2001 Request to Review the Provincial Parks Act
Three environmental organizations submitted two separate applications this year requesting a review of the Provincial Parks Act (PPA). Environmental Defence Canada (formerly known as the Canadian Environmental Defence Fund), the Algonquin Wildlands League, and the Federation of Ontario Naturalists said a review was needed for several reasons: the Act has not been significantly amended since it was enacted in 1954, even though our understanding of ecology and environmental management has evolved; the parks system has increased from eight parks to several hundred; and the Ontario Government has made commitments under federal-provincial agreements to protect parks and biodiversity.
Contents |
Applicants' Concerns
The applicants also attached several published critiques of the PPA, as well as comparisons to the recently amended Canada National Parks Act, as evidence in support of their applications for review. The supporting material included recommendations from many sources that the PPA be reviewed and revised. The applicants also pointed out that the government has explicitly committed to reforming the Act, but has failed to do so. The PPA is out of date and severely flawed, the applicants said, because it places no onus on maintaining and restoring the ecological integrity or biodiversity of parks; fails to require adequate public consultation or park management planning; and fails to prohibit incompatible activities such as logging, mining, sport hunting and hydroelectric development. (More detailed summaries of these applications can be found on pages 240–243 and 248–249 in the Supplement.)
The applicants recommended the Act be reformed to include strong ecological principles, clear guidance for management, strict prohibitions/restrictions on development and incompatible uses, and a commitment to landscape level planning. In order to get the review started, one set of applicants requested that the Ministry of Natural Resources establish a process to decide how to do it, and suggested a consultative, stakeholder committee approach. In summary, the applicants said that if Ontario’s parks are to act as ecological benchmarks and protect species and ecosystems, they must be protected in perpetuity from incompatible industrial, recreational, and commercial activities. Protection, in their opinion, requires reform of the PPA to include legal obligations on the Crown to maintain and restore ecological integrity and biodiversity over the long term.
Ministry Response
In its response to the applications, the ministry said “the Government has accepted in principle that a review of the Provincial Parks Act will be undertaken,” but that it would not initiate the review now because staff and funds are currently engaged in implementation of the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy (OLL). “Allocation of staff and funding to a review of the PPA may be considered, in the context of other commitments and priorities,” the ministry said, “when the current OLL implementation plan is completed in 2003/2004 . . . . deferral of the review of the PPA reflects MNR’s view that, while the need to review the PPA is accepted, the Act — together with other provincial legislation, MNR policies, and Ontario’s Crown land planning and management regime — provides a high level of protection to provincial parks and contributes to the sustainable management of the province’s resources.” The ministry assured the applicants that the information they had provided, and the process suggested, would be considered during any review and that a review would involve extensive public consultation.
Ontario's Living Legacy
Part of the ministry’s rationale was that the matter was already subject to periodic review, which is one of the factors the EBR says a minister may consider when deciding whether or not to carry out a review. MNR said that the Lands for Life Round Tables had recommended the ministry carry out a broad review of the Act and its policies, and the government had accepted the recommendation in principle at the same time that it released the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy. However, that was more than three years ago, in March 1999. The ministry’s statement that allocation of staff and funding to a review of the Act “may be considered” in 2003/2004 is not a commitment, nor is it a reasonable interpretation of “periodic review.”
It is noteworthy that the ministry accepted a review was needed, but denied the applications because its staff and funds were dedicated to implementing OLL. That is a legitimate response: the EBR says the minister may consider the resources required to undertake a review. But according to s. 69(2) of the EBR, a ministry is not required to undertake an immediate review. While the ECO acknowledges that implementation of OLL is important, accepting the applications under the EBR might have led to earlier consideration of a review of the Provincial Parks Act, and perhaps a decision that this review was a higher priority than some aspects of the OLL or other ministry programs. Instead of turning down the application, the ministry could have developed a plan for the review with a long timeline, perhaps carrying out some parts of the review concurrently with OLL implementation.
