I work at Archaeological…

I work at Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA) a heritage and archaeological consulting firm. I am writing to express concern over the proposed changes to the Ontario Heritage Act being put forward through Bill 108.

Established in 1972, ARA is Ontario’s oldest archaeological and heritage consulting firm. We undertake archaeological assessments, heritage assessments and complete heritage restorations for homeowners. ARA’s head office is in the City of Kitchener where it maintains a full-time staff of 30 researchers, technical writers, GIS technicians, laboratory technicians, field archaeologists and heritage specialists. An additional 65 interns, consisting of R-licenced Field Directors, university graduates with degrees in Archaeology, and other highly trained individuals are seasonally employed (usually from April to November) on field projects. Smaller satellite offices are maintained in the Town of Midland and the City of Hamilton. Our staff also live in these cities, many in historic houses.
In the Preamble, Part IV, wording has been changed from: The Province recognizes the importance of consulting with Aboriginal Communities on planning matters that may affect their right and interests. To: The Province recognizes the importance of consulting with Aboriginal communities on planning matters that may affect their section 35 Aboriginal or treaty rights. The original sentence suggests consideration of their rights more broadly, and now their “interests” are not to be considered. That said, the inclusion of the following sentence: Planning authorities are encouraged to build constructive, cooperative relationships through meaningful engagement with Indigenous communities to facilitate knowledge-sharing in land use planning processes and inform decision-making, is to be lauded.

We support the change in Section 2.6.5 from: Planning authorities shall consider the interests of Aboriginal communities in conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources. To: Planning authorities shall engage with Indigenous communities and consider their interests when identifying, protecting and managing cultural heritage and archaeological resources. The reference to engagement with Indigenous communities a clear improvement over “considering the interests of Aboriginal communities”. However, we are concerned that “conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources” has been modified and “conserving” has been removed, as it is noted in the definition of “conserved” there is a need to “ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained” which may not be necessary in the actions of “identifying, protecting and managing cultural heritage and archaeological resources”.
Changes to Definitions:

There are changes to the definition of Areas of Archaeological Potential which are quite disconcerting. PPS 2014 stated: Areas of archaeological potential: means areas with the likelihood to contain archaeological resources. Methods to identify archaeological potential are established by the Province, but municipal approaches which achieve the same objectives may also be used. The Ontario Heritage Act requires archaeological potential to be confirmed through archaeological fieldwork. In the new definition the term “methods” has been replaced with “criteria” and, as to date, there has been no definition of such criteria in this new PPS or in the Ontario Heritage Act is not possible to assess the implications of this wording change. Also, with the removal of the provision for municipal approaches determining areas of archaeological potential there is no consideration of the extensive work of many municipalities in archaeological matters.

The definition for “conserved” has been modified in subtle but significant ways. Originally, the definition indicated that cultural heritage resources were to be conserved in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest was to be retained under the Ontario Heritage Act, however in the new definition reference to the Ontario Heritage Act has been removed whereby there is now no legislation supporting the act of conservation.

Additionally, the PPS 2014 definition stated: “This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment.” New: “This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved or adopted by the planning authority or decision-maker. that has been approved or adopted by the planning authority or decision-maker.” The addition of approval or adoption by a planning authority or decision-maker is extremely concerning as municipalities may not have the staff and/or staff with training on cultural heritage manners to review, comment and approve such studies. As a result, the changes to this definition are extremely problematic.

However, there is a big change in the definition of significance, which we find troublesome.

PPS,2014 definition was: Significant means in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people.

New:
Significant means in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act. National and international criteria are established by the certifying bodies.

Further, in the previous Provincial Policy Statement the “criteria” for determining significance for cultural heritage resources identified throughout the PPS are recommended by the Province, but it also allowed for municipal approaches that achieve or exceed the same objective.

This could allow for changes to how significance is determined by either Ministerial direction or through regulation. We are concerned that this change does not take into consideration the views of Ontario communities. It has the potential reduce the importance of a local community’s ability to determine the “community value” of their cultural heritage resources.

We also have concerns about the proposed changes to the definitions of Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes.

The proposed changes to these definitions and the definition of significance emphasize cultural heritage resources that are already identified in some manner, through designation or registers. The definitions appear to exclude, or do not allow for, the identification of additional cultural heritage resource through the planning process. This is troublesome as recognized cultural heritage resources represent only fraction Ontario’s history. The absence of formal recognition does not mean a property does not have cultural heritage value or interest, only that someone has not yet examined the property to determine if it may have cultural heritage value or interest. This coupled with the proposed changes to the OHA which outlines a more onerous designation and listing process, puts heritage at risk.

Section 4.5, which was worrisome before in that it allows for Ministers to ignore the PPS if they feel like they have good reason, remains in the new document.

Thank you for your consideration of these important issues.