Manitoba archaeological regulations

Last updated October 20, 2022

Manitoba archaeology regulations control archaeology-related activities in the province of Manitoba.

The Heritage Resources Act

The minister, a member of the Executive Council, may designate a site as a heritage site if the minister is convinced that the location/site represents heritage resources, human remains that have either been discovered in an area of believed to be in an area.^[1] The area must be an important aspect of historic or prehistoric history of the province or of the peoples and or cultures contained within the province. Sites that are adjacent to known sites and could enhance or provide greater information associated with the known heritage sites are also eligible for declaration of heritage sites by the minister.^[1]

At least sixty days before the minister makes his official designation of the area as a heritage site, he must serve the lessee or the owner of the site declaring his intention to designate the site a heritage site of the province, the minister must also publish a copy of the notice of intent in no less than two news paper issues, or two different newspapers that are in circulation around the region in which the site is located.^[1]

Upon receiving the notice of intent, the owner of the land can either chose to accept or reject the issue, if there is no issue of an objection by the end of the sixty-day waiting period the minister is able to declare the site officially a heritage site. If the owner chooses to object he has 30 days from the issue of the notice of intent to file a declaration of objection. Upon the issue of an objection a hearing is scheduled and conducted in front of a municipal board that then makes a recommendation to the minister who has the final decision and will either decide to not designate the area a heritage site or to follow through with his declaration of the site. If the minister is unable to make a decision the matter is referred to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Appeals of the decision can also be made after a verdict is determined.^[1]

Any heritage site or site of which intent has been declared must perform a heritage impact assessment, under which the impact of excavating and recovering heritage items is assessed, the Minister issues a permit, if it is determined that heritage items will be harmed or destroyed in a project, either the excavation of or construction on a site then the minister has the power to issue an order to cease all work, activities, or development of the project. The minister can either issue a permit to continue work, or deny the development of an area; the minister also holds the right to waiver the necessity of a heritage impact assessment. No work can be conducted on a site unless the minister has issues a permit. The minister may also issue certain stipulations with the permit, such as the maintenance/preservation of the site by the owner/lessee.^[1]

If one finds a heritage item, or artifact on public land then it is determined under the Manitoba government that the custody of the object is given to the finder, although if the object is discovered don private land the object belongs to the owner of the land. No person is allowed to harm or destroy heritage items regardless of possession or not. Any person who harms or destroys an object under the Manitoba Heritage Act can be convicted by a judge and ordered to pay for the restoration of the object that was harmed. Any individual who breaks any aspect of the Act is susceptible to fines ranging from CAD$5000.00 - $50,000.00.^[1]

Canada-Manitoba Agreement for Environmental Assessment Harmonization

In 1994 Canada and Manitoba commit to the concept and use of sustainable development in their governments, and recognize the importance of integrating environmental and economic activities. In doing so Canada and Manitoba agree to recognizes jurisdictions between the two levels of government when aspects of environmental assessment projects rulings are required. The two levels of government agree to work together in order to ensure that projects are conducted under the set requirements of both the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act as well as Manitoba’s Environment Act. Under this agreement both parties conceded to work together on such issues using aspects of 'Harmonization' in order to achieve maximum results.^[2]

By undertaking this agreement, Canada and Manitoba are attempting to cultivate cooperation between Federal and Provincial governments where environmental assessment is concerned. By doing this the two parties hope to achieve an improved level of efficiency of both public and private resources. Another aspect of this agreement is the attempt to establish a system of roles of responsibilities between federal and provincial governments including accountability issues.^[2]

There is a heavy emphasis on cooperative work between the two groups every move is met with approval or acknowledgement from the other party. Jurisdiction, ownership, responsibilities are all negotiated constantly between the two groups; the groups even give notice to one another about their participation in assessments. When the two groups are both conducting surveys on the same location, they meet and determine a lead party based on the situation. In the end it is the parties (provincial or federal government) who determine the ‘completedness’ of a given project.