Other Considerations
The ministry also said that MNR’s wider array of legislation and policy support the sustainable management of public lands in Ontario, and that the PPA should be considered in this larger context. MNR’s point that lands outside parks are sustainably managed is open to debate — they are not managed primarily to conserve biodiversity, and, except for conservation reserves regulated under the Public Lands Act, they are not intended to fulfil any of the goals or objectives of provincial parks. (A more detailed discussion of MNR’s inadequate attention to biodiversity is found on pages 153-156 of this annual report.)
With regard to parks themselves, the ministry said that “the existing legislative and policy framework for provincial parks provides a high degree of protection.” However, this did not address the applicants’ point that the legislative framework — the PPA itself – is inadequate. The “purpose” section of the PPA emphasizes “healthful enjoyment,” not conservation. Further, many decisions regarding park management and public consultation are made on a case-by-case basis by MNR staff who have discretion on how to interpret policy. For example, the Act states that Park Superintendents “may” prepare management plans. According to the applicants, only about one-third of existing parks have management plans because they are not required under the Act. While the ECO acknowledges that many aspects of the existing parks policies and procedures are admirable, we share the applicants’ concerns that the policy framework is not binding and may be changed relatively easily.
One of the reasons the applicants requested that the Act be reviewed and strengthened was because most management direction, prohibitions and allowed uses are set out in the park management policies, which do not have any regulatory authority, and which may be amended by ministry staff. The “Blue Book” — in which park management policies are set out — was approved in 1978 and updated in 1992. Since then there have been numerous changes to the policies.
Even the overarching protected areas framework and tools have been changed, with the ministry creating new categories of “protected areas” in the 1990s. “Conservation reserves” legislated under the Public Lands Act, prohibit mining and logging, but permit other uses not allowed in parks. In 1997 the ministry released the conservation reserves policy and “Nature’s Best: Ontario’s Parks & Protected Areas: The Framework & Action Plan,” both without public consultation. There has been criticism of this two-tier framework for Ontario’s protected areas. (For discussion of conservation reserves issues, see Ontario's Half-Parks? Conservation Reserves and Mining.)
OLL resulted in an unprecedented expansion of the parks and protected areas system, contributing significantly to Ontario’s conservation and protection goals. But a number of controversial changes to parks policies were also made, including allowing sport hunting and mineral exploration in the new parks. Although the public was permitted to comment on those changes, many parties raised concerns about the lack of adequate public participation in the decision to allow hunting in existing wilderness parks. Similarly, the March 2002 reversal of the OLL decision allowing mineral exploration in new parks is described as an “unposted decision” on page 22 of this report. MNR says that over time the Blue Book will be revised to incorporate policy direction arising from the OLL Strategy and subsequent policy decisions. But in the meantime, policies are set out in a number of different documents and a comparison chart for MNR staff. Overall, Ontario’s parks policy has become more complicated, reinforcing the need for an overhaul of the legislation to establish clear policies that are reflected in a revised and strengthened Act.
ECO Comment
The ECO agrees with the applicants that a review of the Provincial Parks Act is needed. A request to review 50-year old legislation is an excellent use of the EBR’s application for review provisions. There is a consensus among the leading experts on parks policy in Canada that an overhaul of Ontario’s legislation is long overdue. The Act clearly needs to be revised to incorporate the goals of biodiversity conservation, and to put in place a strong regulatory framework to guide policy, permitted uses, management planning, public participation and other matters raised in these applications. We are encouraged that MNR has committed to carrying out a review, and that the review would involve extensive public consultation as well as consider the information provided by the applicants. The ECO urges MNR to begin planning sooner than 2003/2004 how this review will be undertaken, and to make a firmer commitment than the “agreement in principle” and “may be considered” language provided to the applicants. (For ministry comments, see page 180.)
| This is an article from the 2001/02 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2002. "Provincial Parks Act." Developing Sustainability, ECO Annual Report, 2001-02. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 113-117.
