RE: The proposed…

RE: The proposed introduction of enabling legislative authority that provides that the process for identifying provincial heritage properties under the S&Gs may permit the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism to review, confirm and revise, the determination of cultural heritage value or interest by a ministry or prescribed public body respecting a provincial heritage property. I note that this change introduces significant uncertainty with respect to previously identified provincial heritage properties. Oftentimes, provincial heritage properties are landmark spaces and structures which have influenced the form, functionality, and identity of communities across Ontario for decades, sometimes centuries. By virtue of their stable provincial oversight and heritage protections, they are reliable points of reference for planning, tourism, recreation, and other aspects of community life. This proposed change raises the spectre of heavy-handed and arbitrary government intervention on these community landmarks, regardless of the process. Therefore, I suggest that this change only apply to new provincial heritage properties and not previously identified ones.

RE: The proposed enabling legislative authority to exempt provincial projects from the S&Gs in application may unintentionally remove consideration for provincial heritage properties from the Ontario Heritage Act altogether. The sole purpose of Part III of the OHA is the establishment of the S&Gs as a flexible mechanism to identify and manage provincially owned and, in some cases, occupied structures. This legislation foregoes the more specific protections identified in Parts IV, V, and VI of the OHA, leaving the details of heritage management to the S&Gs. By exempting properties from all or part of the S&Gs, the government functionally removes these properties from the OHA altogether. The one exception would be properties with known archaeological sites. As currently composed, the S&Gs trigger archaeological assessments (exclusively so on properties without existing archaeological sites), require community and Indigenous engagement on government decision-making affecting heritage, and trigger and guide heritage assessments and conservation planning. The criteria for considering proposed exemptions, as currently laid out, are also so broad as to not represent limiting criteria at all.
RE: The requiring of up-to-date municipal heritage registers on municipal websites. This is a positive change that will improve review times and predictability for developers and planners alike.

Re: Removal of listed properties of heritage registers. The introduction of new limits on listed properties remaining on the municipal heritage register will require more deliberation when adding new properties. However, by retroactively starting a countdown on all existing listed heritage properties, municipal resources will be unnecessarily tied up for the next two years trying to sift through large existing registers to try and prioritize designations. This will result in more heritage designations in the short term. Please consider exempting previously listed properties from the two-year deadline to avoid this unanticipated consequence. Extending the window for previously listed properties could be another alternative.

RE: Limitation of NOIDs to already listed properties when considered under a prescribed planning event. This change will force municipal heritage planners to proactively list and designate heritage properties regardless of whether a development application exists and when compounded with other changes. These activities will create a strain on municipal capacities and increase, rather than decrease, delays, particularly in the short term.

RE: Proposed legislative authority to repeal or amend HCDs. This proposed change fills a gap in HCD planning and allows municipalities to maintain heritage districts while keeping pace with modern climate-friendly building materials and practices.