Up the Creek Without a Paddle: Confirming Historic Canoe Routes
In 2010, Ontarians filed an application under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR) requesting a review of the Ministry of Natural Resources’ (MNR’s) policies for addressing canoe portage routes in its management of Crown lands. The applicants assert that MNR is denying the existence of three historic canoe routes (Marjorie Lake, Pinetorch Creek, and Backdoor) in the Temagami Forest and Sudbury Forest Management Units (FMUs), because they are not included in the Natural Resources and Values Information System (NRVIS). NRVIS is a geospatial database used by MNR staff to collect, maintain and analyze land and natural resource data.
If MNR does not formally recognize the existence of a historic canoe route, it is not deemed a “value” and, therefore, the ministry is not required to protect it from the depredations of logging through the forest management planning process. “Values” are features, benefits or conditions of the forest that are linked to a geographic area, that are of interest from various points of view, and must be considered in forest management planning. Any person or party (e.g., MNR or other government staff, non-government organizations and the public) can identify values information, at any time, but MNR must confirm identified values.
The applicants also requested a review of canoe route provisions in the Class Environmental Assessment for MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects (Resource Class EA). The applicants allege that MNR is using this Class EA to facilitate the removal of existing canoe routes from the landscape. For example, if MNR does not agree that it is an existing route (an identified value), then it is deemed a new route and any maintenance work would be subject to the Class EA process prior to issuance of a work permit. If MNR confirms that a canoe route previously existed, only a work permit would be required.
Ministry Response
MNR did not consider the application for review because it stated that the Resource Class EA is not subject to the EBR because it is not a prescribed instrument and the application for review provisions do not apply.
However, MNR stated that it considered the applicants’ canoe routes and portages concerns and offered to work with the applicants in the development and approval of the Class EA and work permits for the Pinetorch, Marjorie Lake and Backdoor canoe routes and associated new portages.
For the full text of the ministry decision, please see our website at www.eco.on.ca.
ECO Comment
The ECO disagrees with MNR’s rationale for denying this application; Class EAs are subject to the EBR’s application for review process. All Class EA parent documents are policies for the purposes of the EBR. Class EAs apply province-wide and they set requirements for proponents to follow when planning projects that could have an impact on the environment. Class EAs are approved by the Ministry of the Environment, a prescribed ministry under the EBR, and in some cases, they are written by prescribed ministries. Moreover, in 2003, MNR considered this particular Class EA as a policy by posting it on the Environmental Registry as a policy notice.
Canoe routes and portages in Ontario are important, not only as recreational values, but also as cultural and historical values. It is reasonable to believe that Aboriginal peoples used the same routes and portages that recreational canoe enthusiasts use today. From a geographic perspective, there may only be one logical route between two lakes, regardless of maintenance within the last 50 years. MNR tolerates many disturbances on Crown land, including forestry and mining, and these activities are often at conflict with canoeing activities. While the NRVIS database contains many landscape values and features, it is unreasonable for MNR to deny the existence of traditional canoe routes strictly because they are not in the ministry’s database. In this reporting year, the ECO received two applications for review in which members of the public expressed concern and frustration with MNR’s process for confirming identified values (i.e., canoe routes and cougar habitat) in forest management planning (for additional information, refer to Part 3.4 of this Annual Report). The ECO believes that MNR should ensure that traditional canoe routes and portages are protected because they are an important part of our cultural legacy.
For a more detailed review of this application, please refer to Section 5.6.4 of the Supplement to this Annual Report. For ministry comments, please see Appendix C.
| Previous section: The MISA Wastewater Regulations: A Review is Overdue |
| Next section: Other Applications of Interest |
| This is an article from the 2010/11 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2011. "Up the Creek Without a Paddle: Confirming Historic Canoe Routes." Engaging Solutions, ECO Annual Report, 2010/11. Toronto: The Queen's Printer for Ontario. 128.
