I must say that the lack of…

I must say that the lack of consultation for these revisions in Bill 108 is disturbing. When the Ministry of Culture developed rfevisions to the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) in 2005, great care was given to make the process inclusive of all interests and it took many months. The development industry, owners, municipalities and heritage organizations were all included. It appears that so far, with these revisions, only the development industry has been consulted.
Opening up comments from municipalities and heritage organizations only after the Bill was introduced to the Legislature is insulting and reckless. These revisions radically alter the direction the Province has always taken which was to devolve responsibility of heritage conservation to local municipalities. The changes outlined here will have grave consequences for the continuing process of conserving Ontario’s heritage resources. Heritage conservation in Ontario leans heavily on volunteer workers and they should not be ignored or belittled. The Minister of Culture should suspend the legislation and do a proper consultation before proceeding.
My comments are based on an unofficial blue lined copy of the OHA (Ontario Heritge Act) provided by a heritage organization.
I was not able to locate a link to an official blue lined copy of the revised OHA on the Environmental Registry web site. It is difficult to comprehend the range of proposed revisions without a comprehensive blue lined copy of the Act. One should be made readily available now and the comment period should be extended to allow for comprehensive comments from the public.
The Environmental Registry consultation document states, “The Ontario government is proposing changes to the Ontario Heritage Act to support streamlining development approvals and increasing housing supply while continuing to empower municipalities to identify and conserve their cultural heritage resources.”
If the purpose of the proposed revisions is to make it easier to increase housing supply, as the title of Bill 108 suggests, it would be much simpler and more effective to create a single circumstance where owners can appeal Council decisions to the Local Planning Tribunal. This single circumstance would be where owners can indicate they are being hindered or prevented from increasing the density on their property because of a heritage designation by-law.
These proposed revisions will not “continue to empower municipalites”, and they will not “streamline” approvals. They will hamstring municipalities by imposing more time limits, and by allowing appeals to a Local Planning Tribunal at every step in the process to conserve individual properties. Cost of appeals will be borne by municipalities, heritage organizations and owners. They will be time consuming. These revisions will have a chilling effect on designations because the process is made more onerous, the outcomes less secure, and as municipalities will now be forced to defend designations made in the past. Municipalities will be less willing and have less staff time to take on the task of designation. The outcome will be fewer heritage properties being protected at a time when there is increasing development.
From the first passage of the OHA in 1975 the power of designation was devolved to municipalities in Ontario, unlike other provinces where only permanent provincial designation was allowed. The upshot was that 20 years after passage of the Act, Ontario had thousands of designations in many communities across the province, however designation was not permanent. That benchmark was established in 2005, 30 years later, with revisions to the OHA. Now the Province proposes to take away the municipalities’ power to protect their heritage buildings and places that power in the hands of an unelected, appointed Local Planning Tribunal.

Bill 108 Schedule 11 promises to undertake regulations establishing “prescribed principles” to be considered when Council exercises decision making authority in Section 26.0.1 of the OHA. Revised Section 29 (1) mentions “prescribed criteria” for determining heritage value or interest.
Municipalities are already referencing International, National and Provincial charters, principles, and guidelines in determining significance, identifying heritage attributes and evaluating proposed alterations. These new requirements should be defined with input from municipalities already undertaking this work. Heritage organizations should also be consulted. If the Minister proceeds to define these “prescribed principles, criteria and mandatory requirements” without input from municipalities and heritage organizations there will be no trust in the process.
Revised section 29 (1.2)states “if a prescribed event has occurred” Council has 90 days to give notice of intention to designate, after which Council may no longer designate. There is no explanation as to what a “prescribed event” might be or how long the interdiction against designation would last. The Ministry of Culture should be consulting with the public, including municipalities and heritage organizations on the definition of “prescribed event”.
Adding to the number of time limits imposed on Council may hamper future designations and continued protection of heritage resources as Council may not be able to meet the time limits or will have concerns regarding increased costs for staff time.
The establishment of the right to appeal to a Local Planning Tribunal in revised Sections 29, 30. 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the OHA will have a detrimental effect on municipalities’ ability to take on new designations and defend existing ones. Appeals are time consuming and expensive both for the public purse and individual owners. There is no guarantee that Local Planning Tribunals will have the expertise to hear cases on the significance of heritage values, the identification of attributes or even alteration of heritage properties. The provision that a member of the Conservation Review Board may be cross assigned is weak. To my knowledge, under the current OHA the OMB rarely if ever invited members of the CRB to attend hearings.
The provisions allowing multiple appeals to an unelected Local Planning Tribunal appear to be a direct attack on the OHA rather than an attempt to maintain “respect for local decision-making authority.”