This is a considered…

This is a considered response to Section 7 of the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025, and the draft Special Economic Zones (SEZ) policy and regulation documents. I am a professional archaeologist with two decades of experience, not all of which is in Ontario. I hold a professional license in Ontario and have obtained a doctorate in Archaeology. I am currently the President of the London Chapter of the Ontario Archaeological Society, and a member of the West Perth Heritage Advisory Committee. While I broadly support Ontario’s goals for economic growth, I argue that this objective must align with heritage values, Indigenous rights, and sustainable development.
As I understand it, Section 7 of the Act proposes exemptions from archaeological assessments for development properties if they meet specific criteria. This section appears to be part of an effort to expedite development and reduce burdensome bureaucracy that has impeded development and has not been working for the benefit of anyone. What this amendment does not consider is the conflict and chaos it will inevitably cause. It is a step backwards in Indigenous engagement, acknowledgment of sovereignty and land rights, self-determination and the Duty to Consult (which is mandated by multiple supreme court precedents), and will never have the desired outcome. Neither Bill 5 nor the currently proposed legislation and SEZ draft criteria address the Duty to Consult, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action. This is a clear violation of Indigenous rights and a grave error by the province if efficient development is its goal.
The SEZ Draft Criteria fails to explain, or account for, how significant archaeological sites, sacred sites or burial grounds will be identified if archaeological assessment is not conducted prior to development. There are 37,000+ registered archaeological sites in Ontario, of which roughly 80% are Indigenous in origin. These sites have primarily been identified in southern Ontario, south of the Canadian Sheild, during archaeological assessments which have generated roughly 50,000 reports. Based on my familiarity with archaeological management plans in this region, I would estimate that less than 1% of southern Ontario has been subject to archaeological assessment and somewhere between 75-90% of all of the land in southern Ontario retains archaeological potential based on the current provincial criteria. To date, there are only roughly 7,000 registered archaeological sites in northern Ontario, not because past land use was less intensive or pervasive, but because such a small portion of the land has been subject to archaeological assessment.
To recognize significant sites and effectively manage them, they must first be identified. This amendment does not consider the issues that will arise from burials or other sensitive sites being discovered mid-development. The cost and the substantial risk involved in undertaking development without archaeological assessment are extremely high. Adding to this, the regulation provides no guidance on what to do in such a scenario. The resulting conflict will further impede development, increase uncertainty, and further erode the relationship between Indigenous/descendent communities and the province.
The current system is undisputedly broken; however, these measures undermine reconciliation, risks irreversible heritage loss, and create uncertainty and increased risks for developers. It contradicts SEZ guiding principles, which emphasize consultation, Indigenous engagement, and responsible growth. Further, it does not address the core issue that has caused unnecessary delays and impediments to development; namely the neglect and mismanagement of the Archaeology Program Unit (APU) at the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM).
There are several key issues at the archaeology program unit that need to be addressed, all of which, when addressed, would do significantly more to expedite the development process. These issues are intertwined and demonstrate the systemic failure of the APU.
Data management: Following the directive of Section 65.1(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, the APU is responsible for establishing and maintaining a register of archaeological reports. In addition, the APU also maintains the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (OASD). The APU has failed to maintain either database in a way that supports sustainable development, Indigenous rights, or heritage interests. Reports are frequently unavailable for review, not included in the database, and even incorrectly filed. Site data cannot be relied upon with confidence as sites are often inaccurately mapped or lack the necessary data to make informed decisions regarding their management and current status.
Archaeological Report Review: The archaeological report review process at the APU is broken and cannot be solved by adding additional staff. This process currently causes costly delays and significantly impedes to development. In addition, these delays create heightened uncertainty for developers. At its core, the report review process is currently trying to regulate the practice of archaeology in Ontario through the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists, a woefully out of date document. Report review has never, and will never, be an effective method of ensuring compliance and regulating practice. It is not the right tool for the job. The review process, along with an updated Standards and Guidelines, should be utilized to ensure quality control for the data being submitted to the APU and entered into the provincial registry. Shifting the focus of review towards quality assurance and control as part of data management, would quickly alleviate the current backlogs and slow turnaround while ensure better data is entered into the provincial databases.
Licensing: The APU is currently responsible for issuing licenses to archaeologists under the Ontario Heritage Act (Section 48 (1)). At this point the APU has demonstrated that it is incapable of renewing or issuing licenses in a timely fashion to qualified archaeologists. Simultaneously, it appears unable to competently identify the difference between qualified and unqualified applicants. As such, licensing and the regulation of the professional practice of archaeology should be removed from the APU and installed in a government-appointed regulatory body as is common for other professions such as doctors, layers, engineers, and surveyors. These self-regulating bodies issue licenses, establish and uphold standards for competence, ethics, and professional conduct, discipline members who do not meet these standards, work in the interest of the public, and have the capacity to enforce compliance. I would suggest that the Ontario Heritage Trust, with sufficient funding, would be a good candidate to take on this role.
Duty to Consult: The APU has never clearly identified the parties responsible for engaging with Indigenous Communities regarding potential impacts to their heritage nor when such consultation is required. Further, it has not ensured that this required consultation takes place. During the current process associated with this legislation, the Province, the MCM, and the APU have utterly failed to conduct meaningful engagement with Indigenous Communities. The responsibility has all too frequently fallen to archaeologists. As a discipline we have struggled to move beyond our colonial and exploitive history and develop positive relationships with Indigenous communities. We have come a long way, but still have a lot further to go. We have the experience and existing relationships to help guide these consultations in regards to heritage concerns and should be involved with future engagement.
Ontario can achieve timely development and heritage stewardship together. Aligning SEZ principles with archaeological protection ensures economic growth without sacrificing the integrity of cultural heritage.