Technical Bulletin on Aboriginal Engagement. While the APA regional meetings tended to focus on the content of the draft S&G standards of practice, we heard from as many or more members about the Engagement Bulletin than on S&G content. We heard from members who regularly engage in this practice of engagement that, though a very important and positive practice, it is a very complex process that requires a large investment in time and effort to develop good working relationships. We heard from members less experienced in engagement express a great deal of concern over the impact to their businesses and to the practice of archaeology generally, and we heard from OAS members who are also First Nations community members a great deal of frustration over a lack of prior consultation with their communities on the development of the bulletin by the Ministry.
We also heard a great deal of contradictory understandings as to what is thought to be the intent of the bulletin, including assumptions that this will be fiduciary level consultation, or simple mailing of letters with no need to account for feedback, or will require prior consent from communities before undertaking any fieldwork, or will require the turning over of collections made under license to particular communities. We underscore that if there is one real anxiety and great deal of confusion as to intent of standards in the archaeological community, it continues to reside with this document.
Recommendation: We defer any specific recommendation here, and point to the final report of the Task Force, elsewhere on this website (follow this link to access the OAS Technical Bulletin Task Force Report. We also anticipate that, as consultation with Aboriginal communities and organisations expands, the next iteration of the bulletin will differ significantly from its current iteration. What we can say in the interim, based on the feedback we’ve heard from archaeologists, is that we would strongly encourage the Ministry to seek to reduce the current degree of confusion and contradictory understandings that exist with respect to the intent of the engagement standards in the S&G. We understand that the extent this can be done is limited, given the Ministry’s ongoing consultation with First Nations. Nevertheless, these standards are to be operationalised upon implementation, so explicit statements as to the intent of the standards would certainly be of aid (e.g., is the document aimed at facilitating formal consultation, or to facilitate improved archaeological practice in the province? Is the expectation that this engagement will operate within or beyond the constraint of the OHA and license terms and conditions?).
As well, it may well be necessary that Ministry staff will need to assist or otherwise provide technical advice on engagement, case by case, for a transitional period of time after implementation. This may be necessary to avoid significantly variable levels of engagement and confusion and contradictory messaging over how this process does or does not relate to broader fiduciary responsibilities and regulated practices in the province, thus de-stabilising process and making the piecemeal attempts to meet the standard for engagement an issue in of itself. It would be disappointing indeed if achieving the laudable and important goal of integrating First Nations into the decision-making around the management of the archaeological heritage is undermined by trying to do so.
| 1. Interpretation of Standards | 2. Regional Variation in Standards | 3. Complex Procedures |
| 4. Dispute Resolution | 5. Technical Bulletin on Aboriginal Engagement |
| INTRODUCTION | OAS CONSULTATION EFFORTS | OVERVIEW OF FEEDBACK |
| KEY MESSAGES | THEMES |