You don’t know it, but you’re on the hook for what’s buried on your land

If any part of your property is identified as an archaeological site, you could end up paying for the excavation

Interview requests

Many Canadians value heritage and historical sites, but far fewer would accept a surprise bill of hundreds of thousands of dollars to preserve them on their own property. That is exactly the risk some homeowners face under Canada’s current approach to heritage protection.

Public opinion supports the view that preserving heritage is a shared responsibility and worthy of some financial commitment. A June 2023 survey by the National Trust for Canada found that 90 per cent of respondents considered the preservation of heritage sites and historic buildings very or somewhat important. Support for preservation crossed generational, provincial and territorial lines.

The consensus weakens, however, when Canadians confront the question of who should pay. The issue becomes particularly contentious when governments place the financial burden on individual property owners.

That risk is not theoretical. An Ontario couple recently discovered how quickly those costs can escalate. Christine and Dan Reio own property in the Niagara region of southern Ontario. During the pandemic, they purchased a bungalow with plans to expand it, which required demolishing an older house on the lot.

Contractors began the work but soon stopped after discovering human remains. The couple followed protocol and contacted the police, who confirmed the remains were not connected to a criminal investigation.

The situation changed when an archaeology supervisor from the Six Nations of the Grand River suggested the remains could be at least 1,000 years old and related to Indigenous occupation of the region.

At that point, Ontario law required an investigation into the burial site to determine the origin of the remains, as is standard under provincial heritage legislation when potential archaeological remains are discovered during development and work must pause for assessment. As the landowners, the Reios had to hire a licensed archaeologist to conduct the excavation and analysis.

According to the CBC, an archaeological firm quoted the couple $319,000 for a 27-day excavation. The estimate also included the cost of local Indigenous community members monitoring and overseeing the work.

The couple understandably feared that additional discoveries could push costs even higher. The same report suggested that the Niagara region may contain at least 100 undiscovered burial sites.

Ontario law does allow landowners to request financial assistance when required archaeological work creates an undue burden, and the Reios applied for help. But such support depends on government discretion rather than a guaranteed right to compensation. That uncertainty reinforces the central problem: the public benefits, but the private owner pays.

This case is not unique. It reflects how the system operates across Canada. Provinces and territories typically do not compensate landowners for costs associated with archaeological discoveries, which are governed primarily under provincial and territorial legislation. In many jurisdictions, artifacts and archaeological sites found on private land, once they are formally identified under provincial law, legally belong to the Crown yet the landowner must pay for the assessment, excavation and mitigation.

Some governments and municipalities provide limited support for privately owned heritage buildings, but a significant gap remains when archaeological or burial sites appear on private property. That gap leaves owners exposed to substantial, unpredictable costs tied to a public objective.

This is not an isolated outcome. In 2006, for example, a homeowner in Victoria, B.C., learned that her property sat on an undesignated heritage site. Required archaeological permits and construction delays followed, and the value of the property declined.

Canadian law does recognize that public goods sometimes conflict with private property rights. The clearest example is expropriation, when governments take land for infrastructure such as highways or overpasses. In those cases, provinces and territories generally require compensation. The principle is straightforward: when the state imposes a public purpose on private property, it pays.

That principle should apply here as well. Archaeologically significant burial sites clearly qualify as a public good. Preserving them benefits society as a whole. Most Canadians would also agree that local Indigenous communities should help ensure that ancestral remains are treated with respect.

Yet the current system does the opposite. It shifts the cost of that shared responsibility onto individual owners. That approach is not just unfair. It risks creating perverse incentives. In both Canada and the United States, scholars have documented a phenomenon sometimes described as “shoot, shovel and shut up.” When regulations impose severe financial penalties, some landowners may hide or destroy archaeological or environmental discoveries rather than report them.

To address this imbalance, governments should focus on transparency and cost-sharing. Public registries of potential archaeological or heritage sites would help buyers assess risks before purchasing property. Governments could also share preservation costs with Indigenous communities, heritage organizations and conservation groups. In some cases, compensating landowners who disclose archaeological discoveries could encourage cooperation rather than concealment.

Canada can protect its heritage without unfairly penalizing individual property owners. But that requires acknowledging the imbalance at the heart of the current system and correcting it. Preservation may be a shared value, but it must also become a shared cost.

Joseph Quesnel is a research fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.