Lake Erie and Lake Huron
Basin Update - Ontario Side
Loopholes in Ontario Wetlands Protection
By Linda Pim
In Ontario, we have a tendency to
boast about our provincial wetlands
protection policies compared to those in
some other jurisdictions around the
Great Lakes. We know the policies are
imperfect and not geographically broad
enough in their application, but we
tend to think they’re pretty good. And the policies got a bit better
with the approval by the Ontario government of the new
Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) under the Planning Act,
effective March 2005.
However, our long-held reservations about Ontario wetlands
policies were again brought to the fore with the October 2005
release of the annual report of the Environmental Commissioner
of Ontario. The Commissioner, an officer of the Ontario
Legislature,is an environmental auditor whose reports are always
welcomed by the Ontario environmental community.
Commissioner Miller pulls no punches in his reports, uncovering
the failings of provincial ministries to protect the environment
and making recommendations for action.
In his October report covering the 2004-2005 fiscal year, Miller
takes a close look at the new Provincial Policy Statement.The PPS
provides guidance to Ontario municipalities, as they draft or
review their Official Plans (municipal land use plans), on what the
provincial interests are in land use with which municipal
documents and decision must be consistent. The new PPS
certainly is an improvement over the previous one (in effect
1997-2005) in that its policies are expected to more effectively
rein in urban sprawl and protect prime farmlands. You can read
the PPS at www.mah.gov.on.ca (click on Land Use Planning). You
can read the Environmental Commissioner’s annual report at
www.eco.on.ca (see pages 36-47 in particular).
Ontario environmental organizations have long raised concerns
about the definition of “development” in the PPS because of its
massive loopholes. Yes, there is to be no development in
Provincially Significant Wetlands and significant Great Lakes
coastal wetlands. But as Miller points out,“project approvals that
involve infrastructure, such as sewage systems or transportation
corridors, are typically approved under other legislation and are
not bound by the PPS. The term ‘development’ specifically
excludes activities that create or maintain infrastructure
authorized under an environmental assessment process; works
subject to the Drainage Act; or the mining of minerals, or
advanced exploration on mining lands in some areas.
‘Infrastructure’ also includes water systems, sewage treatment
systems, waste management systems, electric power generation
and transmission, communications and telecommunications,
transit and transportation corridors and facilities, oil and
gas pipelines and associated facilities.” One could be forgiven for
wondering exactly what development is prohibited in significant
wetlands under the PPS; the main prohibition is urban
development.
The PPS is about all provincial-level interests in good land use
planning, not just the protection of natural heritage. As Miller
writes, “The PPS… is the collection of quasi-rules that underpins
Ontario’s approach to planning. They guide the practice of
planning, literally shaping the landscape of the province… It is
evident that some land uses are given clear priority over others…
Environmental planning and protection – natural areas, wild
species and water quality – are not given the same importance as
economic drivers. …Few of the critical elements of the natural
environment – significant woodlands, wetlands, valleylands,
species, sensitive water features – are adequately protected.
In fact, virtually none of them are protected from urbandevelopment
activities such as aggregate extraction or highway
construction. Natural features are often treated simply as
end-stage checks on development. Many natural features do
not even have to be identified or comprehensively planned for
by municipalities. The approach taken by the PPS often forces
the defence of environmental interests on a case-by-case,
woodlot-by-woodlot and wetland-by-wetland basis.
“Supporters of natural heritage often bear the burden of proving
the ecological significance of such areas… Rather, the onus –
starting at the very onset of the planning process – should be
placed on the development pressures themselves to justify need. Taking such an ecologically
sensible approach might require that individual
development activities
demonstrate their own ‘significance’ and
societal need to merit intrusion on a natural
heritage system.”
The PPS, as a set of minimum standards for
municipalities to follow, does not prevent
municipalities from exceeding its specific
requirements unless doing so would result
in conflict with other components of the
PPS. Brave, environmentally progressive
municipal councils in Ontario should be
encouraged to challenge the wetlands
“protection” provisions of the PPS next
time a proposal to destroy a wetland
comes knocking.
For more information:
Linda Pim, GLAHNF Lake Advisor
Ontario Nature
335 Lesmill Rd, Don Mills, ONT M3B 2W8
(416) 444-8419x243
lindap@ontarionature.org
Disclaimer:
The interpretations and conclusions presented in this newsletter represent the opinions of the individual authors. They in no way represent the views of the Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, the C.S. Mott Foundation, subscribers, donors, or any organization mentioned in this publication.
|
