I am commenting on the…

I am commenting on the proposed policy changes to the Cultural Heritage Report of the ERO.

This should provide better guidance and outlines for the role of Indigenous communities and Nations in relation to this process. For example, in completion of the Criteria for Evaluating Archaeological Potential Checklist, you cannot answer questions 4 and 5 without having contact with Indigenous communities and this is often forgotten. Similarly, the avoidance and protection acceptance is based on the MCM which has very loose requirements that do not necessarily meet the DTC. The final paragraph of Section 3.3.1 hints that the Indigenous communities might have an interest outside of the MCM process, but this should be stronger/more explicit in the sections of the document where there is DTC requirement separate from the MCM.

Section 3.2 states that all reports must be entered into the provincial register before an application be considered complete. Given the increased MCM review timelines I would suggest defining that a certain stage of work be complete to allow for the submission of the application to ensure that the MCM process does not create a delaying time factor. For example, if the Stage 1-2 is completed and entered into the register and there are archaeological sites that require more work (and the intention is that it is to be completed), allowing for the submission of the application once the Stage 1-2 is completed along with a mechaism to acknowledge that this additional work is outstanding (e.g., letter of commitment, holding provision, etc.) this work could be undertaken while the ARA application is under review and any other comments are being addressed.

I would suggest that the document define what the buffer zones/set-backs are for archaeological sites or related to the stage of work completed. The MCM documents and the S&Gs do not necessarily provide clarity on these expectations from a planning perspective and if they were defined by MNR (e.g., 20 m or 30 m from site limits based on completion of a CSP) this could ensure a clear process going forward.

I would like to see "significant proportion of the proposed licensed/permitted area" defined for clarity. Should this be a certain percentage of the area? By defining this it would remove the ambiguitity.