ERO submission 019-6196 …

ERO submission 019-6196 December 9th, 2022

I object to the proposed changes to the Ontario Heritage Act, especially as they concern the preservation of important cultural and heritage buildings that a municipality deems essential to their community’s sense of identity and history. I believe that growth can be accommodated without making all of Ontario’s towns and cities look like carbon copies of each other.

In their report to St. Catharines city council, the Planning and Building Services department notes that, in the city’s official plan, heritage preservation is important “not only because it connects us to our past and helps us to interpret our history, but also because it can benefit the local economy by attracting both visitors to the city and new investment or residents.”

They also observe that throughout the province, “the most significant concern [about Bill 23] relates to the dismantling of Heritage Registers through the removal of listed properties after two years unless they are designated by the municipality. The resources required to designate each property individually under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act would be immense and will result in the loss of thousands of heritage properties across the province.” Heritage and development can co-exist. The combination of old and new can create vibrant communities that maintain their sense of place. Property owners as well as other members of the community can help to shape their town or city “and determine what they value about its past and hope for in its future.”

In a recent news release, Diane Chin, Chair of The Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, echoes the concerns of St. Catharines city planners: “… the changes proposed for the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) in Bill 23 will make it practically impossible to protect most of Ontario’s identified heritage properties. This can only be seen as a knee-jerk response to a vindictive attack by the development industry on our heritage system. There was no consultation or consideration of the destructive impacts of these proposals across Ontario.” She adds, “Why drop a cluster bomb of changes into the heritage system that will not create a single unit of affordable housing?”

An article in Canadian Architect states that “requiring a property to meet two of the legislated criteria for designation, instead of one, will make it challenging to protect the often-humble buildings and places associated with the historic contributions of Black, Indigenous, Franco-Ontarian, multicultural, and 2SLGBTQIA+ communities to Ontario. This will seriously hamper communities like Little Jamaica or Kensington Market currently seeking heritage status and protection” (canadianarchitect.com). I don’t understand why the Ford government, and the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism in particular, is forcing this cumbersome and expensive process of “designating” properties when “listing” properties recognizes their cultural value in an efficient way without undue demands on the limited resources of a municipality.

How does this help the government to achieve its stated intent of building more homes faster?

There is a reason that Canadians travel to Europe. Heritage matters.