Aboriginal Involvement: If a project is deemed to affect or involve an aboriginal group then it is made sure that the specific group or individual is notified so they may participate in any assessment acts taking place.^[3]

Triggers

Triggers for assessments (reasons/causes for assessment) under these acts include: whenever a federal authority (any federal agency or department, including ministers and the Government of Canada) proposes a project, if a federal authority provides financial assistance that enables a project to be carried out; if the federal agency sells, leases, or transfers control in any form, of a piece of federal land in order to carry out a project; if the federal agency has to provide a license or a permit then an assessment must occur.^[4] If one or more of these requirements are met then an assessment must occur in order for the project to proceed, during the assessment the project will be placed on hold until approval or disapproval of the assessment is awarded.

These are not the only instances under which an assessment may have to be conducted; an assessment may also be conducted if the minister receives a petition form an individual or group requesting that the project have an assessment conducted. If the minister feels that the project warrants an assessment after reviewing the petition than they (the minister) may order that an assessment be held before any further work on the project continues.

Aboriginal involvement

Aboriginal groups may become involved when: they feel there are certain aspects that should be included in the assessment process, or when the project or assessment process may potentially impact any established aboriginal or treaty rights. An assessment coordinator is in charge of notifying any aboriginal groups that they feel will be affected by an assessment, whether it is an infringement on aboriginal or treaty rights or anything they feel should be brought to the group’s attention. Aboriginal groups are invited to comment on the project or the project proposal, groups are prompted to make comments involving the assessment process, funds are made available for groups who wish to consult and or comment on the process, and finally the concerns of the aboriginal groups involved are carefully considered by the agency under which the assessment and or project falls.^[4]

Human Rights Museum controversy

The Canadian Human Rights Museum, which is under construction in Winnipeg, Manitoba, was officially established in 2008 but has been in the works since approximately 2003. The Museum is located on the Assiniboine River and Red River. In recent years there has been a large amount of controversy surrounding the location of the museum, the museum is being constructed on one of the richest sites in the province for aboriginal artifacts.^[5] This creates an issue: a human rights museum being constructed on a lot that potentially holds a piece of history for a group of indigenous peoples.

A former archaeologist in the province came out and accused the museum and those behind its construction of "mistreating First Nations heritage."^[5] The museum did fund an archaeological dig held on the area prior to construction beginning, although those who oppose the building claim it was not enough. One of the Archaeologists involved stated that "only two percent of the artifacts buried at the site were recovered because the museum wouldn’t foot the bill for a larger dig."^[5] The protesters argue that the reason for the apparent shortcuts when it comes to preserving heritage is that the government has one of the weakest systems when it comes to the regulation of heritage items.^[5] Even the two percent of artifacts recovered were not handled properly according to some sources, while the funding for the initial dig was sufficient the museum was also supposed to help allocate the discovered artifacts to the museum of Manitoba as well but "as soon as they found out there were costs they cancelled that",^[5] thus leaving the artifacts unsorted and left sitting in some basement of a government building and not in a museum serving educational purposes.

To counter this, museum officials stated that they had met with aboriginal elders to discuss this project long before construction began in the area; in order to determine whether or not there were any "concerns about the project."^[5] The museum then proceeded to fund the archaeological dig which lasted almost half a year, costing them approximately half a million dollars, the museum also claims to have invested in further analysis of artifacts including carbon dating.^[5] Museum officials say that they have monitored the progress of the construction and are documenting any find that are made, and while there have been some discoveries in other locations the ground has proved to be void of any artifacts and any artifacts found have been 'tagged and bagged' and are being placed in storage awaiting the access of archaeologists who may be interested in them. The building itself is being constructed in a way that it is not directly settled on the ground surface and is not compressing the earth underneath the structure, in a sense rendering no harm to any artifacts that may be housed there and yet to be found.^[5] The museum is continuing to work with officials to make sure that any artifacts or heritage items found at the site are handled appropriately. The museum also pointed out that it has met all of the provinces guidelines for heritage sites.^[5]

Related Research Articles

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Pub. L. 101-601, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq., 104 Stat. 3048, is a United States federal law enacted on November 16, 1990.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a United States environmental law that promotes the enhancement of the environment and established the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The law was enacted on January 1, 1970. To date, more than 100 nations around the world have enacted national environmental policies modeled after NEPA.

