DOCSLIB.ORG

Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

GO Rail Network Electrification Project Final Environmental Project Report Addendum APPENDIX C2: Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Table Union5-1 Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto For [INSERT DISCIPLINE] BASELINE CONDITIONS REPORT Prepared by: AS I Reviewed by: Gannett Fleming Project No. 060277 Metrolinx Electrification Project Contract No. QBS-2014-IEP-002 Prepared By: Morrison Hershfield 2/3/21 i | P a g e Submittal Date: February 2021 GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto METROLINX GO RAIL NETWORK ELECTRIFICATION Quality Assurance Document Release Form Name of Firm: Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) Document Name: Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto Submittal Date: February 3, 2021 Discipline: Task 18 – RCUS TPAP Prepared By: Lindsay Graves Date: January 21, 2021 Reviewed By: Amber Saltarelli Date: January 29, 2021 Approved By: Andrew Gillespie Date: February 3, 2021 Project Manager The above electronic signatures indicate that the named document is controlled by ASI, and has been: 1. Prepared by qualified staff in accordance with generally accepted professional practice. 2. Checked for completeness and accuracy by the appointed discipline reviewers and that the discipline reviewers did not perform the original work. 3. Reviewed and resolved compatibility interfaces and potential conflicts among the involved disciplines. 4. Updated to address previously agreed-to reviewer comments, including any remaining comments from previous internal or external reviews. 5. Reviewed for conformance to scope and other statutory and regulatory requirements. 6. Determined suitable for submittal by the Project Manager. GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto REVISION HISTORY Revision Date Comments 00 August 12, 2020 Revised Submission to Metrolinx. 01 February 3, 2021 Final Submission to Metrolinx. GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment USRC Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto Executive Summary ASI was contracted by Gannett Fleming Canada ULC, on behalf of Metrolinx, to conduct a Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment (hereafter CHR) of the Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC) Hydro One (HONI) Conflict Areas Study Area (Project Study Area). As part of the Metrolinx Electrification Program, Metrolinx is working with HONI to define the areas in the vicinity of Metrolinx rail corridors where proposed electrification infrastructure will conflict with existing HONI Infrastructure (i.e., HONI transmission lines) and to establish Environmental Assessment (EA) requirements that may need to be fulfilled in relation to the identified conflict areas. With respect to the Metrolinx USRC, there is existing HONI infrastructure in conflict with the proposed electrification infrastructure between approximately USRC Mile 0.72E to 1.72E (City of Toronto) which will therefore need to be installed/relocated in order to mitigate the conflicts. The Project Study Area (Figure 1-1) includes the following properties with a 50 metre buffer: • Lower Sherbourne Street Bridge (Subway); • Parliament Street Bridge (Subway); • Cherry Street Bridge (Subway); • Esplanade Transformer Station; • Don Fleet JCT (including new and existing sites adjacent to Lower Don Trail); and • Portion of the Corktown Commons, where future steel monopole is proposed that will be studies under a separate addendum. The purpose of this report is to present an inventory of all known or potential built heritage resources (BHRs) and cultural heritage landscapes (CHLs), identify existing conditions of the Project Study Area, provide a preliminary impact assessment, and propose appropriate mitigation measures. This CHR follows guidelines presented in the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) Sample Tables and Language for “Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment” and Environmental Project Reports (EPR) under Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) for Proponents and their Consultants (MHSTCI 2019). The results of background historic research, background document review, and field review revealed a study area with an urban land use history dating back to the early nineteenth century. A total of five BHRs and two CHLs were identified in the Project Study Area, which includes three provincial heritage properties (PHP)s, one provincial heritage property of provincial