As an archaeologist working…

As an archaeologist working in the CRM industry I have some major concerns for the proposed changes. Based on my experience and understanding of the process, I believe that the proposed changes will create more details and red tape within the municipal infrastructure development process and will create significant legal risks for the Province and municipalities.

1) As the proposed changes remove the legislative trigger and guidance for the process it does not remove the requirement to complete all of the associated technical studies that are derived from other separate pieces of legislations and acts. As such, this will create a patchwork of how various municipalities understand and meet the legal requirements. This patchwork will create greater uncertainty as unequal responses will be developed.

2) As was discussed in the recent government workshops, it is anticipated that these changes will result in fewer technical studies being conducted to reduce the burden on provincial review bodies. As the requirements for the technical studies still exist, this does not alleviate this burden and risk causing additional complications as the technical studies will have to happen earlier in the process where there is more uncertainty of the project details and impacts. Further, given the significantly reduced timelines for the EA process there would be no effective means to meet these timelines based on the current government review times (for example, the current average MCM review times for reports is at least 45 days from report submission and can often be significantly longer). As such, a mechanism will be required to reduce these review timelines within the process.

3) There are currently no effective means to support municipalities to ensure that known archaeological sites are adequately protected from impact during infrastructure projects. In the past, the Stage 1 archaeological assessment within the MCEA process was a tool to fill this gap. With this requirement removed there are fewer tools to help municipalities make the proper decisions and remain compliant with the Ontario Heritage Act. The recent humans remains discovery along Withrow Avenue in Toronto is a prime example of the risks and impacts of not properly identifying known risks early - and this is in a municipality with a lot of capacity and an existing Archaeological Management Plan. In addition, while some municipalities are given access to the Ontario Sites Database maintained by the MCM, the type and quality of the archaeological data makes this an unreliable data and increases the chances for impacts to known archaeological sites.

4) There are not adequate timelines for Indigenous community engagement within the proposed process. Based on current capacity issues, many Indigenous communities are already pressured to meet current, more flexible engagement/consultation timelines. With the shortened EA process, this will create additional time pressure - especially with the current government review times for technical reports - and increases the chances that they will not be able respond in time and not be meaningfully engaged. This runs counter to the tenants of the DTCA and increases the chances of impacts to significant areas and a legal challenge to individual projects or the entire process.

Overall, I believe the proposed changes will unintentionally result in additional delays to the process by downloading the decision making process and burden onto municipalities without additional supports and guidance. Further, the authority and portions of the process that are retained within the new EA process create unachievable goals and expectations that will result in the EA process causing further delays and costs.