SCHEDULE 7: ONTARIO HERITAGE…

Across all schedules of Bill 5 – Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, 2025 – there is a notable and concerning absence of any explicit reference to consultation with First Nations. This does not reflect the Ontario Crown’s legal duty to consult and accommodate under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, nor does it align with the spirit of reconciliation.

SCHEDULE 7: ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT
The proposed amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act under Bill 5 raise serious concerns. The legislative changes prioritize economic development and external governmental discretion at the expense of First Nations heritage protection, cultural integrity, and our inherent Treaty and constitutional rights.

Key concerns:
1. Ontario sidestepping the Duty to Consult with First Nations
2. Unilateral government authority and exemption power
3. Exclusion of First Nations from notification and discovery processes
4. Unclear provisions and undefined terms

Schedule 7 changes to the Ontario Heritage Act would create profound consequences not only for our culture and identity, but also for community well-being and employment. We have an Archaeological Monitoring Program that currently employs individuals from our community. That work would be severely disrupted by a process that allows sites to be bypassed entirely through exemptions.
More broadly, this work connects youth and knowledge keepers, helping to preserve traditional knowledge, create local employment, and support healing.

Issue 1: Ontario Sidestepping the Duty to Consult with First Nations
Overall, schedule 7 sidesteps Ontario’s duty to consult with First Nations. A 30-day comment period is not adequate. First Nations are not the public — we are rights holders whose treaties, traditions, and jurisdiction must be recognized. We have worked hard to build relationships with municipalities and developers and ensure adherence to our own Consultation and Accommodation Policy. The proposed exemptions threaten this work and risk damaging the relationships with our neighbors that we have built. Consultation must not be optional. The Ontario Crown has a responsibility to include First Nations in every step of the heritage and development process — not just when convenient.

Issue 2: Unilateral Government Authority and Exemption Power
Sections 51.2, 51.3, and 61.1 provide the Minister with authority to appoint investigators and issue assessment orders, while also empowering the Lieutenant Governor in Council to exempt lands from archaeological assessment requirements. These exemptions can be issued if, in the government's opinion, the property supports provincial “priorities” such as housing, transit, long-term care, and ‘other infrastructure.’ This is extremely concerning. It replaces evidence-based assessment with subjective interpretation. The exemptions empower developers to bypass archaeological assessments if a project is aligned with Ontario’s economic interests. This opens the door for irresponsible development and the destruction of First Nations sacred sites — often without any oversight or accountability. The clause “such other priorities as may be prescribed” is especially dangerous, giving the government broad and undefined authority to bypass assessment requirements at will. There is no transparency or process for public or First Nations input, and no checks or balances to ensure such exemptions do not result in the destruction of culturally significant sites.

There are also fundamental questions about liability. Who will be held responsible if sacred sites are destroyed due to these exemptions? Will corrupt developers face penalties, or will First Nations be left to bear the loss with no recourse? This lack of enforcement detail invites reckless behavior and weakens protections that First Nations have already fought hard for.

Issue 3: Exclusion of First Nations from Notification and Discovery Processes
Provisions found in section 51.2 during inspections require that archaeological discoveries be reported to the Minister and landowners — but not to First Nations. This exclusion is unacceptable, especially given that according to Ontario, over 80% of all archaeological sites were inhabited by “Indigenous peoples”. In most cases, the artifacts or remains discovered are connected to the cultural, spiritual, and familial history of a First Nation. By failing to notify the rightful descendants of the findings, the legislation could suppress First Nations stewardship over our heritage. This also disregards the practical experience of First Nations communities, many of whom have protocols, ceremonial practices, and partnerships in place for protecting and respectfully handling such discoveries.

Moreover, while section 66.1 states that the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act is still in force, it provides no protection for unregistered or unmarked First Nations burial grounds — which are often categorized as archaeological sites rather than formal cemeteries. Many sacred sites have only been discovered due to archaeological assessments, and the proposed exemptions jeopardize this process entirely.

Issue 4: Unclear provisions
The language of the proposed legislation is vague throughout. Key terms such as “special economic zone,” and “significant archaeological site,” are not clearly defined. It is unclear what criteria will trigger an archaeological assessment or who will be appointed as inspectors or investigators. Enforcement processes are not outlined. It is also unclear how recovered artifacts will be managed, or whether any meaningful First Nations oversight will be implemented. The lack of clear mechanisms for First Nations to participate in review, storage, fieldwork monitoring, and protection leaves the legislation open to abuse. Will artifacts simply be stored near the location, or will they be relocated far from their origin? Who determines what community receives custody? These are questions that Schedule 7 leaves unanswered.

Further, Section 66 also allows artifacts to be deposited into “an archaeological collection or an Indigenous community.” The phrase ‘Indigenous community’ is vague and deeply problematic. It provides no definition, no criteria for receiving sacred materials, and no assurance that rightful First Nations representation will be involved in decision-making. This raises serious concerns, especially considering ongoing government dealings with the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) in areas of heritage and burial matters that are outside their jurisdiction. Ontario must stop engaging the MNO – and only consult with the First Nations descendants of those whose history lies in the ground.

Schedule 7 must be amended to ensure:
• A clear definition of all key terms in the legislation is available
• First Nations are included in all aspects of archaeological review, assessment, and artifact
repatriation
• Eliminate or significantly tighten exemption powers
• Clarify the responsibilities and liabilities of developers
• Include a plan to fund and support First Nations-led archaeological monitoring programs
• Formally recognize that First Nations burial grounds deserve equal or greater protection than
colonial cemeteries