DENNIS HRYCIUK, JOURNAL STAFF WRITER
Edmonton, The Edmonton Journal, May 9, 1999.
Changing Laws on Parks
Little known and rarely visited, Willmore wilderness Park is prized by outdoor enthusiasts who know this vast are of Rocky Mountains and foothills offers a true back country experience.
With no roads into it, the only way to travel through this 4,600 sq. km. Expanse of land just north of Jasper National Park is on foot or horseback.
But a proposed new provincial law could turn this area of caribou and grizzly bear habitat into a scene of oil and gas wells, ski hills and roads for all terrain vehicles.
That’s the view of legal experts who believe the Natural Heritage Act is so badly flawed that it could lead to development of all sorts ion Willmore or other natural areas of the province.
"Bill 15 could allow nearly any kind of environmental destruction," says a 61 page critique written by the Environmental Law Centre in Edmonton.
"It doesn’t protect natural wilderness as much as it protects industrial interests," says lawyer Arlene Kwasniak, main author of the critique. "The act is still fatally flawed, in my opinion."
It’s that kind of expert view, along with condemnation of the bill by all of Alberta’s major environmental groups, that may persuade the government to shelve the proposed law. Premier Ralph Klein said Thursday it may be delayed until the fall sitting of the legislature, and he has ruled out closure in the face of a Liberal party filibuster of the bill.
A filibuster is an opposition party’s concerted effort – through numerous amendments, debates and discussions – to postpone a vote on a bill as long as possible.
Bill 15 was introduced by the government as a consolidation of various parks and wilderness laws and as enabling legislation for the province’s Special Places program. The four year old program is now setting aside new wilderness and protected areas.
But the proposed act would weaken many provisions of current laws, Kwasniak says.
Key to it all is a section in the bill that allows the environment minister or his officials to issue permits for activities, even if they are contrary to the act, the Edmonton lawyer notes.
DOWNGRADES LAW
So vague is this section that it could allow for new or ongoing industrial developments in a wilderness park, she says.
That downgrades current laws calling for an end to industrial activities in the most protected lands – formally designated as wilderness areas and ecological reserves.
And for Willmore – a park without hotels, restaurants or even camp grounds – the bill could mean a major loss of protection, Kwasniak adds. Now governed by a separate act that bans all industrial activity in it, Willmore could instead be subject to a ministerial decree, she says.
Under the new act, the park’s protections could also be removed by a management plan developed by provincial and local officials, the lawyer adds.
It’s only one example of natural areas that could become more developed in future, Kwasniak says. "For wilderness areas, this is a weakening of protection."
Government official Michael Lohner says critics are wrong to think the government will use the Natural Heritage Act’s open ended provisions for industrial activities.
"We need the flexibility in a province that’s so diverse," says Lohner, executive assistant to Environment Minister Ty Lund. "You need flexibility so you can micro manage."
The intent of the provision for ministerial permits is to allow developments of projects such as boat launches, campgrounds or ski hills, Lohner says.
No permits would be issued for anything that disturbs the ecological integrity of a park or protected area, he adds.
But Kwasniak says that kind of assurance isn’t written into the bill.
"I don’t see anything written that way. The law will last longer than the current government, so the law must speak for itself."
And some of the bill’s provisions even state that the province can renew permits or licences for industrial activities in protected areas, Kwasniak points out.
Worries about weakening protection for places such as Willmore are not far fetched, says environmentalist Sam Gunsch.
The province tried to authorize a ski hill in the park in 1979 after it was set aside as a protected area, notes Gunsch, Edmonton spokesperson for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.
But a petition with 40,000 names killed the concept and a special statue banned that kind of development and all industrial and commercial activity there.
Now with provisions for management plans, the park could again be downgraded Gunsch says. "It lets the municipalities, hand in glove with the province, dictate the plan
That’s because the province has indicated it will steer management plans toward local groups rather than the general public, the Edmonton activist says.
"Yet these are public lands for the use of all Albertans."
Kwasniak says the other major concerns with Bill 15 centre around fewer protections for different types of natural areas.
Formally designated wilderness areas, for example, would become "wildland parks" under the bill. While all terrain vehicles and hunting are banned in most wilderness areas, they could be allowed under the new classification, Kwasniak notes.
INDUSTRY LUKEWARM
The Natural Heritage Act isn’t exactly getting kudos from industry, either.
The province’s largest oil and gas industry organization – the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers – has remained silent on the bill.
However, CAPP vice president David Luff has previously criticized the province’s Special Places program because it failed to adequately define what lands are off limits to industry.
One of the Bill 15’s purposes is to complement Special Places.
But rather than spelling out that oil and gas activities should be phased out of protected areas, as CAPP has called for in the past, the bill specifically allows for continuation of those activities in most natural areas.
Alberta environment critic Debby Carlson says public opposition to the bill is widespread, judging from the huge number of calls and letters he has received.
The Liberal filibuster, she says, is designed to prod the government into taking the bill back and fixing it after extensive consultations with the public.
Klein’s statements indicate this may well happen.