The end does not justify the…

The end does not justify the means outlined in this proposal. The changes proposed in this document are apparent in their goals, which are to facilitate the development of a greater supply of housing, and to concentrate power in order to do so. I take issue with the flagrant disregard for local governance with the imposition of ministerial review and revision for assessments of heritage value, and the exemption of the LGIC from the standards and guidelines of heritage conservation. These apparatuses give disproportionate and arbitrary power to provincial officials to override both local concerns and the province's own rules. This is, at best, undemocratic, and at worst, an abuse of power.
Similarly, the automatic removal of non-designated properties from municipal heritage registers, the increasing difficultly to create new heritage designations, and the reshaping of heritage conservation districts into an "iterative tool to facilitate development" impose limitations on local government and their heritage priorities. Cultural heritage resources are finite and in many cases, provide both the character and tourism appeal for municipalities throughout Ontario. To squander these resources for the sake of rapid development would be foolhardy. Any amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act should prioritize the adaptive re-use of heritage structures to meet the needs of the communities in which they are found, rather than focusing on the removal of heritage protections and running roughshod over municipalities that seek to protect these finite resources. Greater municipal density and more housing options can be better achieved through collaboration with local authorities and not at the expense of local heritage.