As an archaeologist at work…

As an archaeologist at work in this province for over two decades, I believe portions of the proposed 2019 revisions to the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement are absolutely irresponsible and will damage and our way of knowing this province's archaeology and heritage.

While, it is encouraging to see that the provincial government will call for active engagement with Indigenous communities by planning authorities (in proposed Sections 1.2.2 and 2.6.5), it reads like lip service, a red herring, particularly if many planning authorities (e.g. municipalities) will no longer be managing archaeology in the way they have been (see proposed Section 2.6.5).

If Section 2.6.5 is changed to remove "municipal approaches", when does development get triggered in the planning and development sequence? Some municipalities working from Master Plans, for example, and, indeed, some archaeologists, may argue for protections on archaeological sites or other parcels of land that are stronger than those found in the 2011 Standards and Guidelines. In fact, Indigenous community wishes may favour protections above and beyond the 2011 Standards and Guidelines.

The proposed revisions to the PPS are touted as measures to "Reduce barriers and costs for development" (see Highlights of the Proposed Policy Changes section). Archaeologists, heritage professionals and Indigenous community members, among others, will find the idea that archaeology and heritage are considered costly 'barriers' as distasteful, offensive and biased. Indigenous history appears here to be considered a blockade to development, a frivolity and something that could be waived. How can greater Indigenous engagement be espoused alongside the devaluation of Indigenous ancestral sites? It must not become open season on archaeological and heritage sites nor the environment.

Archaeology and heritage in this province should be afforded greater safeguards, not fewer. More stringent protections for the efforts of past generations, those whose lives and labours are now found mainly in what they left behind, should be mandated. Instead, the Provincial Government appears to be more interested in making it easier for developers to procure land (i.e. the Greenbelt) for their own personal profit. These remaining green spaces, as farms and natural areas, some containing Indigenous archaeological sites, should be retained as green space for future Ontarians. Such places and sites are irreplaceable. They are finite and fragile and we will never get them back. Greater protections are required, not wider and deeper impacts. Why not keep more of these sites in the ground and in the green?

It would seem to me that the Provincial Government, at this time, believes that our province’s history, our heritage and even our natural environment are not worthy of, ought not to be afforded, protection. This is tantamount to streamlining the erasure of Indigenous history and archaeology along with the pasts of the settlers of recent centuries. To strengthen the appearance of closer ties with Indigenous communities (proposed Sections 1.2.2 and 2.6.5), while, at the same time, removing the agency of those community members to actually articulate with their heritage (a barrier that should be easier to remove) strikes me as either a simple oversight or as a calculated sleight of hand - detached and dictatorial. Please do not allow these revisions to manifest as faster and easier depletion of this province’s heritage sites and natural environment.