I think there are some good…

I think there are some good points to be made about having enchanted authority with Investigators on archaeological sites. We have been asking for years why the MCM is never on archaeological sites. Especially when the site is being destroyed by negligent developers and crown corporations.

It is a great idea to have the ability to take collections away from scam artist archaeologists that profit from the destruction Indigenous heritage and eliminate them from the landscape and cut them out of the engagement process.

However you have not addressed the following:

1. You have not included amendments to engage First Nations. You've implied it with the Engaging Aboriginal Peoples Bulletin. By not adding First Nations engagement into Bill 5 you continue the structural violence and destruction of heritage not your own. You are rewriting the laws to legitimate it. If you were committed to reconciliation you would put it in.

2. You have not outlined collections taken as where they will go and no schedule to outline the budget needed to pay for the internment artifacts into your possession. Many CRM companies have their own warehouse facilities. What are the deciding factors to take a collection from one archaeology company over the other? That cost will ultimately be pushed on taxpayer dollars unbeknownst to them.

3. With your new authority powers to have not outlined the consequences of violation the Heritage Act. With new powers you should outline new penalties including sliding scale fines that supersedes the cost of the development for the destruction of sites, and to CRM groups and proponents that refuse to engage with First Nations. You should include a true jail time for looters and those caught disturbing burial sites and important archaeological sites.

4. The danger of these amendments is asking to have NO archaeological assessments performed by asking permission in special economic zones. How do you know if a site is there without the assessment done? How does the MCM come to the conclusions of writing off an area because upper bureaucracy says, "It's okay, I'll allow it. We need it to support the economy." This allows for a slippery slope for corruption and pay to win development. You are creating an opportunity for price tags on archaeological sites that are sitting in line for destruction.