MNR’s Anti-Poaching Hotline: Is It Working?
In August 2008, two applicants, on behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH), requested a review of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) telephone hotline for the reporting of contraventions of laws administered by the ministry. They also requested a review of MNR’s fish and wildlife enforcement policies. The OFAH expressed concerns about:
- the functioning of the reporting program;
- MNR’s unwillingness to follow up on provided tips; and,
- given its limited enforcement capacity, MNR’s overall ability to fulfill its mandate of protecting natural resources.
Background
In September 2005, MNR implemented a toll-free, 24/7 telephone hotline, “TIPS-MNR” (1-877-847-7667), through which members of the public can report contraventions of laws administered by MNR directly to the ministry. This service complements, but differs from, the widespread Crime Stoppers program (1-800- 222-TIPS), through which callers anonymously report alleged contraventions for a cash reward. During its first year, the TIPS-MNR program received tips on more than 5,000 potential contraventions, leading to 1,410 investigations and 86 convictions. MNR’s website notes that while all information provided is valuable and appreciated, the hotline is not an emergency response line, and MNR’s Enforcement Branch makes no commitment as to how quickly a Conservation Officer will respond to a tip.
In 2007, the Auditor General of Ontario released the findings of an audit of MNR’s fish and wildlife program. The audit found that reductions in staff numbers and patrol hours left gaps in MNR’s enforcement coverage. MNR responded that its funding is focused “on high-priority areas” identified using “risk-based analysis and a landscape or ecosystem approach to managing resources.” However, the Auditor General found that for the enforcement units it reviewed, budgeted funds were insufficient to implement enforcement activities according to the units’ risk-based plans. For example, the amount of time Conservation Officers spent patrolling during the 2006/2007 fiscal year was 15-60 per cent less than what the units had deemed “necessary to effectively protect natural resources.” The audit also found that budgetary constraints affected the effectiveness of the TIPS-MNR program (e.g., by limiting the hours worked by Conservation Officers). In our April 2007 Special Report, “Doing Less with Less,” the ECO expressed similar concerns about the adequacy of MNR’s enforcement program, noting reductions in the number of field enforcement staff, patrol vehicles, charges laid and convictions made.
The OFAH argued that a review is necessary to ensure that TIPS-MNR is functioning as intended. In support of this request, the application cited a lack of MNR response to several hotline tips, including information on the illegal on-line sale of an invasive species and illegal fishing in sanctuaries. The application also included an MNR response to an OFAH Freedom of Information request pertaining to the TIPS-MNR line. MNR’s response indicates that the ministry collects insufficient data to provide accountability to the public on the functioning of the system or allow a performance assessment of the hotline. The OFAH emphasized that reported tips must be responded to quickly in order to catch alleged contraveners, maintain public confidence in the service, and protect Ontario’s natural resources.
Given previously identified shortcomings in the ministry’s enforcement capacity, including those highlighted in the ECO’s Special Report “Doing Less with Less,” the OFAH also expressed concern about MNR’s general ability to fulfill its mandate. The OFAH strongly suggested a review of MNR’s overall enforcement capabilities, stating “it is clear that enforcement is still under funded and understaffed.”
Ministry Response
In January 2009, MNR denied the application for review. The ministry’s official response was 55 days late and MNR failed to inform the applicants or the ECO of the delay.
In denying the application, MNR stated that the TIPS-MNR reporting line is “solely” a supplementary information tool that “does not manage the environment or resources.” The ministry explained that TIPS- MNR is not an emergency response line and MNR’s responses to tips vary depending on the quality of information received and the circumstances, such as the potential impact of the contravention, the likelihood of locating the contravener/contravention, and staff availability.
MNR further explained that the ministry does not physically attend the scene of every contravention reported and tips are often addressed through other enforcement activities, the results of which are stored “elsewhere.” According to MNR, duplicating information gathering for the TIPS-MNR database would not benefit the environment and would reduce an officer’s time in the field. Moreover, MNR stated that the intent of the TIPS-MNR line is to relay complaint information to local offices, not to track or link responses to employee activities or resource violations. In light of these facts, the ministry determined that a review was not warranted.
The ministry also declined to review the enforcement part of the application because “enforcement capabilities relate to provincial and internal Ministry budget processes which are not policies, acts, regulations or instruments.” In concluding its review decision, MNR provided contact information so the OFAH could meet with ministry staff to discuss their concerns.
ECO Comment
The ECO does not find MNR’s rationale for declining this review convincing. Enforcement programs are ministry policies as defined in the EBR and are therefore subject to applications for review (see box). Likewise, deeming a program or policy “supplementary” (as MNR did for TIPS-MNR) does not exempt it from EBR review. TIPS-MNR appears to be a useful enforcement tool that has not only led to several convictions but has also improved public awareness and increased support for ministry activities. Nonetheless, the applicants raised some valid concerns about the program – concerns the ministry could have addressed directly by undertaking this review. By reviewing this application, MNR could also have improved public understanding of the need for discretion in handling received tips. While the ECO is pleased that MNR offered to meet with the applicants to discuss their concerns, we are disappointed that MNR failed to complete its review decision on time and, worse still, decided not to notify the applicants of the delay.
The ECO realizes that under a risk-based plan, some TIPS-MNR calls will not be responded to because the alleged contravention did not occur in a high-risk area. Even so, because the introduction of invasive species is a broad-scale issue that threatens biodiversity, the ECO is disturbed by OFAH’s claim that MNR did not respond to a tip concerning the alleged illegal sale of an invasive species. Given this and concerns raised in the ECO and Auditor General’s 2007 reports about the effects of funding shortages on MNR’s enforcement responses, the ECO encourages MNR to ensure adequate funding for its enforcement programs. Furthermore, the ECO encourages MNR to maintain and strengthen public confidence in TIPS-MNR by regularly publishing transparent, up-to-date summary data on the numbers and types of tips received, a general break-down of how tips were responded to, and overall program outcomes.
| Are Enforcement Programs Subject to Applications for Review? |
|---|
| As part of its decision to deny this application, MNR argued that “enforcement capabilities relate to provincial and internal [m]inistry budget processes which are not policies, acts, regulations or instruments.” The ECO disagrees with this interpretation.
The EBR broadly defines a policy as “a program, plan or objective and includes guidelines or criteria to be used in making decisions about the issuance, amendment or revocation of instruments but does not include an Act, a regulation or an instrument.” While the EBR does exempt budget-related or predominantly administrative or financial proposals from being posted on the Registry (sections 15 and 33), there is no such exemption for applications for review under the EBR (sections 61-73). Further, there are no express restrictions on the ability of the ECO to review ministry budgetary processes and section 58(2)(e) of the EBR states that the ECO’s Annual Report shall include any information the Commissioner considers appropriate. The ECO maintains that enforcement and compliance capabilities are indeed ministry policies as defined in the EBR and are therefore subject to applications for review. In fact, a number of past reviews under the EBR have addressed MNR enforcement and staffing issues, including the role of aggregate inspector workloads in the rehabilitation rates of pits and quarries (see Our cratered landscape: Can pits and quarries be rehabilitated? from the ECO’s 2006/2007 Annual Report) and MNR’s compliance system for the Ontario forest industry (see Forestry Operations Compliance System from the ECO’s 2003/2004 Annual Report). |
| This is an article from the 2008/09 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2009. "MNR’s Anti-Poaching Hotline: Is It Working?." Building Resilience, ECO Annual Report, 2008-09. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 100-103.
