We write on behalf of the…

We write on behalf of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (“SON”), in response to Bill 5, Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as “Bill 5” or “the Bill”).

In Bill 5, Ontario is scaling back protections in Ontario law for the environment, species at risk, and cultural heritage. The changes Ontario proposes in Bill 5 amount to an attack on our rights and way of life. There is a clear pattern to the changes proposed in the Bill: the government seeks to, at its discretion, remove regulations and safeguards in place that protect our Territory, reduce or circumvent the opportunities for First Nations to be consulted, and ultimately steamroll our rights and laws. The Bill cannot be passed in its current form.

We have been in our Territory since time immemorial. There are important archaeological and ancestral sites, locations significant to our history and who we are as a people, throughout our Territory. Some of these sites have already been disturbed by development. We have fought for many years, and continue to fight, to get these sites appropriately protected and to ensure our sacred places are treated with respect and cared for in accordance with Anishinaabe law.
The proposed amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act (“OHA”) will make this fight, which is already an uphill battle, significantly more difficult. The amendments will allow the government to exempt a proponent from provisions of the OHA designed to protect archaeological sites. The criteria for these exemptions is not yet known, and would be up to the government to decide through regulations. The government could exempt a proponent, for example, from needing to get a license to disturb archaeological sites, such as sites our ancestors used as hunting camps, sacred spaces, or inhabited as villages. The government could also exempt a proponent from needing a permit to excavate a designated property, or from needing to conduct an archaeological assessment, even where development is happening on a known archaeological site.
In sum, these amendments amount to a targeted attack on Indigenous peoples and our ancestors.
The OHA is a fundamentally necessary and historic piece of provincial legislation, which has alone played an essential role in protecting archaeological sites in Ontario, including those within our Territory. It serves many purposes relating to the protection of culturally-relevant grounds, but also acts as a legislative safeguard against illegal acts of destruction towards Indigenous burial sites. The OHA also functions prophylactically as a deterrent, helping to ensure that developers, consultants, planning authorities and individuals understand that there are protections in place in Ontario. It stands as a reminder that cultural heritage and archaeological sites (non-renewable) cannot be disregarded, and that archaeological assessments must be conducted in a thorough and appropriate manner, with regard for Indigenous groups and their rights protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Indigenous peoples depend upon the OHA for these protections, and every report that is provided to SON by a licensed consultant archaeologist in Ontario references the OHA, and the rules and regulations it commands. These archaeological assessments and associated reporting are of the utmost importance to the Saugeen Anishnaabek with regard to the identification, conservation and protection of our ancestry, our sacred places, with reference to the features and locations provincially-identified as archaeological sites. Nochemowenaing is just one example of such sacred ancestral sites requiring necessary protections in our Territory.
Ontario has a tragic history related to archaeological protection, including a very dark time when all developments were not preceded by archaeological assessment. This lack of oversight and absence of accountability resulted in the destruction of untold numbers of ancestral sites and burials connected to Indigenous groups in the province. Even now, in a time where the spirit of reconciliation has brought change, there remains significant obstacles to overcome to ensure Indigenous sites and artifacts are protected under provincial legislation. There is no question that the proposed changes to the OHA would jeopardize, if not undo, all of the progress collectively made by the province and Indigenous communities around archaeological protection and accountability for developers who disregard the law. In places like SON Territory, the detection of ancestral sites can be difficult. In the process of working with several counties, covering an extensive area, to develop Archaeological Management Plans (AMPs) - it has become evident that the number of sites that have (as yet) been recorded in the past, does not remotely reflect the actual incidence of ancestral sites or their distribution within SON Territory. Many historic impacts have already occurred - resulting in our archaeological visibility being greatly impaired. In recent years, with new commitments to reconciliation and enhanced collaborative stewardship in the archaeological field, the number of sites being documented in our Territory is growing at an unprecedented rate. This includes the first palaeo site documented in Bruce County, squarely in our Territory, as well as the discovery of one of the largest ancestral sites ever recorded. The proposed changes to the OHA would compromise the progress being made around cultural protection in Ontario, and prevent SON and other First Nations from both addressing the impacts on them and protecting their ancestors and sacred sites.
The Saugeen Anishinaabek depend upon the OHA to achieve justice when archaeological sites or ancestral burials are impacted, damaged or destroyed. This includes impacts to a profoundly culturally significant ancestral site suffered by Saugeen First Nation in 2022, in Southampton at the mouth of the Saugeen River (S. Rankin St.). This is among the most obvious reasons why the OHA must not be altered or adulterated. Legislative protections for archaeological sites and burial grounds act as a deterrence against future destruction. Our concerns with regard to protection and preservation of cultural heritage have only been compounded by impacts to a large ancestral burial site in Sauble Beach in 2023, as well as several other archaeological sites within our Territory in recent years that had not yet been fully documented due to existing failures within the provincial Planning Act and the reckless issuance of municipal building permits. The failure to protect and preserve sites of importance to Indigenous groups is an ongoing crisis in Ontario, which has already led to the destruction of ancestral sites. The prospect of exacerbating this further by removing and diminishing the critical protections and long-standing provisions of the OHA is absolutely unacceptable.
The proposed changes flowing from Bill 5 would reduce the science of archaeology to an ineffective and sad reactive measure, with no regard for the rights of Indigenous Peoples or stewardship over our cultural heritage. The Supreme Court of Canada has long recognized the need for the Crown, as represented by the provincial government in this case, to consult Indigenous people on conduct that would adversely impact their rights. Because of this, the Saugeen Ojibway Nation demands that any legislative changes that remove safeguards for the protection of Indigenous artifacts and sacred sites be retracted and removed from Bill 5, and that consultation with Indigenous groups be taken. Any changes from the Government of Ontario should not erase the progress made to protect culturally-significant areas.
The drastic erosion of this critical legislation would represent an unjustifiable and cruel attack upon the rights of Indigenous peoples, their ancestors, and their very ways of life. Various legislative acts and policy changes have made progress on Indigenous rights and the protection of Indigenous cultures in Canada, including the federal United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (“UNDA”)and Canada’s Reconciliation Action Plan. These changes affirmed Canada’s commitment to the recognition of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (“UNDRIP”) and provided a framework for its implementation domestically. In our case, Article 11 of the UNDRIP speaks directly to the rights of Indigenous peoples to practice and revitalize their cultures, including our right to protect archaeological and historic sites, as well as artifacts. The changes being introduced through Bill 5 would be entirely counter to Ontario’s commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, the intention of the UNDA, and the ongoing duty to consult owed to First Nations groups in the province. This includes the ongoing need to engage as outlined in the Provincial Policy Statement (2024).
Given the concerns outlined in this letter, we call for a halt to the changes in Bill 5 and consultation with First Nations on the legislative alterations being made. The Government of Ontario has failed to consider the immense impacts these changes will have on Indigenous rights and cultures in the province, and should take necessary measures to ensure that any changes to OHA maintains its intended purpose of protecting cultural sites and artifacts, including those of Indigenous peoples.
Even beyond these amendments, Ontario seeks to limit its own liability, preventing anyone from suing them about anything “directly or indirectly” related to “anything done or not done” under the law or its regulation. Although this won’t apply to judicial reviews, claims for constitutional remedies or claims based on infringements of Aboriginal and Treaty rights, this still creates a barrier for proceeding through the courts. If we lose money or are otherwise harmed because of irresponsible government action related to an ancestral archaeological site, for example, actions addressing that could be barred.
Ontario putting in place this ‘get out of jail free’ law shows that it does not want to be held accountable for the harms that it knows will be caused by this change. We call on Ontario to remove these limitations from the amendments.