The Environmental Registry…

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.” The issue in the City of Toronto is not the lack of supply of residential units but rather affordability. Since 2013, almost 46,500 residential units were proposed on heritage properties. Approximately 10,500 new residential units were constructed between 2013 and 2017.

Having been in a heritage professional in the public service at both the municipal and provincial level for more than 32 years, I offer my comments with a deep understanding and professional experience of the legislative framework. Prior to my current role of manager of the heritage policy and research team at the City of Toronto’s City Planning, I was at Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport in the programs and services branch for 27 years. I was at the Ministry and part of the Heritage Policy and Program Development Unit preparing revisions for the Ontario Heritage Act that passed in 2005.

I am deeply concerned about Bill 108 and the lack of consultation for these substantial changes. When provincial staff worked on the OHA amendments in 2005 and the development of regulations and provincial powers, we took great care engaging the Ontario Heritage Trust and all parties to listen and understand the varying perspectives of all interests. The Ministry sought the expertise of municipal staff and elected officials from a wide range of municipalities as they would ultimately be responsible for implementing the legislation and heritage policy framework including the PPS.

With the less than 20 business days to review the amendments and the lack of consultation to gain necessary evidence and metrics on heritage processes and protection, it has meant there is insufficient opportunity to understand the problems and more importantly to collaborate to identify key issues and find solutions. It has meant the amendments add burdens to municipal staff and as importantly there is oversight and omissions on improvements to the Act such as Part V and processes for updating out of date HCD plans.

Many important implementation details, including accompanying regulations, have not been provided by the Province. In the absence of this critical information, and given the brief timeline provided for comments on these extensive proposed changes, I have focused my comments on the Part IV designation.

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. New, shortened timelines for notices and decisions put the burden on the municipality and does not recognize the responsibility for better due diligence also lies with the the property owner and unbiased screening for heritage potential.

The adding time limits imposed on Council will result in the loss of heritage resources in the majority of municipalities who have yet to undertake a comprehensive municipal survey of heritage properties. Only 3 percent of the properties in Toronto have been identified to have cultural heritage value and included on the City’s Heritage Register.

From the first passage of the OHA in 1975 the power of designation was devolved to municipalities in Ontario. Now almost 45 years later 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.

It is unclear if LPAT will use a municipal council’s decision as the starting point for consideration and on the scope of the review. The grounds for appeal will likely be broadened beyond consistency and conformity with provincial regulation 9 06, giving the LPAT authority to interpret what constitutes and to overrule municipal decisions, even if those decisions conform to provincial policies. Further, there will be new limits placed participation by third parties and the public.

Taken together, these changes to the appeals process will undermine the authority of municipalities, and also limit the ability of the public to participate meaningfully in the conservation and development process. And while the stated goal of these changes is to expedite the planning process.

If predictability and consistency in determining properties of cultural value is the goal and finding opportunities to conserve heritage properties to contribute to sense of place in communities then the Province should strive to enable municipalities and property owners to identify such properties and districts by providing new guidance on the regulation 9 06 that is developed in collaboration with heritage professionals and the heritage sector. Adding objections to Listing and multiple decisions in Council decision making does not streamline designation. It adds confusion.

In the past four years at the City of Toronto, as manager with the oversight of Part IV designations, I have participated in numerous cases at The Conservation Review Board. This body is highly respected and effective in dispute resolution. In the more than 15 case, the City has resolved all matters through pre hearing conferences and was required to participate in one full hearing. CRB agreed with the City of Toronto’s intention to designate.

The proposed amendments reflects a lack of policy research and evidence of how a values based approach for heritage conservation is working at the municipal level and a lack of recognition of the amount of time needed to gain meaningful community input in heritage protection, a principle enshrined in the Ontario Heritage Act since its inception and based on a ‘respect for local decision-making authority.”

In most municipalities, Heritage conservation relies on the volunteer sector. In Toronto there are four district community panels. These proposed revisions will not “continue to empower municipalities” nor “streamline” heritage evaluations. They will hamstring municipalities by imposing more time limits and cut out the role of volunteers.

The proposed changes to the Ontario Heritage Act will alter how and when decisions under the Act are made, and will threaten municipalities’ ability to preserve and protect heritage buildings and resources. Do not impose unrealistic and arbitrary time limits on Part IV and keep the highly effective and efficient Conservation Review Board.

Incorrectly taking away local decision making from municipalities and placing power with the Province to make decisions regarding heritage will have the unintended consequence of the loss of irreplaceable properties of cultural heritage value. Improve processes to increase predictability e.g. Heritage Survey but don’t change 45 years of local decision making authority for heritage.