On behalf of the City of…

On behalf of the City of Toronto Planning Division I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to the Ontario Heritage Toolkit released on June 1, 2021.

While we appreciate that the five guidance documents were released in advance of the proclamation of the Ontario Heritage Act (the Act) on July 1, 2021, the 30 day comment period to review over 250 pages on discrete topics has been a challenge, particularly as we focus on readying ourselves for implementation of the Act. We have heard many of our sector partners express similar concerns and, notwithstanding the comments contained in this communication, we respectfully request a commitment to release a revised draft for further comment prior to the finalization of the Toolkit revisions, including opportunities for collaboration and dialogue.

At this time we offer the following comments and recommendations that we ask you to consider before the guides are produced and we welcome the opportunity to further discuss the documents following their review. The importance of clear and up-to-date guidance for heritage conservation in the Province is critical given the extensive amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act made through the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 and in particular to the Part IV designation and appeal process. Ensuring that the interpretation of the Act is accessible, equitable and supports diversity will better assist municipalities and communities in establishing strong, defensible and inclusive designations.

As was noted in our letter from July 2020 regarding the pending revisions to the Toolkit, the City strongly believes that this update presents – for the first time in 15 years from when it was released – a critical opportunity to reflect current and emerging municipal best practices in heritage conservation, and can positively contribute to key Provincial interests such as supporting a sense of place and identity, social cohesion, livability, sustainability and economic growth. The revision also presents a timely opportunity to discuss heritage conservation as it relates to racial equality and to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Call to Action for Indigenous Nations and communities. While we understand from recent provincial training that the Toolkit is considered to be "a living document," we remain of the opinion that the volumes that are produced for this revision will likely guide heritage practice for years to come. Getting it done quickly could come at high price, particularly for racialized communities and Indigenous peoples in the Province. True consultation can only be achieved through meaningful engagement and it is unclear if any such engagement has been undertaken.

In recognition of the important role the Toolkit has played in our municipal work, and despite the challenges of a limited commenting period on the Environmental Registry, City staff have provided detailed comments, asked questions and suggested revisions for four of the five Toolkit documents (we have not commented on the guide related to Municipal Heritage Committees) which are all attached to this letter for consideration. These comments range in nature from requests for greater clarity, to suggested revisions to language to better align with the Act, to formatting and organization of the documents. We share MHSTCI's desire to ensure that the Toolkit is consistent with the revised Ontario Heritage Act, and have identified through the redline documents instances where the document appears to differ from the legislation, or where the text may lead to confusion and misinterpretation on how the Act is intended to be implemented.

In compiling these comments five key themes emerged: the need to better reflect and prioritize the research, evaluation and designation process; the need for improved guidance on meaningful community engagement and how the Act can support equity initiatives in heritage conservation; the interpretation and application of Ontario Regulation 9/06; the need to clearly set out standard processes for the study and evaluation of HCDs; and observations about Heritage and Land Use Planning in advance of a revised Heritage and Land Use Planning guide being produced. A summary of these key themes follows.

Prioritizing Research, Evaluation, Listing and Designation Processes

Providing clear direction on the step-by-step approach and best practices for research, evaluation and designation of properties of cultural heritage value or Interest is critical to achieving successful conservation outcomes and the Toolkit is well positioned to support these core activities. However, while the guidance that has been provided within sections of the Evaluation, Designation and Heritage Conservation District Toolkit guides is appreciated, we offer suggested areas of improvement for the structure of each document that could, if adopted, provide greater clarity and reflect current municipal best practices in identifying, researching, evaluating and designating individual properties and HCDs throughout Ontario.

Critically, the sequential approach to Understanding, Planning, and Intervening advanced within both Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and as reflected in the Ministry's Eight Guiding Principles should be reflected in each document's organization and the directions provided within them. For example, the Evaluation guide provides useful information on "Research" but it is found both prior to and following the section on "Evaluation," which will lead to confusion about when the evaluation should occur – i.e. only after thorough research has been completed.

Similarly, the existing Places of Worship document contains important and useful guidance on research but in the revised document this information has been omitted from the text in favour of placing it in an appendix. This reorganization results in a de-coupling of research and evaluation that reduces the reader's understanding that research is foundational to evaluation. In-text comments have been provided within both documents to assist in identifying where the distinction between the research and evaluation stages could be improved in order to facilitate this understanding.