An environmental impact statement (EIS), under United States environmental law, is a document required by the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for certain actions "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment". An EIS is a tool for decision making. It describes the positive and negative environmental effects of a proposed action, and it usually also lists one or more alternative actions that may be chosen instead of the action described in the EIS. Several U.S. state governments require that a document similar to an EIS be submitted to the state for certain actions. For example, in California, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be submitted to the state for certain actions, as described in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). One of the primary authors of the act is Lynton K. Caldwell.

The National Historic Preservation Act is legislation intended to preserve historic and archaeological sites in the United States of America. The act created the National Register of Historic Places, the list of National Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation Offices.

Environmental Impact assessment (EIA) is the assessment of the environmental consequences of a plan, policy, program, or actual projects prior to the decision to move forward with the proposed action. In this context, the term "environmental impact assessment" (EIA) is usually used when applied to actual projects by individuals or companies and the term "strategic environmental assessment" (SEA) applies to policies, plans and programmes most often proposed by organs of state. It is a tool of environmental management forming a part of project approval and decision-making. Environmental assessments may be governed by rules of administrative procedure regarding public participation and documentation of decision making, and may be subject to judicial review.

Archaeological ethics refers to the moral issues raised through the study of the material past. It is a branch of the philosophy of archaeology. This article will touch on human remains, the preservation and laws protecting remains and cultural items, issues around the globe, as well as preservation and ethnoarchaeology.

Cultural heritage management (CHM) is the vocation and practice of managing cultural heritage. It is a branch of cultural resources management (CRM), although it also draws on the practices of cultural conservation, restoration, museology, archaeology, history and architecture. While the term cultural heritage is generally used in Europe, in the USA the term cultural resources is in more general use specifically referring to cultural heritage resources.

The Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy was a 1990s Australian legal and political controversy that involved the clash of local Aboriginal Australian sacred culture and property rights. A proposed bridge to Hindmarsh Island, near Goolwa, South Australia attracted opposition from many local residents, environmental groups and indigenous leaders. In 1994, a group of Ngarrindjeri women elders claimed the site was sacred to them for reasons that could not be revealed. The case attracted much controversy because the issue intersected with broader concerns about Indigenous rights, specifically Aboriginal land rights, in the Australian community at the time, and coincided with the Mabo and Wik High Court cases regarding Native title in Australia.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and its regulations established the legislative basis for the federal practice of environmental assessment in most regions of Canada from 2012 to 2019. It was repealed with the coming into force of the Impact Assessment Act on August 28, 2019.

A conservator-restorer is a professional responsible for the preservation of artistic and cultural artifacts, also known as cultural heritage. Conservators possess the expertise to preserve cultural heritage in a way that retains the integrity of the object, building or site, including its historical significance, context and aesthetic or visual aspects. This kind of preservation is done by analyzing and assessing the condition of cultural property, understanding processes and evidence of deterioration, planning collections care or site management strategies that prevent damage, carrying out conservation treatments, and conducting research. A conservator's job is to ensure that the objects in a museum's collection are kept in the best possible condition, as well as to serve the museum's mission to bring art before the public.

Australian heritage laws exist at the national (Commonwealth) level, and at each of Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia state and territory levels. Generally there are separate laws governing Aboriginal cultural heritage and sacred sites, and historical heritage. State laws also allow heritage to be protected through local government regulations, such as planning schemes, as well.

Indigenous archaeology is a sub-discipline of Western archaeological theory that seeks to engage and empower indigenous people in the preservation of their heritage and to correct perceived inequalities in modern archaeology. It also attempts to incorporate non-material elements of cultures, like oral traditions, into the wider historical narrative. This methodology came out of the global anti-colonial movements of the 1970s and 1980s led by aboriginal and indigenous people in settler-colonial nations, like the United States, Canada, and Australia. Major issues the sub-discipline attempts to address include the repatriation of indigenous remains to their respective peoples, the perceived biases that western archaeology's imperialistic roots have imparted into its modern practices, and the stewardship and preservation of indigenous people's cultures and heritage sites. This has encouraged the development of more collaborative relationships between archaeologists and indigenous people and has increased the involvement of indigenous people in archaeology and its related policies.