significance (PHPPS), one potential BHR, one National Historic Site/Proposed Heritage Conservation District, and one potential CHL. Direct impacts to the three PHPs have been identified: Lower Sherbourne Street Subway, Parliament Street Subway and Cherry Street Subway (BHR 1, BHR 2 and BHR 3). Indirect impacts have been identified to the three PHPs (BHR 1, BHR 2 and BHR 3) and the Cherry Street Tower, a PHPPS (BHR 4). No direct or indirect impacts to the Eastern Avenue Bridge (BHR 5), Distillery District National Historic Site/Proposed Heritage Conservation District (CHL 1), or Don River Heritage Plaques and Bridge Abutment Remnants (CHL 2) have been identified. Based on the results of the CHR, the following recommendations have been developed: Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 iv | Page Rev. 01 GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto 1. Selection of construction staging and laydown areas will follow Metrolinx’s selection procedures which include avoiding heritage attributes wherever possible or effectively mitigating impacts where not possible. 2. Direct impacts to the Lower Sherbourne Street Subway, Parliament Street Subway and Cherry Street Subway (BHR 1, BHR 2 and BHR 3), all PHPs, are anticipated as a result of a proposed utility bridge adjacent to the south elevation of each bridge. A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) (ASI, in progress) for each bridge is recommended to determine appropriate site-specific mitigation measures. a. The HIAs must be prepared in accordance with MHSTCI Information Bulletin No. 3: Heritage Impact Assessments for Provincial Heritage Properties (2017) to identify alternatives and mitigation and monitoring commitments to avoid or lessen impacts on the Cultural Heritage Value and heritage attributes of the PHP, based on the PHP’s Statement of Cultural Heritage Value (SCHV). b. HIAs will be conducted during the TPAP and updated during detailed design as appropriate should designs change, and the recommendations of these HIAs will be followed and adhered to by the Contractor during subsequent design stages and construction. 3. Indirect impacts to the heritage attributes of the following PHPs and PHPPS are possible due to installation of new/modified infrastructure: Lower Sherbourne Street Subway, Parliament Street Subway, Cherry Street Subway (BHR 1, BHR 2 and BHR 3) and the Cherry Street Tower (BHR 4). The following mitigation measures will be adhered to: a. To ensure these properties are not adversely impacted during construction, baseline vibration monitoring should be undertaken in advance of construction. Should this advance monitoring assessment conclude that the structures on these properties will be subject to vibration impacts: i. Preferred Option: Plan construction activities to avoid adverse vibration impacts. ii. Alternative Option: Prior to construction, if it is found that there is potential adverse impacts as a result of the vibration zone of influence, a qualified engineer should include impacted properties in the condition assessment of structures within the vibration zone of influence. Further, Metrolinx must make a commitment to repair any damages caused by vibrations. b. The area should be monitored for vibration impacts during construction, and immediately cease work if acceptable vibration thresholds are exceeded until the above has been undertaken. 4. During design, the recommendations of all HIAs and this CHR will be followed and adhered to during design and construction, including but not limited to strategies to protect heritage attributes. 5. Should additional HONI Conflicts within the USRC be identified that were not considered as part of this report (or other Metrolinx studies), then the conflicts will be assessed by a qualified cultural heritage professional, documented and submitted to the MHSTCI for review. The exact documentation to be submitted to the MHSTCI will Prepared By: ASI 2/3/21 v | Page Rev. 01 GO Rail Network Electrification Final Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment Union Station Rail Corridor Hydro One Conflict Areas, Toronto depend on the nature of the conflict, its location within the USRC and any previous reports prepared. 6. This report should be submitted by the proponent to heritage staff at the City of Toronto, the MHSTCI, and any other relevant stakeholder with an interest in this project for review and comment.
Recommended publications
  • “Toronto Has No History!”: Indigeneity, Settler Colonialism, and Historical Memory in Canada’S Largest City