We also recommend that the information provided about Listing non-designated properties and other OHA processes be moved to the Designation Guide and retitled accordingly. This allows guidance for research and evaluation to be appreciated as separate from legislative processes and requirements.

Engagement and Equity

We appreciate inclusion of new text and references to community engagement, and the clear desire on the part of MHSTCI to advance an equitable approach to heritage conservation. As noted in the City of Toronto's submission on the Toolkit revisions last year, the importance of conserving places of heritage value that reflect the diversity of communities of interest - both past and present - is the backbone of why we designate and conserve historic places. Since our last letter to you this has become all the more apparent through public discourse and events and the critical eye on how the fields of heritage conservation and planning have reinforced exclusion and resulted in cultural erasure.

MHSTCI is strongly encouraged to incorporate a more holistic approach within the Toolkit that describes the important role that communities and stakeholders play in the identification, research and evaluation process, and to address equity and inclusion within all conservation activities generally. The revised draft Toolkit's consistent use of place-based definitions of the term "community" potentially limits those who may have an interest in a historic place which runs the risk of diminishing the role and the voice of non-geographically situated stakeholders. Suggestions have been provided where language may be revised to ensure that the occupation of land does not disadvantage certain groups over others in expressing their interest in or value of historic places.

Although there were no changes to proposed Bill 108 legislation following the City of Toronto's stated concern that the revised Ontario Heritage Act will limit the City's ability to gather community input about the value of lands and properties (particularly within new stringent timeframes for designation related to a Prescribed Event), further direction on how communities broadly defined can be meaningfully integrated into the research and evaluation process could help to offset this limiting factor.

Although new sections and text within the Toolkit seek to encourage greater engagement with local communities and support the consideration of community knowledge and oral history, there remains a continued emphasis and preference for physical and textual evidence throughout the Evaluation document. Suggested revisions have been provided to ensure that oral histories, community knowledge and a sense of place are valued in addition to traditional forms of research and information gathering.

As a matter of utmost importance, the City strongly encourages the Province to engage with Indigenous communities and to receive Indigenous input on the research and evaluation process if it has not done so already. Indigenous knowledge-keeping bears little resemblance to the traditional post-settlement approach to archives and historic maps. We offer the following specific observations as they pertain to Indigenous issues and representation in the Toolkit's Evaluation guide:

• Indigenous peoples appear to only be referred to in terms of archaeological settings and not as living urban communities. For example:

o P. 11 Using specifically "Indigenous campsites" as an example of a feature that can "help identify where the oldest cultural heritage resources may be found" reinforces the narrative that Indigenous peoples and their history are long in the past – of course there are many very old Indigenous sites, as the first peoples of this land, but this guide provides no further explanation at any point of the contemporary and continuous history of Indigenous peoples
o Indigenous history can be very recent as communities are finding ways to make their mark and have their voice heard in an urban environment that for so long looked only to displace them and label them as people who did not belong
o There may seem to be a span of time where there was little to no Indigenous presence within the city, but this is not true, and it needs to be understood within the narrative of dispossession that was forced upon Indigenous peoples, and not as evidence that they have no history in the city during that time

• P. 35 The section under "5.5 Who Does the Evaluation" that specifically refers to Indigenous communities may need an extra line of clarification to explain that there may also be people beyond these two bullet points that communities consider qualified. Those who are new to Indigenous engagement they may hold on to these examples as the only way to identify qualified people in indigenous communities, rather than allowing for the diverse ways of knowledge-holding that Indigenous communities consider important

• P.43 It is not clear if Indigenous communities were consulted about the definition of oral history.
o Although the guide does not exclusively attach the use of oral histories to Indigenous peoples in the description of Oral Evidence, the placeholder for illustrative images states the desire to show examples of heritage properties associated with Indigenous communities. While many peoples hold oral tradition in high regard, this document has chosen to specifically refer to

Indigenous communities in other sections to demonstrate how oral traditions and knowledge-keeping as practiced by Indigenous peoples may differ from many groups with oral traditions. For consistency, this should be described in this section also.

