excavators.

In closing, I urge legislators to consider that creating archaeological exemptions may be perceived as the most efficient and time saving way to build up our infrastructure and housing priorities; however, I am confident that antagonizing First Nation communities through the wanton destruction of their archaeological heritage can have the opposite effect.