Bill 5's amendments to the…

Bill 5's amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act, which enable exemptions from archaeological requirements (doing assessments, not disturbing a site), are certainly problematic and need serious rethinking. Further, the criteria for exemptions and the scope of government priority projects is undetermined -- leaving these to regulation decisions behind closed doors in Cabinet, after cursory or no public consultation, would be antidemocratic and demeaning to Ontario citizens. The lack of accountability for such open-ended decisions, through liability exemptions and denying compensation for affected parties, is totally unacceptable within this Schedule and as found elsewhere in the Bill.

Archaeological materials, on site in situ, are important elements in reconstructing and interpreting both Indigenous and settler histories, cultures, and growth over time. They are irreplaceable, and once disturbed or covered over, this information is lost forever. Exemption is not the tool needed to advance transit, infrastructure and other as yet undetermined government priorities. Good project planning, early commencement of assessment, listening to knowledgeable local sources can all help expedite projects. Heritage regulation has its important purposes and stems from past losses and lessons.

Our Canadian reaction to U.S. tariffs has coalesced around our identities (something Premier Ford has fostered), in part framed by the stories we learn from our history as informed by archaeology. This Bill will allow the loss of these stories, undermine our Canadian identify, and cause conflict and division, something we cannot afford at this critical moment. We need to build up our society and avoid the blind bulldozer approach.

I come from six generations of English, Irish, and Scottish settlers in southwestern Ontario and I would not want projects identified by a remote government in Toronto to avoid assessment or to disturb my ancestors' remains or artefacts. I would think this would also be the case for all peoples, particularly Indigenous peoples, whose archaeological record is scattered more widely across our province.

These proposed provisions would seem to, literally, trample on the rights of Indigenous people, the protected treaty and consultation rights to be upheld by the provincial Crown. How can there be respect, truth, reconciliation, consultation or accommodation when this Bill would enable exempted assessment and allowance for disturbance? As court cases have shown, this would be a travesty. The power and exercize of selective exemption, potentially through overzealous political favouratism (as we have seen), can only lead to a souring of relations with Indigenous communities and leaders and the potential for protests and project delays, contrary to the intent of this Bill and Schedule. It can also lead to a loss of respect for the government and the rule of law.

Certainly, "unleashing the economy" need not mean disrespect and ignorance due to not following Heritage Act requirements.

In this context, the Bill should be withdrawn, respect for our collective archaeological heritage be sustained, and the Heritage Act amendments seriously rethought.