The Ontario Federation of…

The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Foundation (OFAH Foundation) is dedicated to preserving Ontario's natural heritage through conservation research, habitat restoration, and educational initiatives that promote sustainable outdoor activities. As a leader in conservation, we work collaboratively with partners, experts, and communities throughout Ontario to protect and enhance fish and wildlife populations for today and future generations. We have reviewed “ERO 025-1078: Natural Resources Regulatory and Permit Reform Initiative: Proposing changes to streamline certain approvals under the Public Lands Act” and offer the following comments for consideration.

This posting, which expands on part of “ERO 025-1141: Natural Resources Regulatory and Permit Reform Initiative: Unlocking Ontario’s Economic Potential,” proposes to exempt certain public land occupations from standard permitting requirements and redefines several key definitions under the Public Lands Act. While we are supportive of the general intent to increase efficiency, the proposal lacks significant detail and consideration for important ecological features.

Missing detail
In the absence of certain important qualifiers, it is challenging to assess the appropriateness of the proposed elimination of standard permit requirements for certain occupations of public lands. For instance, while low-risk occupations are defined under the regulation as “short-term uses that do not involve structures being permanently affixed to public lands and must be removed following use,” the province has omitted explicit consideration for timescale. It is necessary to understand the precise meaning of the term “permanently affixed” if we, as stakeholders, are to effectively evaluate possible environmental and land-use implications of the proposed regulation change.

Similarly, while we support the general aim of requiring occupiers to restore a site post-occupation, this proposal does not detail any associated timeframe or restoration requirements. Once again, it is difficult to judge whether these regulations will be sufficient to justify the removal of permitting requirements for the activities in question.
To avoid inconsistent application, non-compliance, and poor environmental outcomes, these information gaps should be clarified before regulatory changes are made.

Increased enforcement capacity
Under this proposal, the province has established that occupiers will be explicitly required to maintain continuous compliance with the regulation. This is a critical point; however, regulation is only effective when paired with adequate inspection and enforcement efforts. Given the reduced MNR oversight that will come from implementation of the proposed changes, we encourage the province to increase routine enforcement efforts so that improvements to efficiency do not come at the cost of conservation.

Updated definition of shore lands
The proposed update to the definition of shore lands appears to undervalue the ecological role of seasonally inundated lands. Right now, under the Public Lands Act (PLA), “shore lands” is a key regulatory category relating to approvals for dredging and fill controls, vegetation removal, occupation, and more consequential actions. For this reason, it is critical that its definition encompass all relevant lands with ecological and hydrological importance.
While the current definition encompasses all “…lands covered either permanently or seasonally by the water of a lake, river or pond,” the province has proposed to exclude inundation from spring freshets and extreme flooding events from the definition of shore lands. This exclusion is made without sufficient explanation, despite the clear ecological value of these seasonal water movements. These yearly hydrological events are crucial for replenishing water systems like rivers, streams, ponds and marshes, which serve as critical habitat for spawning organisms and nutrient exchange.

Further, the updated definition would apply only to lands which become inundated if the adjacent lake, river, stream or pond is publicly owned, removing provincial oversight for shore lands adjacent to privately-owned waterbodies.

This is a concerning change. Many of Ontario’s fish-bearing streams, coldwater systems, and wetlands are too small to be mapped and have uncertain/mixed private/crown ownership. These zones are disproportionately important to amphibians, waterfowl, and sensitive fish species like brook trout, and narrowing “shore lands” to only public-waterbody edges will therefore remove oversight from exactly the places with the most ecological leverage.

Riparian zones function by ecology, not ownership, and regulations should therefore be based on risk and habitat value.

While other aspects of this proposal may be positive and simply require clarification or small changes, the OFAH is opposed to this weakened definition of shore lands and strongly urges the province to retain the existing definition.

Conclusion
Streamlining low-risk public-land occupations can be beneficial only when supported by clear definitions, transparent standards, and strong oversight. As written, this proposal removes key safeguards without providing enough detail to assess environmental or compliance impacts. These changes risk weakening protections for some of Ontario’s most ecologically important areas. We therefore urge the province to refine the proposal, retain the existing definition of shore lands, and provide additional clarity and opportunities for public input before proceeding with any regulatory amendments. OFAH Foundation is grateful for the opportunity to engage constructively in this process and will continue to support modernized approaches that protect Ontario’s natural resources for future generations.