|
"We are enthused by the fact that in this new legislation, the government has committed to making ecological integrity the overriding principle for management decisions in our provincial parks and our protected areas."
EARTHROOTS
The Chair: The next presentation is from Earthroots: Mr. Josh Garfinkel. Have a seat; make yourself comfortable. The protocol is pretty simple. You have 15 minutes to make your deputation. If you leave any time remaining, it will be divided among the parties for questions. Please begin by introducing yourself for the purposes of Hansard.
Mr. Josh Garfinkel: My name is Josh Garfinkel. I'm the parks and protected areas campaigner for Earthroots. Earthroots is a conservation group, a grassroots environmental group with a focus on Ontario-based issues specifically.
First off, I'd like to just say good afternoon to the Chair and to the members of the committee. I'm extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak in this forum. I'd really like to say how encouraging it is that the government has taken this very critical and progressive step of introducing new legislation for our provincial parks and protected areas in Ontario.
Earthroots has been actively involved throughout the preliminary and middle stages of Bill 11's development. We are very excited that it has been referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. We are enthused by the fact that in this new legislation, the government has committed to making ecological integrity the overriding principle for management decisions in our provincial parks and our protected areas.
With that being said, it could be very easy for the term "ecological integrity" to become vague and perhaps arbitrary in both its definitions and its connotations. To the vast majority of people who live in Ontario, ecological integrity encompasses being not only responsible stewards of the land but, most importantly, to ensure that the preservation of wildlife habitat is the primary purpose.
We are not opposed to hunting; it's just that the less than 10% of Ontario that is classified as protected should be off limits to recreational hunting. I'd like to reiterate that: It is only 10% that we're talking about. The parks and conservation reserves in Ontario are presently managed for a diverse array of objectives, striving to balance the importance of environmental protection with recreational, commercial and economic interests.
A survey conducted for Earthroots by Oraclepoll in March 2004 revealed that 88% of Ontarians strongly oppose hunting in parks, including 84% of those surveyed in northern Ontario and 66.7% of people who actually had a hunting licence in their household. Perhaps the most essential element that the survey disclosed was that wildlife and wildlife habitat was seen as the primary purpose for Ontario's parks and protected areas. If only 3.5% of Ontarians participate in sport hunting, the Ministry of Natural Resources is permitting a miniscule percentage of the population to dictate park policy, and is consequently denying the interests and principles of the majority of people in Ontario
In turn, there is an urgent and dire responsibility to update extremely weak and lacklustre regulations in regard to species at risk. The fact that some of our protected areas actually allow species at risk to be hunted and trapped is appalling. Recognizing that there is a species at risk and allowing it to be hunted and trapped in a protected area is not only contradictory by nature, but both of the aforementioned terms become hollow if they don't live up to the fundament goal of a protected area, which is to preserve wildlife.
The eastern wolf is a prime example of this point. Research that Earthroots conducted showed that most of the outfitters in Ontario offering wolf hunts are catering to American hunters. Many of these businesses are located just outside of the boundaries of large protected areas, which offer prime wolf habitats. One of the perks of these expeditions is that they guarantee a wolf kill; this is a claim made on specific websites. This is not only unsustainable and cruel, but it is incongruent with the general attitude people in Ontario have towards hunting and, more specifically, towards a species as crucial to the ecosystem as the wolf.
Clearly, there is amazing potential in this province for the eco-tourism industry. The real revenue can come from eco-tourism in parks. While Americans may come to Ontario to shoot wolves, Canadians flock to Yellowstone National Park to view wolves in the wild. We must do something to ensure that the eastern wolf's habitat is preserved. While the government has made progressive preliminary measures, they need to enact stronger legislation. The fact that wolves can still be hunted and trapped in some of our protected areas is unsustainable. I have recently put out a freedom-of-information request to find out how many wolves are killed annually in this province.
Section 5 of the proposed legislation contains a succinct statement that is a reminder that the parks are dedicated to the public. It states that Ontario's parks and conservation reserves are "dedicated to the people of Ontario and visitors for their inspiration ... health, recreational enjoyment and benefit with the intention that these areas shall be managed to maintain their ecological integrity and to leave them unimpaired for future generations."
While this is a progressive concept, the government is falling short in its attempts to minimize human impacts in our protected areas. If the intended results were leaving the land unimpaired for future generations, then implementing a long-term strategy to phase out high-impact activities would be the necessary next step. Ontario's vast and vital network of protected areas must place the preservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat in the highest regard.
If essential changes are not made to Bill 11 as it currently stands, much-needed buffer zones will not be implemented around our provincial parks and conservation reserves. If protection ends at the perimeter, what is to prevent new roads from cutting into our parks and protected areas, which inevitably creates easier access to our natural resources? I'd like to cite the victory that was achieved when the government imposed a ban on hunting and trapping wolves in and around Algonquin Park. This is a very good paradigm to look at in terms of realizing how critical the role of a buffer zone is to actually taking preservation to a more meaningful level.
