Heritage Framework…

Heritage Framework Transformation: Proposals related to Ontario’s Archaeology Program, including targeted changes to the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists

ERO number: 026-0216
Notice type: Policy
Act: Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990
Posted by: Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism
Notice stage: Proposal
Proposal posted: March 6, 2026
Comment period: March 6, 2026 - April 5, 2026 (30 days) Open
Last updated: March 6, 2026

General Stance: Opposition to Implementation as the 2026 Draft

The proposed updates to the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (S&Gs) Draft 2026 should not be implemented as they currently stand. I appreciate that the S&Gs are finally being opened up for review, as when the document was first released in 2011, the archaeological community was told that it was a “living document” and would be opened up for review in five years time. Thank you for opening this document for review, as it has a number of issues that require addressing.

However, this current 2026 draft of the S&Gs fails to deliver on the goals of the Heritage Framework Transformation process. In effect, it will be counter to those goals. The 2026 planned changes will conflict with other legislative and/or planning processes, and create greater confusion. One such area is Indigenous engagement. In order to bring the S&Gs in line with UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) and the PPS ([Ontario] Provincial Policy Statement) 2024, the S&Gs continue to adhere to the end of Stage 3 engagement, when Indigenous communities have repeatedly indicated that they by rights should be engaged at Stage 1, on-wards. The professional archaeologist is unsupported as to how to handle this situation when the client does not want to engage, the Ministry APU (Archaeological Programs Unit) indicates engage early and engage often, and the Indigenous communities state they require engagement from the beginning of the process. In addition, there is no clarification in the S&Gs on how address the archaeologist’s engagement practice versus the client’s engagement practice – ie. The client does not wish to engage, or if they do, wants all the correspondence and engagement to be part of the total management project, and does not allow separate engagement (this is for all archaeological stages). The APU is not addressing these instances.

Solution: Bring the S&Gs in line with other legislation, and mandate that Indigenous engagement occur from Stage 1 on-wards.

That is one area that needs to be up-dated. There are a number of other points that should be addressed. It should be noted that there are so many points that require comment, but I’m keeping this short and hitting the highlights.

The Minister’s letter to professional archaeologists (February 27th, 2026) had indicated that there were to be new standards for limited assessments and partial clearances. While there is a very good diagram for limited assessments for building envelopes, the 2026 draft S&Gs does not address Environmental Zones that also will not be developed. The only mechanism in this new document that could address this is listed under Stage 2 assessment, Standard 4g: if an area is has potential but no impacts it won’t need to be assessed if it meets two criteria – that there is written approval by the approval authority and the area not to be assessed is to be transferred to a public body that also provided written confirmation of such. I think really this should be an “or” between these two conditions. I think that planners and municipalities will not have the capacity to take these sections of land onto their purview nor are the developers/landowners going to want to give up the land, which in effect negates the Environmental Zone not being assessed. Sensitive vegetation, rare species, snake and small mammal habitats etc will in effect be disturbed by the archaeological assessment, destroying what is supposed to be preserved.

There is nothing in the 2026 draft S&Gs to address the lack of understanding of complex urban archaeology, and/or what constitutes fills (local or imported) and what that means for cultural heritage value or interest? How to include, or not include materials from these non-contextual layers? Are these to be included in overall counts? These questions are not covered in either S&Gs, and the APU is side-lining professional judgement. While the use of “professional judgement” is still retained in the 2026 draft S&Gs, based on the previous 2011 use of that term, it will not be taken into consideration, despite the number of times it has been inserted in the text. [See comment above about this issue].

The 2026 draft S&Gs appear to be deeply prescriptive and does not allow the archaeologists to exercise professional judgement and perform our tasks in the field without having to answer to the APU. We have asked for more input from the APU (answering phone calls about the S&Gs, circumstances not covered in the S&Gs) and instead these are addressed at the report review stage.

Solution: Have the APU review officers answer the phone regarding our questions about the S&Gs and field conditions, or return our calls within the prescribed Ontario government rules per accountability. The draft 2026 S&Gs actually removes phrases that encourage contact with the APU staff.

We have been licensed by the Ontario Government through the APU, and this is also something that needs to be changed as there is no accountability on the APU’s role as both overseer and licensing agency for archaeologists – which reads to me as conflict of interest. We simply cannot proceed with our jobs when the APU is second guessing our results and interpretations. This would appear to be counter to the Minister’s February letter in which he stated: “Accountability will remain in place, but it will be applied in a way that recognizes your professional expertise while ensuring appropriate oversight”. The 2026 S&Gs do nothing to allow for our judgement to be valued and implemented.

Solution: Allow licensed archaeologists to conduct fieldwork and interpretation of sites based on our professional judgement, along with input from Indigenous communities when we are submitting project plans and/or site testing/excavation methodologies to them.

The archaeological process has been considered to be ineffectual to obstructional for moving development forward. Professional consultants are looked at to provide ways to proceed and work through the protocol. However, the APU’s interpretation of the S&Gs, and inconsistent application of these Standards leaves the S&Gs as a systemic failure. This new 2026 draft of the S&Gs does nothing to move this process forward or clarifies the situation. In short, the way that this form of the S&Gs will create greater confusion and more time delays in the whole development process. Bring the professional archaeologists to the table to revise the S&Gs. We have been asking for a seat at the table since 2016 when the S&Gs were supposed to have been open for comment.

Solution: Proceed with implementation only after Indigenous communities and professional archaeologists involved provide meaningful input, otherwise the goals of the Heritage Framework Transformation will not achieve a streamlined effect, but add confusion and overall delays.

Do not implement this document as it stands. Thank you.