    “Toronto Has No History!”: Indigeneity, Settler Colonialism, and Historical Memory in Canada’S Largest City

    Document généré le 2 oct. 2021 00:00 Urban History Review Revue d'histoire urbaine “Toronto Has No History!” Indigeneity, Settler Colonialism, and Historical Memory in Canada’s Largest City Victoria Freeman Encounters, Contests, and Communities: New Histories of Race and Résumé de l'article Ethnicity in the Canadian City En 1884, au cours d’une semaine complète d’événements commémorant le 50e Volume 38, numéro 2, printemps 2010 anniversaire de l’incorporation de Toronto en 1834, des dizaines de milliers de gens fêtent l’histoire de Toronto et sa relation avec le colonialisme et URI : https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/039672ar l’impérialisme britannique. Une analyse des fresques historiques du défilé de DOI : https://doi.org/10.7202/039672ar la première journée des célébrations et de discours prononcés par Daniel Wilson, président de l’University College, et par le chef de Samson Green des Mohawks de Tyendinaga dévoile de divergentes approches relatives à la Aller au sommaire du numéro commémoration comme « politique par d’autres moyens » : d’une part, le camouflage du passé indigène de la région et la célébration de son avenir européen, de l’autre, une vision idéalisée du partenariat passé entre peuples Éditeur(s) autochtones et colons qui ignore la rôle de ces derniers dans la dépossession des Indiens de Mississauga. La commémoration de 1884 marque la transition Urban History Review / Revue d'histoire urbaine entre la fondation du village en 1793 et l’incorporation de la ville en 1834 comme « moment fondateur » et symbole de la supposée « autochtonie » des ISSN colons immigrants. Le titre de propriété acquis des Mississaugas lors de l’achat 0703-0428 (imprimé) de Toronto en 1787 est jugé sans importance, tandis que la Loi d’incorporation 1918-5138 (numérique) de 1834 devient l’acte symbolique de la modernité de Toronto.
  • Disrupting Toronto's Urban Space Through the Creative (In)Terventions

    Disrupting Toronto's Urban Space Through the Creative (In)Terventions

    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Institutional Repository of the Ibero-American Institute, Berlin Disrupting Toronto’s Urban Space through the Creative (In)terventions of Robert Houle Alterando el espacio urbano de Toronto a través de las (in)tervenciones creativas de Robert Houle Julie Nagam University of Winnipeg and Winnipeg Art Gallery, Canada [email protected] Abstract: is essay addresses the concealed geographies of Indigenous histories in the City of Toronto, Canada, through selected artworks that address history, space, and place. e research is grounded in the idea that the selected artworks narrate Indigenous stories of place to visually demonstrate an alternative cartography that challenges myths of settlement situated in the colonial narratives of archaeology and geography. Indigenous artist Robert Houle has created artworks that narrate Indigenous stories of place using the memories and wisdom of Indigenous people in areas of art, archaeology, and geography (land). is visual map is grounded in the premise that the history of the land is embodied in Indigenous knowledge of concealed geographies and oral histories. It relies upon concepts of Native space and place to demonstrate the signicance of the embodied knowledges of Indigenous people and highlights the importance of reading the land as a valuable archive of memory and history. Keywords: Indigenous; art; geographies; space; urban; Toronto; Canada; 20th-21st centuries. Resumen: Este ensayo aborda las geografías ocultas de las historias indígenas en la ciudad de Toronto, Canadá, a través de obras de arte seleccionadas que abordan la historia, el espacio y el lugar. La investigación se basa en la idea de que las obras seleccionadas narran historias de lugar indígenas para mostrar visualmente una cartografía alternativa que desafía los mitos de asentamiento situados en las narrativas coloniales de la arqueología y la geografía.
  • Volume 5 Has Been Updated to Reflect the Specific Additions/Revisions Outlined in the Errata to the Environmental Project Report, Dated November, 2017

    Volume 5 Has Been Updated to Reflect the Specific Additions/Revisions Outlined in the Errata to the Environmental Project Report, Dated November, 2017

    DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY This Revised Final Environmental Project Report – Volume 5 has been updated to reflect the specific additions/revisions outlined in the Errata to the Environmental Project Report, dated November, 2017. As such, it supersedes the previous Final version dated October, 2017. The report dated October, 2017 (“Report”), which includes its text, tables, figures and appendices) has been prepared by Gannett Fleming Canada ULC (“Gannett Fleming”) and Morrison Hershfield Limited (“Morrison Hershfield”) (“Consultants”) for the exclusive use of Metrolinx. Consultants disclaim any liability or responsibility to any person or party other than Metrolinx for loss, damage, expense, fines, costs or penalties arising from or in connection with the Report or its use or reliance on any information, opinion, advice, conclusion or recommendation contained in it. To the extent permitted by law, Consultants also excludes all implied or statutory warranties and conditions. In preparing the Report, the Consultants have relied in good faith on information provided by third party agencies, individuals and companies as noted in the Report. The Consultants have assumed that this information is factual and accurate and has not independently verified such information except as required by the standard of care. The Consultants accept no responsibility or liability for errors or omissions that are the result of any deficiencies in such information. The opinions, advice, conclusions and recommendations in the Report are valid as of the date of the Report and are based on the data and information collected by the Consultants during their investigations as set out in the Report. The opinions, advice, conclusions and recommendations in the Report are based on the conditions encountered by the Consultants at the site(s) at the time of their investigations, supplemented by historical information and data obtained as described in the Report.
  • Toronto Has No History!’

    Toronto Has No History!’

    ‘TORONTO HAS NO HISTORY!’ INDIGENEITY, SETTLER COLONIALISM AND HISTORICAL MEMORY IN CANADA’S LARGEST CITY By Victoria Jane Freeman A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of History University of Toronto ©Copyright by Victoria Jane Freeman 2010 ABSTRACT ‘TORONTO HAS NO HISTORY!’ ABSTRACT ‘TORONTO HAS NO HISTORY!’ INDIGENEITY, SETTLER COLONIALISM AND HISTORICAL MEMORY IN CANADA’S LARGEST CITY Doctor of Philosophy 2010 Victoria Jane Freeman Graduate Department of History University of Toronto The Indigenous past is largely absent from settler representations of the history of the city of Toronto, Canada. Nineteenth and twentieth century historical chroniclers often downplayed the historic presence of the Mississaugas and their Indigenous predecessors by drawing on doctrines of terra nullius , ignoring the significance of the Toronto Purchase, and changing the city’s foundational story from the establishment of York in 1793 to the incorporation of the City of Toronto in 1834. These chroniclers usually assumed that “real Indians” and urban life were inimical. Often their representations implied that local Indigenous peoples had no significant history and thus the region had little or no history before the arrival of Europeans. Alternatively, narratives of ethical settler indigenization positioned the Indigenous past as the uncivilized starting point in a monological European theory of historical development. i i iii In many civic discourses, the city stood in for the nation as a symbol of its future, and national history stood in for the region’s local history. The national replaced ‘the Indigenous’ in an ideological process that peaked between the 1880s and the 1930s.
  • Cultural Heritage Screen Report

    Cultural Heritage Screen Report

    Lincolnville Go Station Improvements: Cultural Heritage Screening Report Prepared for: Metrolinx 20 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto ON M5J 2W3 ~ METROLINX Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 300W-675 Cochrane Drive Markham ON L3R 0B8 () Stantec File No. 1135200010 October 12, 2017 LINCOLNVILLE GO STATION IMPROVEMENTS: CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT Project Personnel EA Project Manager: Alex Blasko, B.Sc. (Hon.) Heritage Consultant: Heidy Schopf, MES, CAHP Task Manager: Meaghan Rivard, MA, CAHP Report Writer: Heidy Schopf, MES, CAHP Laura Walter, MA GIS Specialist: Sean Earles Office Assistants: Carol Naylor Quality Review: Meaghan Rivard, MA, CAHP Independent Review: Tracie Carmichael, BA, B. Ed. () Stantec Sign-off Sheet This document was prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. (“Stantec”) for the account of Metrolinx (the “Client”). The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. The report has been prepared based, in part, on information provided by others as cited in the Reference section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and / or completeness of third party information. Prepared by (signature) Heidy Schopf, MES, CAHP Cultural Heritage Specialist Reviewed by (signature) Signed by Tracie Carmichael on behalf of: Meaghan Rivard,
  • Approved by the Board of Directors

