I am writing as a resident…

I am writing as a resident of Ontario and a concerned citizen alarmed by the direction the provincial government is taking through Schedule 7 of Bill 5, the “Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act.” While economic development is important, it should not come at the cost of erasing our province’s rich archaeological and cultural heritage.

The proposed changes to the Ontario Heritage Act raise serious red flags, particularly in how they affect archaeological processes. Removing requirements for archaeological assessments on broad categories of development—including transit, housing, health, and infrastructure—opens the door to the irreversible destruction of cultural landscapes and heritage sites, many of which have never been studied or even discovered. These assessments are not red tape—they are a fundamental way in which we uncover and protect the stories of Ontario’s earliest inhabitants.

What is particularly concerning is how these proposed exemptions dismiss the importance of Indigenous heritage. Archaeological assessments are often one of the few mechanisms through which Indigenous rights are acknowledged during development. They can trigger the Duty to Consult, a constitutionally protected obligation. Ignoring this step not only undermines reconciliation efforts—it disrespects Indigenous communities and their ancestral ties to this land.

In addition, these amendments grant excessive discretion to the Minister, enabling them to order assessments or seize artifacts without clear, consistent oversight. This concentration of power weakens transparency and the role of municipalities, archaeologists, and local experts who have been essential to Ontario’s heritage system. Rather than streamlining the process, this approach centralizes control in a way that could lead to uneven enforcement and political interference.

This bill is part of a broader legislative trend that threatens environmental and heritage protections under the banner of "efficiency." It appears designed to fast-track development without due consideration of long-term consequences for the public good. When heritage protection is made optional or discretionary, it is often too late before we realize what has been lost.

We must ask: who benefits from these changes, and who bears the cost? The loss of archaeological resources is not just a loss to academic knowledge—it’s a loss to our shared identity and to future generations who deserve to understand the full story of this place.

I strongly urge the government to halt the implementation of Schedule 7 and to engage in meaningful consultation with Indigenous nations, archaeological professionals, and the wider public. Modernization should not mean erasure.

Thank you for your time and consideration.