Making Sense of Cut Dollars
Posted with permission of the publisher of NRU Publishing Inc. Original article first appeared in Novae Res Urbis GTHA, Vol. 28, No. 14, Wednesday, April 2, 2025.
A decision by Parks Canada to significantly reduce its budget and staff could have significant environmental and economic consequences say some, including challenges in achieving Canada’s 30 x 30 goal, a federal initiative that seeks to protect 30 per cent of the country’s land and water by 2030.
Federal documents show that Parks Canada is bracing for $14.1-billion in budget cuts over the next five years, as well as the elimination of 800 full time positions. According to its website, the cuts will largely come from improving “internal efficiencies:’ implementing digital approaches to visitor engagement at some parks, and through “strategic reductions” across its Enhanced Nature Legacy Programming portfolio.
“These reductions, internal to Parks Canada, will not impact Canadians;’ reads a statement on the Parks Canada website.
But not everyone buys that argument. Those working in the natural resources sector say this lapse in funding could undermine progress towards Canada’s 30 x 30 target, which was announced in 2022, as well as several other important ecological initiatives. The 30 x 30 initiative is intended to support Canada’s biodiversity and help the country withstand the impacts of climate change.
“How are you going to actually expand the amount of protected areas in Canada at the national level and still be able to actually carry out the necessary research, monitoring, stewardship activities across larger areas with less money?” asks Ontario Nature conservation policy and campaigns director Tony Morris. “It doesn’t necessarily make sense:’
Morris is particularly concerned about funding for some projects that were recently approved and will now face fewer resources stemming from the budget cuts, such as some of the “ecological corridor” initiatives Ontario Nature has been undertaking in consultation with Indigenous communities. The ecological corridor initiative was implemented as part of the Enhanced Nature Legacy Programming portfolio, and is designed to physically link together national parks and other natural areas under conservation, making it easier for wildlife to travel throughout without ending up in urban areas.
How are you going to actually expand the amount of protected areas in Canada at the national level and still be able to actually carry out the necessary research, monitoring, stewardship activities across larger areas with less money? It doesn’t necessarily make sense. – Tony Morris
“These are not projects that are kind of a one-year, once and-done thing;’ Morris tells NRU. “It takes quite a bit of time to build consensus on a regional level with Indigenous communities and other local partners and industry to advance different protection options and maintain ecological connectivity across larger regions:’
Environmental Defence executive director Tim Gray warns that aside from putting ecological programs at risk, sizeable cuts to Parks Canada’s budget could also impact tourism and local economies, at a time when Canadians are looking to reduce travel to the United States. In some towns, says Gray, national parks are a large source of employment for local residents.
“In the summer in particular, people really want to get into the national parks and of course, if the operations are [limited] in a significant way, that also has big economic implications for nearby communities, both in terms of employment … and for tourism if people can’t actually get in:’ Gray tells NRU that as a federal entity, Parks Canada has been instrumental in bringing together lower levels of governments and Indigenous communities to collaborate on conservation or expansion projects, such as the recently announced expansion of Rouge National Urban Park (See:”Airport Aspirations Abandoned: 3,500 Hectares of Land in Pickering to be Added to Rouge National Urban Park”, NRU GTHA, Wednesday, January 29, 2025). With less funding, the federal government will have less of a ‘carrot’ to incentivize these discussions, he says.
Despite Parks Canada’s claim that Canadians won’t notice the internal efficiencies that make the funding cuts possible, Gray believes it will be hard to reduce staff without impacting Parks Canada’s work, whether that work is as granular as washroom repair in national parks themselves or as broad as working with Indigenous land stewards across Northern Ontario.
“I wouldn’t call that efficient, I would call that a reduction of service. It depends on the scale of the cut, whether we’re straying from paper clips and pencils to actually firing people that are doing important work:’
NRU reached out to Parks Canada with a request for comment but did not hear back before press time.
I wouldn’t call that efficient, I would call that a reduction of service. It depends on the scale of the cut, whether we·re straying from paper clips and pencils to actually firing people that are doing important work. – Tim Gray
By: Lana Hall