    Approved by the Board of Directors

    BUSINESS PLAN 2019 - 2020 APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Contents 3 Executive Summary 5 Our Mandate 6 Strategic Directions 8 Key Deliverables 10 Overview of Programs and Activities 20 Environmental Scan 22 Performance Measures 23 Capital Plan 33 Appendix – Glossary of Terms For more information: heritagetrust.on.ca Cover: Richmond Hill David Dunlap Observatory. Photo: Chris Robart. @ontarioheritagetrust Unless otherwise noted, photos are credited to the Ontario Heritage Trust. @ONheritage @ONheritage Ontario Heritage Trust | Corporate Business Plan 2019 - 2020 2 Ontario Heritage Trust | Corporate Business Plan 2019 - 2020 2 Cheltenham Badlands. Executive Summary Delivering the Mandate across Ontario The current position of the Trust builds upon several years of thoughtful examination of the agency’s legislated mandate, how and for whom it is delivered, and why it matters to Ontarians. In 2012 the Trust completed an extensive sustainability review, with a focus on core mandate and an analysis of all revenue and expenditures, as a measure to streamlining expenditures and diversifying the revenue base. The result for the agency was a balanced budget in 2016 and for subsequent years. In 2015 MTCS completed a Mandate Review that confirmed the Trust as a valuable resource in heritage matters, with strong professional and technical knowledge, that is recognized as a centre of specialized expertise in heritage that is not offered elsewhere in the provincial government. Both the Trust and MTCS concluded reviews of the operating model for the Elgin and Winter Garden Theatres and the Trust’s plan for the ongoing operation of the EWG was affirmed by the Ministry in 2018.
  • 'Duty': the City of Toronto, a Stretch of the Humber River, and Indigenous-Municipal Relationships

    'Duty': the City of Toronto, a Stretch of the Humber River, and Indigenous-Municipal Relationships

    The Peter A. Allard School of Law Allard Research Commons Faculty Publications Allard Faculty Publications 2020 Rethinking 'Duty': The City of Toronto, a Stretch of the Humber River, and Indigenous-Municipal Relationships Doug Anderson Alexandra Flynn Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/fac_pubs Part of the Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons Citation Details Doug Anderson & Alexandra Flynn, "Rethinking ‘Duty’: The City of Toronto, A Stretch of the Humber River and Indigenous-Municipal Relationships" (2020) 58:1 Alta L Rev 107. This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Allard Faculty Publications at Allard Research Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Allard Research Commons. Citation: Doug Anderson & Alexandra Flynn, “Rethinking ‘Duty’: The City of Toronto, A Stretch of the Humber River and Indigenous-Municipal Relationships” (2020) 58:1 Alberta Law Review 107 RETHINKING ‘DUTY’: THE CITY OF TORONTO, A STRETCH OF THE HUMBER RIVER, AND INDIGENOUS-MUNICIPAL RELATIONSHIPS Doug Anderson1 and Alexandra Flynn2 The nation-to-nation relationship between Indigenous peoples and cities remains largely unexplored in the Canadian context.3 This oversight is especially problematic in light of the significant percentage of Indigenous people who live in urban areas, and the many concerns that Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples share. These shared concerns include the environment, land use, housing, social services, and much more, and modern municipalities do make attempts to address Indigenous-specific needs in these areas; but Indigenous-municipal relationships have implications that far exceed the technocratic and siloed ways in which Canadian systems generally approach these broad areas of concern - implications not only with regard for Indigenous people, but for all people.
  • New Track and Facilities Transit Project Assessment Process

