By Jim Finnigan of Western Heritage
While attending the Central Canada Mining Exhibition and Conference in Winnipeg this past November, a number of companies complained to me about the sudden appearance of heritage regulations in their activities and the unreasonable timelines required to receive approvals. There is some truth to these complaints, so let’s look at them.
The protection of heritage is not new. Most of the legislation around the protection of archaeological sites and objects date between the mid 1970s to early 1980s, so they have been in place for some 40-ish years. Over that time period, through interactions with industry, Indigenous communities, the general public, and archaeologists, the approach to heritage management has evolved along with our understanding of where archaeological sites are most likely to be found.
Traditionally, if a development considered to have a low potential to damage archaeological sites was located in an area considered to have a low potential to contain archaeological sites, the regulators would not issue any archaeological requirements. With the hindsight of 40 years of archaeological work, our understanding of these potentials has shifted over time. The observation that “we never had to deal with archaeology before” reflects the fact that we now understand that there are very likely archaeological sites in the area you intend to work. It is not a new requirement, but a new understanding.
Heritage regulators are under resourced. Heritage legislation is powerful, but staff were not included. Managing all of the interactions between industry and archaeology, archaeologists and archaeology, the public and archaeology, and Indigenous communities and archaeology, takes people. At various times and due to multiple causes, provincial staffing levels for heritage regulators have dropped to as low as one, but even two or three staff for a province is too low. Having insufficient staff is not the same thing as being lean.
The first public signs of low staff levels are delays in process and communications. It takes time to review industry submissions, and it takes time to issue permits and clearance letters. It is frustrating for everyone and costly to industry. Manitoba’s regulatory staffing levels were quite low this fall and everyone was feeling the effects (including the regulatory staff).
What’s the solution? First, developers should expect archaeology/heritage requirements and include them in their timelines. As noted, the requirements have been in place for 40ish years and they apply to most types of developments.
Second, inform the process. Contract a professional to assess the heritage potential of your development and how it can be managed, and include it in the submission to the regulatory authority. This works better than waiting for the regulatory authority to receive, review, and set the requirements.
Third, communicate your development timelines to everyone. Everyone works better towards common deadlines. The regulator and your contractor will let you know upfront whether a timeline is reasonable.
Fourth, winter is not a friend. Most archaeological requirements come with the caveat that the work must be completed under snow-free/unfrozen ground conditions. These constraints are not absolute, but if you are notified in November that your project will require an archaeological study, it will be very difficult to complete that work until the spring of the following year. This is why the first three steps are important: expect, inform, and communicate. If you must construct in the winter, then you must have approvals in place by early fall.
Fifth, many of the delays result from inadequate staffing levels at the regulatory agencies. Let the minister know that their department does not have the staffing levels required to respond to industries’ needs.
An acknowledgement. This short discussion is coming from a very western regulatory world view. Most of the historic/heritage resources protected by legislation are Indigenous resources. Incorporating Indigenous knowledge and recommendations into the process adds time but leads to more comprehensive decision making. The extra time needs to be included into all of our timelines going forward.
