I am forwarding a letter I…

I am forwarding a letter I received from Faye Langmaid, a Heritage Planner in Clarington. Her criticisms of Bill 23 reflect mine and my colleagues who are in the heritage industry in Ontario. This bill, made without consultation with Indigenous and minority groups in Ontario, has the potential to do significant harm to the diversity of our heritage resources. Faye's letter follows:

RE: Proposed Changes to the Ontario Heritage Act and its regulations: Bill 23 (Schedule 6) -
the Proposed More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, ERO 019-6196 Bill 23, More Homes Built
Faster Act, an Act to amend various statutes etc.
Please accept this Written Submission with respect to the ERO 019-6196 posting, part of
Bill 23.
I am writing to the Committee as an individual and as a Registered Professional Planner in
the Province of Ontario with over 30 years of professional practice in this province. I’m also
writing as an individual who has spent the majority of my professional experience working
for municipalities as a land use planner responsible for the review of development proposals
and the development of greenland networks within neighbourhoods. Over the course of my
career, I have facilitated the development of numerous parks, trails and open space
systems and housing through subdivision approvals while attempting to safeguard nature
and balance the competing interests of the public and developers. My deep experience of
how our land use planning processes work as a manager and director provides me with a
broad understanding of the mechanics across the Acts and spectrum of changes being
proposed.
Two of the proposals stand out. Forcing communities to drop “listed” properties from their
heritage registers if they are not designated in two years and requiring that the standard for
designation of properties be hiked from at least one of Ontario’s heritage criteria to two.
Requiring a property meet two of the legislated criteria for designation, instead of one, will
make it challenging to protect the often-humble buildings and places associated with the
historic contributions of Black, Indigenous, Franco-Ontarian, multicultural, and 2SLGBTQIA+
communities to Ontario. This will seriously hamper communities like Little Jamaica or
Kensington Market currently seeking heritage status and protection.
In addition, there is an underlying assumption on the part of the Province that any and all
heritage resources are being added to the register. I can attest that this is not the process
pursued by municipalities. While there were a couple of municipalities that moved
everything from their list to the register when it became available as a tool, the majority of
municipal heritage planners and committees where much more prudent. Regardless, prior
changes to the Act have addressed this issue.
The proposed changes recommended to the Ontario Heritage Act, regarding how the
Municipal Register can be used, do not address the issues identified by heritage planners
and property owners regarding the insurance industry treatment of heritage buildings as
“high risk” properties. Heritage resources would be better served by regulation of the
insurance industries arbitrary rating to avoid insurance pay-outs.
The Municipal Register has proven to be a useful tool for both the property owners and
municipalities in the protection of heritage resources, setting false time limits has no
relationship to the evaluations carried out by Heritage Advisory Committees in their role as
advisor to Council.
If the remainder of the proposed recommendations are to be implemented, the Province
should contribute the resources (e.g. transfer funds) needed to carry out the work required to
evaluate identified properties. Most municipalities work away at these lists as time permits
and unless additional resources are available the work needed to fully investigate a property
and write up the necessary documentation is limited and thus the work is tackled over time.
With regard to the Heritage Conservation District Plans while review on a regular basis is
warranted. The review should address the processes used for review and approval of
heritage permits not a re-hash of the underlying rationale for the HCD designation.
In sum, the proposed amendments are not about heritage resource conservation, rather they
are designed to allow developers to avoid paying attention to heritage resources. The
development of communities, that people love to live in, is contingent on the development
having a sense of place and knowing the historical context of the land, this is the contribution
heritage conservation makes to neighbourhoods.
Sincerely,
Faye Landmaid