Parks Protection Lacking
Fish Creek Provincial Park
Published: November 18, 2010 5:00 AM
The article in the Advocate (Paul Cowley, Saturday, Nov. 13) on the proposed new provincial parks legislation, correctly stated that all current legislation that pertains to our provincial parks system is being scrapped by our government.
At present, the classifications, under the general categories of Parks, Protected Areas and Recreation Areas, set in law the degree of protection in the different types of parks and thence the uses appropriate to them. Under the new law, given first reading in the legislature as Bill 29 last week, everything will just be listed as a ‘Park’ and it is the minister, not the law, that will decide protection levels and uses in them by using ‘zones’ and regulations.
The minister says this is to ‘clarify’ park use for the public.
Certainly, they could combine the various pieces of legislation drawn up over the years and thus simplify the system, but I fail to see how calling all classes of parks ranging from the currently highly protected Wilderness Areas to the more general use Recreation Areas by the same name, makes anything easier for the public to understand what to expect where.
The only category that is exempt from ministerial decrees is Heritage Rangeland.
Parks Minister Cindy Ady assured your reporter that she does not intend lessening protection, including for the foot-access-only parks such as the Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves and Natural Areas. Why then would she remove the legislated protection they now have?
Why would the new law give the minister the authority to permit developments, such as resorts, in any type of ‘park,’ remove the legal necessity of industrial developments to wind down their operations as quickly as possible in the highly protected areas and even suggest the possibility of outside groups taking charge of park trails and charging fees for us to use them?
Her word as the present minister gives our parks absolutely no certainty of long-term protection.
Whatever her intentions are — and because Bill 29 was sprung on the public (after a survey that was only about altering the classifications) with no explanation, publicity, warning or consultation, we do not know what her intentions are — this proposed law gives any future ministers of whatever party is in power the legal right to alter the system in any way the wish.
Our much-loved and well-used system covering all the types of provincial parks is of far too much importance to our future quality of life and environmental health to make changes with such drastic, long-term implications without the knowledge and agreement of the citizens of Alberta.
I urge the government to withdraw Bill 29 and take the time to hold comprehensive public consultations on the future of our parks.
Dorothy Dickson
Red Deer
