I submit a comment here as a…

I submit a comment here as a person directly involved in the Cultural Resource Management (CRM) Industry as it pertains to archaeological resources. According to current proposed changes, the MAH can choose to ignore protections on the environment or on archaeological resources. I believe the proposed changes to the Planning are fundamentally concerning for many reasons. Overall, my concern centres on the potential that archaeological assessment and First Nations consultation will be treated as “barrier or delay to critical projects” to be superseded.

First, archaeologists are at the forefront of First Nations engagement and reconciliation processes through the mitigation and/or protection of their material heritage (archaeological sites) in the face of imminent destruction by development. Provincial government consultations with First Nations during the Coordinated Land Use Planning Review in 2015-2017 already found that on the theme of land use conflicts and growth pressures, the major concern of the First Nation representatives was the preservation of archaeological and cultural resources. The importance of material heritage for these communities is also evident when this erasure cannot be avoided in the face of development. Indigenous communities and their liaisons to the CRM industry are advocating for more rigorous mitigation. This has included, but is not limited to, the call for greater degrees of artifact recovery, as is demonstrated in the recent recommended standards for archaeological practice by the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

Secondly, the proposal to ignore environmental and archaeological resource consultations with First Nations would be in contravention with the Canadian Constitution and the Duty to Consult it creates. Relationships and consultation requirements, as embedded in the constitution, extend beyond the jurisdiction of the province and belongs to Federal government and the Supreme Court of Canada. As such, Ontario government’s proposed changes, as it pertains to the duty to consult, is inviting political controversy on this front of Government-First Nations relations. The government should be moving forwards rather than backwards in the hard work of Truth and Reconciliation.

And finally, unfortunate incidents of grave and cultural heritage destruction occur even within the purview of current regulatory policy as it relates to archaeological assessment requirements in the Planning Act, Environmental Assessment act and other relevant legislation. Thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of sites across the province have been destroyed by development before the introduction of heritage protections and planning requirements in the 1970s and 1980s. Much more destruction is likely to happen with the proposed changes – if projects are rushed ahead if the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing took “other considerations into account” without the proper archaeological assessments.