I strongly oppose the…

I strongly oppose the enactment of Schedule 7 of Bill 5. While the provisions outlined in Schedule 7 may appear to enhance enforcement measures for heritage protection, they fundamentally fall short of providing the necessary preventive approach required to safeguard our cultural heritage, particularly that of Indigenous communities.

1. The Reactive Nature of Schedule 7

At its core, Schedule 7 is a reactive framework. The provisions it encompasses—inspections, assessment orders, and search and seizure authorities—are designed to respond to violations after they occur rather than preventing them from happening in the first place. This reactive stance is inadequate when considering the urgent need for a proactive strategy to protect cultural heritage values and interests.

2. Prioritisation of Economic Goals Over Heritage Protection

The overarching intention of Bill 5, as evidenced by its language and focus, is to unleash economic potential by facilitating access to critical minerals and expediting permit approvals for mining and infrastructure projects. Such priorities inherently conflict with the preservation of heritage values, which should be a fundamental consideration in any legislative framework affecting our cultural landscape.

3. Insufficient Preventive Measures

The sole preventive measure included in Schedule 7—the ability to issue assessment orders—is rendered ineffective by the clause allowing the government to exempt certain projects if they align with provincial priorities. This exemption undermines any potential for meaningful preventive action, essentially allowing heritage protection to be sidelined in favour of economic advancement.

4. The Erosion of Existing Protections

It is critical to note that the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA), which once provided a robust framework for considering cultural conditions, has been significantly weakened over the years. This decline in protective measures raises concerns about the adequacy of existing safeguards for heritage. The absence of a strong preventive framework in Schedule 7 compounds this issue, leaving cultural heritage vulnerable to encroachment by development projects.

5. The Need for Comprehensive Preventive Approaches

In light of these deficiencies, it is imperative that Schedule 7 be revised to incorporate comprehensive preventive measures that specifically address the cultural heritage values and interests of Indigenous communities. Such measures must include:

Defining cultural heritage resources in a manner that reflects Indigenous worldviews, including the recognition of sacred sites and practices.
Ensuring Indigenous involvement in archaeological assessments and decision-making processes.
Providing adequate time and resources for Indigenous communities to review permits and approvals, with a requirement for their free, prior, and informed consent.
Establishing protective zones around cultural heritage resources and codifying principles that prioritise the preservation of these sites.

Conclusion and Recommendation

In conclusion, Schedule 7, as it currently stands, represents a fundamentally reactive approach to heritage protection that fails to meet the critical need for a preventive strategy. The government of Ontario must recognise the importance of safeguarding Indigenous cultural heritage and revise Schedule 7 accordingly. If such revisions cannot be made, I respectfully submit that Schedule 7 should be withdrawn in its entirety.