EDITORIALS, The Edmonton Journal, April 7, 1999.
Two Conservative governments, two approaches to environmental protection.
In Ontario the government of Mike Harris has announced a massive and impressive expansion of protected natural areas. In Alberta, Ralph Klein has summarily dismissed a call by environmentalists to save 10 precious natural areas that were identified as posing the fewest conflicts with industry.
Klein has at least committed to continuing the Special Places process in six of the areas, although the flaws in Alberta’s industry friendly approach will remain. On the other four, the premier’s response barely made sense.
"We have designated protected areas on several of these sites in a manner that is most consistent with achieving our Special Places program goals and respecting local input. I am not prepared to go back and revisit these sites after having gone through such a thorough public consultation."
Several of four? What on earth does that mean? The lack of thought in the response reveals the shallowness of Alberta’s environmental commitment.
Klein won headlines and much credit for agreeing to meet the environmental groups and consider their pitch for these 10 areas. But it was just a show.
The premier is ultimately unwilling to address the inadequacies of his government’s approach to the environment, exemplified by the failure of Special Places and the flawed first draft of the Natural Heritage Act.
What a contrast. Ontario’s Lands for Life program has the same genesis as Special Places, the commitment several years ago by every government in Canada to meet a World Wildlife Fund challenge to protect representative examples of all natural regions.
Ontario’s program will dwarf the result of Special Places, protecting 2.4 million hectares of land.
It is also a far sounder plan. Ontario has not left it to each local region to hammer out what wilderness should be protected, as Alberta has. Rather, Ontario has had a widespread consultation, and from that has drawn up a plan for the province. The result is far more coherent and consistent than the higgledy piggledy Special Places process.
Most importantly, Ontario’s plan assumes that "protection" means no logging and no mining. It has been Alberta’s unwillingness to draw that line that has undermined environmental policy here so thoroughly.
Protection of the environment should be an obvious cause for conservatives. Conservatism surely means resisting headlong change and valuing our heritage and traditions. What more precious heritage do Canadians have than the land itself?
Conserving wilderness areas protects options. If in 100 years Albertans find too much was set aside, that land will still be available for exploitation. If we use it all now, cut the old growth trees and drive out the wildlife, future Albertans will be out of luck.