Dear Minister, Thank-you for…

Dear Minister,

Thank-you for the opportunity to comment. The proposed changes do not include the praxis for operationalizing these changes.

Report Review Priorities.

Although suggesting 'partial assessments' makes sense on the surface, it is the time between report submission and review that causes the most significant delays to Proponents: Additional revisions lengthen this period. Often ARO quests for revision are editorial in nature; that is, the proposed revisions have no impact or relevance of the report conclusions and recommendations. Under the current system, these kinds of errors should be identified early during the "Report Completeness Review". Many of these errors, however, are missed by the ARO and end up being flagged latter in the "Technical Review Process". A more careful preliminary review by MCM staff would result in many reports not being flagged for non-material facts. Another suggestion would be to create another Report Category: ENTERED INTO REGISTRY - EDITS REQUIRED.

The current system has the following categories: 1) Entered Into Registry Without Technical Review; 2) Entered Into the Registry - Report Compliant; 3) Entered Into the Registry - Report Incomplete; and, Entered Into the Registry - Non-Compliant.

Adding the new Category: Entered Into the Registry - Edits Required fulfills two objectives: It maintains the high standards already imposed on Licensees yet allows the Proponent (i.e. Private Citizen, Developer, AGO, Government etc) to move forward sooner with their development rather than wait days, weeks, or even months waiting for a Entered Into The Registry Letter. To be clear, the Archaeologist is STILL obligated to submit their reports to MCM by a specified due date or as a condition of their Archaeological Licence Renewal.

I believe that operationalizing these suggestions would streamline the report review process, especially for Stage One and Stage Two Archaeological Assessments.

REPORT COMPLIANCE RECORD

The Minister has suggested that they move to publish some kind of ranking that Proponents may review when considering hiring an LCA. This is problematic for three reasons:

1) Many archaeological firms submit archaeological reports to the MCM under one LCA license. Since multiple people, including subcontractors, are conducting studies, writing reports, analyzing collections, under a single license, how is MCM going to calculate and provide a rank, score or merit score to the single licensee? This is mostly problematic for large firms. It seems "Corporate Licensing"may be required?

2) A calculated score will have an impact on company revenues if the MCM publishes this index. Many LCA, for example, that subcontract for others (see above), may have very few archaeological projects submitted under their own licence. Applying a standard index to all LCAs and companies will result in statistically skewed results. Results leading to revenue loss for LCA companies could result in litigation against the crown.

3) Privacy. It is unclear why the MCM needs to publish LCA Compliance Scores and I'm not sure if it is even legal. Credit Scores are not openly published, Driver's Licence Data is not published. This data is made to the general public through Special Request or Freedom of Information (FOI). To avoid unnecessary litigation, be it Judicial Review or Civil, I would suggest to release this information in the same manner as is done with other forms government issued license data (i.e. Ontario Drivers Licence).

Lastly, it is necessary to remember that archaeology is a scientific endeavour: The Crown and First Nations should engage with the process. However, oversight should not impede the pursuit of the material facts.

Minister, Thank-you for your time in this matter.