In general, as noted, there is little emphasis on community engagement within this guide. This is a marked absence in the revised Toolkit, especially as it pertains to Indigenous engagement and the research and evaluation process. Additionally, there is no explanation given to the need to engage with communities who have a relationship to the area but who may not live or work there. This is especially relevant to Indigenous peoples throughout the Province. City staff are concerned that a guide to evaluate Indigenous heritage is not complete without Indigenous input into how their heritage should be identified, understood and represented.

Interpretation and Application of Ontario Regulation 9/06 - CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST

Guidance and interpretation of Ontario Regulation 9/06 is a welcome addition to the Evaluation guide and with its inclusion the Toolkit presents an opportunity to build on and support a growing shared understanding within the heritage community of how properties should be evaluated against prescribed regulations. It is observed that the interpretation that has been provided has been taken from the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties, prepared in 2014, which has been used by MHSTCI and their consultants when applying the regulation to evaluating properties owned, controlled, administered or occupied by MHSTCI.

As currently drafted, the interpretation raises significant questions and concerns as it does not reflect current best practices in municipal heritage evaluation and the application of
O. Reg. 9/06. For example, the revised Toolkit on Evaluation could be misread to suggest that tangible heritage is only related to design and physical value, and that historical and associative values are only expressed through intangible heritage and therefore properties with historic/associative value may not contain heritage attributes to be conserved. The interpretation advances an outdated perception that properties that satisfy contextual or historic/associative criteria, but do not have design/physical may not warrant physical conservation.

Not only is this view not supported by the heritage community, it is at odds with the regulation which states that any one criterion needs be met to support designation.
Such a distinction risks unduly prejudicing evaluators and adjudicators in favor of resources that have design/physical value over those that do not, and places at-risk heritage resources that may be associated with marginalized communities or that contribute to a well-defined, vernacular context.

Reflecting Standard Process for Studying and Evaluating HCDs

Concerns have been noted within the redline documents that address the organization and terminology used within the HCD guide generally, which would benefit from being revised to reflect the post-2005 process that most municipalities undertake when studying, evaluating and designating HCDs.

As currently structured, the City has had particular challenges with the HCD Toolkit's use of the term "study", which is used to refer to both the pre-plan phase (that is a suggestion but not a requirement of the OHA) as well as to the entire process from study to plan initiation. The resulting difficulty in differentiating the pre-plan "study" from the overall study was a particular topic of debate during the City's three-week hearing on the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood HCD appeal when, for example, there was disagreement about the interpretation of when the Toolkit directed that changes should be made to the Official Plan and by-laws. Comments within the redline document seek to help the document more clearly distinguish between the Study, Plan, and Implementation stages in order to assist in providing clarity on this and other process-related matters

In 2012 the City of Toronto adopted its own terms of references for the study, evaluation and designation of HCDs ("HCDs in Toronto"), in large part due to the lack of any equivalent to Ontario Regulation 9/06 in the Act to assist in the evaluation of potential HCDs. HCDs in Toronto includes a modified version of Ontario Regulation 9/06 that has since 2012 been used as a guide to evaluating potential Districts. If the Province is now recommending 9/06 for the purposes of evaluating a potential District's cultural heritage value, a more fulsome interpretation of how each criterion should be applied on a district level is needed than what is currently provided. The existing summary is appreciated but will not assist in applying 9/06 to district evaluation or defending it on appeal. A thorough explanation of how the criteria are to be interpreted on the District level is especially critical as it is subsequently referenced in section 3.1.2 as the basis for preparing the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value for the District. A review of the interpretation of 9/06 contained
within HCDs in Toronto may be of assistance in the development of similar guidance within the HCD toolkit.

Heritage and Land Use Planning

We note that revisions to the Toolkit do not fully acknowledge and provide meaningful guidance for large urban municipalities on the identification, evaluation and conservation of individual heritage resources and the link to the Planning Act "Prescribed Event." The Toolkit, including the forthcoming guide on Land Use Planning and Heritage are useful references for developing communication materials for members of the public, and improvements could be made to assist in communicating the value, core principles and best practices of heritage conservation to property owners, lawyers and adjudicators, within areas undergoing dynamic growth or change.