    New Track and Facilities Transit Project Assessment Process

    New Track and Facilities Transit Project Assessment Process Final Environmental Project Report – Chapter 1 23-Nov-2020 Prepared by: Contract: QBS-2017-CKU-001 Revision 00 Authorization X X Alexia Miljus Kevin Coulter Environmental Planner Senior Environmental Planner X X Amber Saltarelli, MCIP, RPP, PMP Andy Gillespie, P. Eng. Environmental Assessment Lead Program Manager REVISION HISTORY Revision Date Purpose of Submittal Comments 00 23-Nov-2020 Final submission to Metrolinx. N/A This submission was completed and reviewed in accordance with the Quality Assurance Process for this project. Revision 00 23-Nov-2020 DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY This Environmental Project Report (“Report”), which includes its text, tables, figures and appendices, has been prepared by Gannett Fleming Canada ULC (“Consultant”) for the exclusive use of Metrolinx. Consultant disclaim any liability or responsibility to any person or party other than Metrolinx for loss, damage, expense, fines, costs or penalties arising from or in connection with the Report or its use or reliance on any information, opinion, advice, conclusion or recommendation contained in it. To the extent permitted by law, Consultant also excludes all implied or statutory warranties and conditions. In preparing the Report, the Consultant has relied in good faith on information provided by third party agencies, individuals and companies as noted in the Report. The Consultant has assumed that this information is factual and accurate and has not independently verified such information except as required by the standard of care. The Consultant accepts no responsibility or liability for errors or omissions that are the result of any deficiencies in such information.
  • Exhibit 1: Agencies of the Crown (Pdf 114Kb)

    Exhibit 1: Agencies of the Crown (Pdf 114Kb)

    Exhibit 1 Agencies of the Crown 1. Agencies whose accounts are audited Ontario Clean Water Agency (December 31)* by the Auditor General Ontario Development Corporation Exhibit 1 Ontario Educational Communications Authority AgriCorp Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation Algonquin Forestry Authority Ontario Energy Board Cancer Care Ontario Ontario Financing Authority Centennial Centre of Science and Technology Ontario Food Terminal Board Chief Electoral Officer, Election Finances Act and Ontario Heritage Trust Electoral System Referendum Act Ontario Immigrant Investor Corporation Election Fees and Expenses, Election Act Ontario Media Development Corporation Financial Services Commission of Ontario Ontario Mortgage Corporation Grain Financial Protection Board, Funds for Ontario Mortgage and Housing Corporation Producers of Grain Corn, Soybeans, Wheat, and Ontario Northland Transportation Commission Canola Ontario Place Corporation Investor Education Fund, Ontario Securities Ontario Racing Commission Commission Ontario Realty Corporation Legal Aid Ontario Ontario Securities Commission Liquor Control Board of Ontario Owen Sound Transportation Company Limited Livestock Financial Protection Board, Fund for Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund, Financial Livestock Producers Services Commission of Ontario Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation Province of Ontario Council for the Arts North Pickering Development Corporation Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth Office of the Assembly Provincial Judges Pension Fund, Provincial Judges Office of the Children’s Lawyer Pension Board Office of the Environmental Commissioner Public Guardian and Trustee for the Province of Office of the Information and Privacy Ontario Commissioner Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority Office of the Ombudsman TVOntario Foundation * Dates in parentheses indicate fiscal periods ending on a date other than March 31. 489 490 2008 Annual Report of the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario 2.
  • Heritage Conservation Districts

