Overall comments on proposed…

Overall comments on proposed OHA changes:

- The proposed changes were developed based on submissions from the development industry but with almost no input from municipalities and heritage sector organizations.
- The changes include some measures which could have been sensible and positive improvements; unfortunately because of hasty and inadequate policy consideration and legislative drafting there are many problems with what is proposed. For example, requiring notice of listing to property owners with an opportunity to object is a positive move but, as drafted, the ability to object is open-ended allowing for multiple objections by current and/or future owners at any time.
- Many other proposals are unnecessary and/or confusing and will have a negative impact on the appetite and willingness of municipalities to employ enabling legislation to identify and safeguard the heritage assets of the community. For example, requiring councils to consider "principles", to be prescribed in regulation, when exercising specified powers under the Act is patronizing and will dis courage municipal action. As another example, the puzzling decision to treat the removal of heritage attributes like a demolition could have major unintended consequences in heritage conservation districts.
- The most significant change — giving final say on what constitutes a community’s heritage to LPAT, an unelected, unaccountable agency — represents a radical and undesirable departure from the status quo. The effective dismantling of the Conservation Review Board will also do nothing to expedite approval processes.
- Too many of the changes have been effectively pushed off onto implementing regulations to be developed later and whose purpose and parameters are not clear. As proposed, the legislation will become much more regulation-heavy, resulting in over-regulated and perplexing processes.
- It appears that in the writing and drafting of the proposals clarity and coherence have been sacrificed to expediency because of a desire to see the legislation passed quickly.

In summary: Despite some positive and well-intentioned efforts, these proposals to amend the OHA are badly flawed; as a whole they will dampen efforts to identify and protect significant cultural heritage property in Ontario, contrary to the purpose of the Ontario Heritage Act to further “the conservation, protection and preservation of the heritage of Ontario.”

Schedule 11 of the Bill in its current form does not represent sound public policy and should be withdrawn. A focussed and time-limited consultation involving key stakeholders (development industry, municipalities and heritage sector groups) should be immediately undertaken to address the outstanding issues and come up considered, practical and efficient solutions.

More detailed comments on several of the proposals can be found in my blog article "What to make of Bill 108." See link below. As of June 1 this blog article has had more than 750 hits.