Dear Mr. McGregor, I / We…

Dear Mr. McGregor,

I / We are writing to you in response to the proposed changes to the Ontario Heritage Act R.S.O 1990, specifically the proposed amendments concerning the mechanism to exempt parties from undertaking archaeological work, and the proposed immunity clause. These changes are proposed in Bill 5, under the Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act have serious consequences for the history, identity, and culture of First Nation’s people.
The archaeological sites of Ontario represent the 13,000+ year history of the First Nations people. This antiquity is multiple times greater than the great pyramids of Egypt, and studying the past provides a renewed life to the people who were living in a time of megafauna such as the mammoth, mastodon, and giant beaver. To allow for lands to be exempt from archaeology silences the ancestors and robs the First Nations’ of their past.
The proposed Act espouses to protect Ontario from the threats coming from the United States of America, yet through the proposed changes it would seem to do little to protect Ontario, and instead serves to increase the profits of the development community. Archaeological work in the province is not required for every project, and in the vast majority of instances the archaeological work is cost effective and completed well in advance of the timelines set out. It is difficult to understand how eliminating archaeological work will protect Ontario from the USA.
Instead of exempting archaeology and deciding whose history is worth investigating, why not look to other ways to improve the process such as, having the development community work with archaeologists to avoid areas of archaeological potential? Or, to reexamine the archaeological report review process? If the delays largely rest with the timelines of report review the responsibility lies with the government to property fund the ministry, not to dismantle the act.
Coupled with the proposed exemptions to archaeological work is the proposed immunity clause. Without understanding the details of this clause, it would seem to save blameless the government, and presumably the development community. In effect, if human remains are unearthed by the construction, and the project was exempted from the requirement to do archaeology, would there be no recourse for First Nation communities to regarding the disturbances and damage to their ancestors? In Nipigon last year, this very situation happened when Parks Canada failed to undertake archaeological work and human remains were spotted in the box of a dump truck. This is still causing delays and strained relationships. Would the development community not appreciate the archaeological work which seeks to identify ancestral resting places and ancient sites in advance of construction?
It is expected that proponents of this change will state that the exemption for archaeological work will only happen infrequently, but to even have a mechanism available is to have the ability to administratively erase the history of the First Nations people, and puts the remains of the ancestors at risk.
It would serve the Province to recall that it was Progressive Conservative, Bill Davis who 50 years ago brought in the Ontario Heritage Act, while also increasing health care and education funding. If the Progressive Conservatives are indeed the party of traditional values, they should look to the actions of the Davis government. Premier Davis faced serious challenges in 1975 dealing with the energy crisis which began in 1973, and yet still had the courage and prescience to bring forward the Ontario Heritage Act, and other measures to build a strong Ontario in the face of adversity.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action (2015), in general, calls for more Aboriginal history to be part of school curricula, of which archaeology and Aboriginal prehistory would contribute a very important part of the content at all levels of education. Moreover, that prehistory would convey a better understanding and accurate view of Canada’s prehistory and Aboriginal Peoples. Economically speaking, the Truth and Reconciliation, ‘Business and Reconciliation’ call to action 92 states: “We call upon the corporate sector in Canada to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a reconciliation framework and to apply its principles, norms, and standards to corporate policy and core operational activities involving Indigenous peoples and their lands and resources.” The proposed exemption would effectively negate call to action 92.
I / We urge you to remove the proposed exemption from Bill 5, and instead pursue other solutions. The power to neglect the history of the First Nations people should not be wielded by any government or developer. The erasure of history only leads to a weaker, fragmented society.