    Heritage Conservation Districts

    Franklin Carmichael (1890-1945) Church and Houses at Bisset c.1931 oil on paperboard 25.2 x 30.4 cm Gift of the Founders, Robert and Signe McMichael McMichael Canadian Art Collection 1966.16.11 This guide is one of several published by the Ministry of Culture as part of the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. It is designed to help municipal Councils, municipal staff, Municipal Heritage Committees, land use planners, heritage professionals, heritage organizations, property owners, and others understand the heritage conservation process in Ontario. ISBN 1-4249-0052-2 © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2006 Heritage Conservation Districts Travelling through the downtowns and the Following the recent changes to the back roads of Ontario, you will find remark- Planning Act and Provincial Policy able places rich in history and character – Statement and thanks to Ontario’s participa- bustling market squares and commercial areas, tion in the Historic Places Initiative, there is picturesque villages in the heart of large cities, opportunity for development of a more residential neighbourhoods that evoke a sense comprehensive approach to the identification, of the past, and landscapes that maintain a conservation and protection of the wide strong rural identity. range of heritage resources encountered in Heritage Conservation Districts. In many cases, these areas have maintained their uniqueness and sense of place because the This guide is designed to assist municipal local municipality has taken the opportunity staff, heritage committee members and to designate them as Heritage Conservation heritage community groups develop Districts (HCDs). effective plans, policies and guidelines to ensure long-term protection and enhance- Following the designation of the first HCD ment of Heritage Conservation Districts in 1980, over 75 areas have been designated for the enjoyment of current and future in recognition of their cultural heritage generations.
  • Toronto Purchase Land Claim by Mississaugas Needs to Be Revisited

    Toronto Purchase Land Claim by Mississaugas Needs to Be Revisited

    June 19, 2003 Share Vol. 26, No. 11 Toronto Purchase Land Claim by Mississaugas Needs to be Revisited By Dr. Lorne Foster For most of the past 500 years the indigenous peoples' project in Canada has had one major priority: survival. This has entailed survival from the effects of a sustained war with the colonizers, from the devastation of diseases, from the dislocation from lands and territories, from the oppressions of living under unjust regimes, survival at a sheer basic physical level and as a peoples with their own distinctive languages and cultures. Now it appears that they are also going to have to survive a new brand of historical revisionism. For instance, on February 18, 2001, the Toronto Sun’s Peter Worthington published an op-ed article entitled “Who Put the Indians in Charge of the Reservation?”, where he referred to the charter group identification of “First Nations” as “gibberish;” while he propounded an historical theory that Canada's past policies toward aboriginal people were akin to “benign neglect,” and today's policies amount to “malignant over-indulgence.” “Treaties signed two centuries ago have little relevance to today, despite the Supreme Court,” wrote Worthington. “They were designed for that time, not ours. To presume that Indians can preserve, or return, to a life they once lived is just silly. Few Indians today live, or could live, as their ancestors did.” On this latter point, I am sure that the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation would agree, albeit for different reasons. From their vantage, trying to preserve the traditional Native world-view – “Respect for the land and all who walk on it” – must be one of the more challenging missions in the 21st century when you come face-to-face with a jackass who has a typewriter and a by-line.
  • 2014 Annual Report

    2014 Annual Report

    Annual Report 2014 Vision Museums are valued public institutions that inspire understanding and encourage solutions for a better world. 2 CMA – Annual Report 2014 Mission The CMA exists to advance Canadian museums to ensure meaningful connections with their communities by providing leadership, fostering a national museum community and increasing the value of museums to society. CMA – Annual Report 2014 3 Values LEADERSHIP: We value enhancing the leadership skills of museum professionals at all levels to further the goals of the CMA and the museum community. INNOVATION: We support innovation for the Association and the community, and we seek different ideas and embrace new approaches to enhance the value of museums in society. SOCIAL BENEFIT: We believe that museums exist to achieve public good. INCLUSIVENESS: We embrace inclusion by respecting diversity and seeking different perspectives and opinions. COLLABORATION: We believe in the benefits of partnerships and working together to bring greater strength to the community as a whole. MEMBERSHIP: We value the participation of members, which strengthens our profession. 4 CMA – Annual Report 2014 A Year of Reflection The past year, 2014, has been a positive year for the CMA in many ways. Several partnerships have been expanded upon and member participation has increased. We have been busy advocating the best interests of museums and had another successful Canadian Museums Day on Parliament Hill, we continued delivering thriving programs such as Young Canada Works in more than 750 museums, we improved the bursary program to better serve museum professionals, volunteers and students, we revised our national Awards Program, and so much more.