Dear Minister, Although I…

Dear Minister,

Although I was encouraged during our meeting in late January when you were speaking about future changes restoring professionalism and simplifying the archaeological process, those contained in the draft 2026 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (S&Gs), not only do not provide these changes, they will make development in the province more expensive and difficult for developers. A detailed review has been completed, however in this letter I will focus on the key issues related to this theme.

The removal of the ability to conclude that some of the property has archaeological potential, and the elimination of the ability to undertake property inspection during Stage 1 work, in combination with poorly defined and ambiguous “indicators of archaeological potential,” will result in all properties requiring Stage 2 (archaeological survey) work, on the entire property. The draft 2006 S&Gs had robust mechanisms in the Stage 1 for determining whether disturbances were present, and to highly refine the areas of archaeological potential of a property. Some of these mechanisms were carried forward into the 2011 S&Gs. This allowed the consultant archaeologist to work with the development community to focus impacts on areas of low archaeological potential, or in some cases avoid Stage 2 work. By requiring all properties to be subject to Stage 2 work will immediately, for some projects, cause a substantial increase in costs.

The 2026 S&Gs propose to eliminate the partial clearance recommendation (s.7.8.5) which has allowed projects, major infrastructure and mining projects in particular, the ability to proceed with development and construction activities early on. The draft also proposes to eliminate find spots as a type of archaeological deposit, and now concludes that an archaeological site is defined by the presence of a single artifact. With the other changes in the 2026 draft, this will require Stage 3 site-specific assessment work to be undertaken when any artifact is found, again increasing costs and delays, whereas currently find spots do not require further assessment.

Changes within the 2026 draft S&Gs will also now require Stage 4 work (excavation or avoidance and protection) to be required for all pre-contact sites except those restricted to the mid- or late-Archaic, and then only if they are not lithic scatters. This means that most archaeological sites which were subject to Stage 3 work will require Stage 4 work further increasing costs and delays.

The posting on the ERO suggests that with updated S&Gs, developers will only have to assess the areas of proposed impacts, however what is not being discussed is that if an approval authority (Ontario Ministries in the north), is not willing to assume the risk of leaving unassessed areas of archaeological potential on the property, the developer’s land will have to be transferred to a public body. This will either force the developer to pay to archaeologically assess all of their land holdings, which concerning some projects are very large tracts, or they will have to forfeit their land. What was perhaps a good thought will have serious consequences for land holders and developers.

There are many professionals in the province willing to participate in the redevelopment of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines, and the Province would benefit from their participation. In reviewing the draft 2026 S&Gs it does not appear that an archaeologist contributed to the changes. If the Province wants a less expensive more efficient approach to archaeology, it is possible by increasing the trust between the Ministry and the professional archaeologists. Currently it is trending in the opposite way, and if implemented these proposed changes will not only slow the process and increase the costs, they will further erode the relationship between archaeologists, the ministry, and the development community.

Minister, when you bring these considerations to those responsible for making the proposed changes, and they tell you that this is not the case, do not believe them. I am at your disposal to further these conversations, and look forward to the opportunity. I shared your optimism during our meeting and wish to assist in developing meaningful changes to the 2011 Standards and Guidelines. I can assure you that the proposed changes are not those you were looking forward to. This is a document which should not be rushed, or allowed to proceed in its current form. There are many additional issues, but I wanted to focus on the impact to the development community some of these proposed changes would cause.

Yours truly,

Woodland Heritage Northeast Ltd.