The Underwater Archaeology Branch (UAB) of the Naval History & Heritage Command (NHHC) is a unit of the United States Department of the Navy. It was formally founded in 1996 as a consequence of the emerging need to manage, study, conserve, and curate the U.S. Navy's submerged cultural resources.

British Columbia Archaeological Assessment Process: British Columbia has set forth a directive process in order to regulate the development of land by private and government identities, this is known as the Heritage Act. British Columbia holds cultural sites throughout its geography and is home to many famous aboriginal archaeological sites, such as the Kwäday Dän Ts'ìnchi, which was an archaeological site containing a frozen person in British Columbia's Tatshenshini-Alsek Park. British Columbia archaeological sites are held in accordance with both the Heritage Act and the federal Environmental Assessment Act, which regulates the areas where developers can utilize and where the provincial government can build infrastructure. This process has not been put into place to discourage development, but has been put into place to regulate historic cultural sites in order to retain historic areas, sites, ecofacts, and artefacts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Archaeology in Ontario</span>

Archaeology and conservation of cultural resources in Ontario fall under the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. The Province of Ontario has created Acts to insure the protection archaeological and cultural resources. Acts such as the Ontario Heritage Act and Environmental Assessment Act provide the major legal documents that protect heritage and cultural resources. Additionally, Acts such as the Planning Act, the Aggregate Resource Act and the Ontario Cemeteries Act are also implemented when specific triggers occur during archaeological assessments.

Archaeology in Saskatchewan, Canada, is supported by professional and amateur interest, privately funded and not-for-profit organizations, and governmental and citizen co-operation with the primary incentive to encourage archaeological awareness and interest in the heritage that defines the province to this date. The landscape of Saskatchewan hosts substantial prehistoric and historic sites.

The Heritage Conservation Act is a provincial statute which allows for the preservation of cultural heritage properties and areas in the province of New Brunswick, Canada.

Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 15 F. Supp. 2d 1274, is a United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama case in which the Sierra Club and several other environmental organizations and private citizens challenged the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Plaintiffs filed action seeking declaratory injunctive relief regarding two incidental take permits (ITPs) issued by the FWS for the construction of two isolated high-density housing complexes in habitat of the endangered Alabama beach mouse. The District Court ruled that the FWS must reconsider its decision to allow high-density development on the Alabama coastline that might harm the endangered Alabama beach mouse. The District Court found that the FWS violated both the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by permitting construction on the dwindling beach mouse habitat.

The conservation and restoration of archaeological sites is the collaborative effort between archaeologists, conservators, and visitors to preserve an archaeological site, and if deemed appropriate, to restore it to its previous state. Considerations about aesthetic, historic, scientific, religious, symbolic, educational, economic, and ecological values all need to be assessed prior to deciding the methods of conservation or needs for restoration. The process of archaeology is essentially destructive, as excavation permanently changes the nature and context of the site and the associated information. Therefore, archaeologists and conservators have an ethical responsibility to care for and conserve the sites they put at risk.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6 "The Heritage Resources Act, C.C.S.M. c. H39.1". Government of Manitoba. 1985. Retrieved 2 April 2012.
1 2 "Canada-Manitoba Agreement for Environmental Assessment Harmonization". Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 1994. Retrieved 2 April 2012.
↑ "Draft Canada - Manitoba Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation". Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2005. Retrieved 2 April 2012.
1 2 "Frequently Asked Questions". Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 7 February 2012. Retrieved 2 April 2012.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "Human Rights Museum mistreating First Nations heritage: archeologist". CBC News. 16 June 2009. Retrieved 2 April 2012.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[gov1-1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 "The Heritage Resources Act, C.C.S.M. c. H39.1". Government of Manitoba. 1985. Retrieved 2 April 2012.

[gov2-2] 1 2 "Canada-Manitoba Agreement for Environmental Assessment Harmonization". Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 1994. Retrieved 2 April 2012.

[gov3-3] "Draft Canada - Manitoba Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation". Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2005. Retrieved 2 April 2012.

[gov4-4] 1 2 "Frequently Asked Questions". Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 7 February 2012. Retrieved 2 April 2012.

[cbc-5] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "Human Rights Museum mistreating First Nations heritage: archeologist". CBC News. 16 June 2009. Retrieved 2 April 2012.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]