Section 66.1 concerns me as…

Section 66.1 concerns me as it is not aligned with a transparent, democratic and inclusive stance I expect of our province. Specifically:
1) By allowing for the exemption of properties from archaeological assessment by Orders in Council allows archaeological sites – including Indigenous ones – could be destroyed based on who wants to develop the property, not the archeological importance. Why is this necessary? What evidence has been provided that our province has been injured by following the same regulatory process as other developers? What is the process by which exemptions will be granted? Is the intent that the government will not need to incur the cost of archaeological assessments that regular citizens and businesses will be required to complete? These costs are kept internal to the economy of the province, create economic activity and generate provincial income tax. It is not a cost if it recirculates within the provincial economy? This also create a conflict of interest that could cause granting of exemptions to friends, donors, etc.?
2) The “provincial priorities” listed encompass the triggers for many of the projects that currently require archaeological work in the province. As well, “Such other priorities as may be prescribed” is vague and as such will be taken advantage of. I see no scientific basis or proven disadvantage to the surrent process that would justify such open-endedness.
3) The text notes that requirements under the Funeral, Burial, and Cremations Services Act, 2002 will continue to be in force – presumably to ensure that cemeteries are protected. However, many, if not most, Indigenous cemeteries and burials are sitting UNKNOWN out in the landscape. We don't know how many there are. We don't know where they are. We do know that there are a lot of them going back as much as 13,000 years. One of the primary reasons we do archaeological assessments is to ensure that the thousands of unmarked and undocumented Indigenous burials across the province are located BEFORE they are disturbed by the development process. There are numerous instances of these burials being impacted in cases where developers and proponents skirted the assessment process. The results were embarrassing to the Crown and expensive to resolve. The changes proposed have the potential to create a system in which Settler (White) cemeteries are fully protected and Indigenous ones are not.
4) The ERO mentions that regulations will be put into place to establish the criteria that must be met for a property to be eligible for exemption. It suggests that properties which are home to former Indian Residential School sites, burials and significant archaeological sites may not be considered for exemption. However, archaeological sites in Ontario are typically ONLY discovered in the archaeological assessment process. Most of the sites in the province remain unknown. It is simply not possible to avoid destroying archaeological sites unless you first submit a property to archaeological assessment. Furthermore, it is not possible to ascertain if a site is "significant" unless it has been tested against the province's criteria, according to the process laid down BY the province. The idea that this legislation will protect significant archaeological sites by excusing projects from looking for these sites is flawed logic.
5) Most of the archaeological sites in Ontario are Indigenous. They have been here at least 13,000 years. Settlers have been here 400. Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Article 11 of UNDRIP gives Indigenous peoples a central role in the management of their archaeological heritage. The Ontario Heritage Act was already problematic in this regard being nearly 50 years old. Modern legislation should not reinforce discriminatory behavior of previous generations. Indigeneity - what makes a person Indigenous - is almost entirely based on heritage. This bill opens the door to the destruction of Indigenous archaeological sites - in an era when those rights are at the forefront of public consciousness. Furthermore, it is being implemented without the provincial Crown discharging its Duty to Consult with First Nations. As such, it most certainly violates the Section 35 Constitutional rights of Ontario's Indigenous peoples. The Notwithstanding Clause cannot be used to avoid this duty. As such, the legislation, even if it passes, will almost certainly be challenged in Court. This will remind Indigenous people that, while they remain subject to the law, they cannot expect the legal system to protect their interests.
The archaeological assessment process has been in place in Ontario since 1983. It has been in effect for a number of housing boom and bust cycles. Its impact on homebuilding, house prices and development
in general has been negligible and absorbed into our processes. I do not see the need for this section of the bill and believe it is a step backwards.