I am writing to express my…

I am writing to express my serious concern about the proposed amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act in Schedule 7 of Bill 5, the “Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act.”

These changes pose a direct threat to Ontario’s archaeological heritage and the integrity of the profession charged with safeguarding it. While I appreciate the government’s efforts to streamline development processes, these proposed amendments fundamentally undermine the purpose and effectiveness of archaeological assessment and conservation in Ontario.

Here are several specific concerns regarding archaeology under Schedule 7:

1. Exemptions That Gut Archaeological Oversight
The proposed ability to exempt broad categories of development projects—transit, housing, health care, infrastructure, and other undefined priorities—from archaeological assessments means that potentially significant archaeological resources may be destroyed without investigation or documentation. This removes a critical safeguard against the loss of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous heritage.

2. Ministerial Discretion Without Clear Guidelines
While the amendments provide the Minister with expanded powers to order archaeological assessments, they do not require them in situations where they are currently mandatory. This creates a system where assessments become discretionary rather than systematic—leading to uneven application and potentially politicized decisions.

3. Weakening the Duty to Consult with Indigenous Communities
Archaeological assessments often serve as a mechanism to identify sites of cultural significance to Indigenous peoples. Removing these assessments from key projects bypasses the constitutional Duty to Consult, undermining reconciliation efforts and risking the irreversible destruction of sacred sites, burial grounds, and cultural landscapes.

4. Seizure and Direction of Artifacts Without Independent Oversight
Provisions that grant the Minister the authority to seize and direct the handling of artifacts—without sufficient checks and balances—raise serious ethical and professional concerns. Proper stewardship of archaeological collections should remain with qualified heritage professionals, not political appointees.

5. Centralizing Control While Silencing Local and Expert Voices
These changes effectively reduce the role of licensed archaeologists, municipal heritage planners, and Indigenous knowledge holders. They also sideline peer-reviewed, research-based practices in favor of expedited approvals and potential economic gain.

Archaeology is not an obstacle to development. On the contrary, it enriches our understanding of the land we live on and provides opportunities for education, tourism, and intercultural understanding. Ontario can and must pursue economic progress while still respecting and protecting the archaeological record and Indigenous rights.

I urge the government to withdraw or substantially revise Schedule 7 of Bill 5, and to engage meaningfully with Ontario’s professional archaeologists, Indigenous communities, and heritage stakeholders to develop legislation that supports both progress and preservation.