Executive Summary I broadly…

Executive Summary
I broadly support Ontario’s objective to enable strategic, nationally significant economic projects. However, as drafted, the SEZ framework and contemplated exemptions from archaeological assessment risk: 1) undermining section 35 constitutional duties (duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate), 2) creating acute project and reputational risk from unanticipated discoveries of archaeological sites and burials, and 3) exacerbating existing bottlenecks created by the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism’s Archaeology Program Unit (APU). Ontario can achieve timely development and heritage stewardship by embedding explicit archaeological requirements within SEZ designation criteria and trusted-proponent conditions, centering meaningful, early Indigenous engagement with clear accountability, and modernizing the APU’s data management, report QA/QC focus, and professional licensing arrangements.
Context and Alignment with Government Intent
The Draft Policy Intent states that SEZ designations are reserved for activities of critical or strategic importance, with regulatory flexibilities available only when zone + project + trusted proponent are all in place. These are sensible pillars. Yet, neither document sufficiently operationalizes archaeological risk management or clarifies how the Crown will meet the duty to consult in practice within SEZ timelines.
Key Concerns
1) Archaeological Risk and Heritage Loss: Ontario has 37,000+ registered archaeological sites, roughly 80% Indigenous in origin, overwhelmingly identified through pre-development assessments. Removing or weakening pre-construction archaeological assessment will predictably yield mid-project finds, triggering stoppages, emergency mitigation, conflict, and litigation. 2) Duty to Consult and Relationship Risk: Neither the Act’s framing nor the SEZ draft criteria provide clear, accountable pathways for Crown-led consultation on heritage impacts. 3) Systemic Constraints in the APU Impede Both Protection and Speed: Data management failures, broken report review process, and licensing delays hinder capacity and reliability.
Recommendations
A. Strengthen SEZ Project Criteria: Add explicit archaeological and Indigenous heritage assessment tests under the Likelihood of Success and Risk Mitigation factors. B. Strengthen Trusted Proponent Criteria: Add enforceable conditions linked to archaeological and Indigenous engagement performance. C. Clarify Zone Criteria: Require consideration of archaeological sensitivity mapping and Crown duty to consult. D. Modernize the APU: Fund and deliver a 24-month program to clear data backlogs, refocus report review on QA/QC, and transfer licensing to a regulatory body. E. Guardrails on Regulatory Modifications/Exemptions: Codify non-derogation clauses for protection of human remains and burial sites.
Closing
Ontario’s prosperity and heritage are not opposing goals. By hard-wiring archaeological assessment, Indigenous engagement, and APU modernization into the SEZ framework, the Province can achieve faster, surer approvals while upholding constitutional duties and safeguarding irreplaceable cultural heritage.
Respectfully submitted,