One of the most stark and symbolic omissions from Bill 11 is the practice of logging in Algonquin Park. The fact that Bill 11 makes no mention of the need to phase out logging in Algonquin Park is discouraging. The reality is that over 70% of Algonquin Park is open to logging. Why even call it a park if it is so heavily logged? Within the greater Algonquin region, logging accounts for less than 2% of all employment, and that number is decreasing.
In regard to wilderness class parks, Bill 11 contains a crucial change in wording that has been used to describe this classification of parks since the 1970s. The statement previously read, "Wilderness class parks are substantial areas where forces of nature are permitted to function freely and where visitors travel by non-mechanized means." Unfortunately, Bill 11 contains a subtle but key shift in language, replacing this with, "The objective of wilderness class parks is to protect large areas where the forces of nature can exist freely and visitors travel primarily by non-motorized means." This very important rewording impacts the definition of wilderness class parks and can undermine the ideal of preserving wildlife and the ability to enjoy recreational experiences. It is pivotal for Bill 11 to go back to its previous, more sustainable definition: "where visitors travel by non-mechanized means."
There are various ecological scars that ATVs can leave on the face of the backcountry, the most evident being wildlife habitat fragmentation. Damage to vegetation, erosion, collapsed stream banks and widening trails are also problems that emerge when the landscape sees an abundance of all-terrain vehicle use. As it stands today, ATV use represents a very serious danger to Ontario's parks and the sensitive natural areas that exist throughout the province. ATVs emit more pollution per mile than the average car.
Presently, the regulations for our protected areas do not mirror the imperative, urgent need to protect wildlife habitat. To say otherwise would be a contradiction, since the vast majority of Ontario is open to sport hunting. Canada has long prided itself on being a country composed of balance, so it is more than equitable to devote a small percentage of our land base as off limits to recreational hunting. Even the 10% of Ontario that would be off limits to sport hunting seems like a far cry from the balance we value in Ontario.
Logging in Algonquin Park, Ontario's oldest provincial park, should be phased out over a specified period of time, and the fact that motorized access can go on in protected areas is something that must be amended. Public lands deserve protection and respect just like private lands.
We applaud the government for introducing new legislation for the first time in 50 years, and we hope they follow through with the promise of making ecological integrity the overriding principle for our protected areas. Since the ideals and values and communities themselves are ever-changing, we hope this process is taken one step further and accurately reflects the opinions of people who live in Ontario.
1640
The Chair: Thank you very much for your deputation. We'll have time for roughly one brief question from each caucus, beginning with Mr. Orazietti.
Mr. Orazietti: Thank you, Mr. Garfinkel, for your presentation this afternoon. We appreciate your frankness in your presentation.
As you're aware, there have been numerous parks added to the complement of parks in Ontario over the years. I think you can appreciate the challenge and importance of updating a piece of legislation that dates back to 1954. I think you've provided a fairly balanced look at a few areas that are under review. Is there anything else you can suggest in terms of the motorized vehicle aspect that would allow us to review that prior to next week's clause-by-clause process with this bill? We're obviously working to find a balance between all those groups and organizations in the province: those that are adamantly opposed to any type of motorized vehicles in our parks, and those who rely on the use of motorized vehicles for their livelihood and are related to economic factors. Can you perhaps elaborate on that? If you have any other suggestions, I'd be happy to hear those.
Mr. Garfinkel: It's a very good question. I should make it clear that we're talking about recreational ATV use. For commercial all-terrain vehicle use, this is a different classification or it would be an exception, I suppose, from our vantage point. Out of all the issues I mentioned, it's the most crucial one in terms of impact to the environment. I think this is something that needs to be seriously thought over. This new legislation is really timely, the fact it's coming out right as summer is coming. Summer is the time when wildlife --
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller: Thank you, Josh, for your presentation. You stated you're happy that ecological integrity is the overriding principle of the bill, but you also said it's quite vague. That's probably true. Earlier we had the Ontario fur managers here, and I'm sure they would say that trapping is something that's an ecologically sustainable activity. What is your feeling about trapping in protected areas? Feel free to differentiate between various classes.
Mr. Garfinkel: From my organization's standpoint, trapping should not go on in protected areas. I understand the notion of tradition, and I understand the association of hunting and trapping with tradition. But what was true even 50 years ago, when this parks legislation was introduced, does not necessarily translate to being sustainable in the present. That, therefore, does not make sense in the present day.
The Chair: Mr. Bisson?
Mr. Bisson: I'll just follow up on that a little bit in regard to how this affects First Nations. We've talked about the banning of motorized vehicles in wilderness parks, and I think most people don't have a problem with that, per se, on the surface, but when it comes to, for example, a community like Peawanuck, which had a park basically developed around them without their consent, how do you deal with that? Should there be a non-derogation clause to allow them to have access?
Mr. Garfinkel: I believe there should be a non-derogation clause.
Mr. Bisson: The other thing: I'm curious as to your thoughts on the previous presenter from the Ontario Waterpower Association, who talked about the coexisting of hydro dams that are currently in parks. How do you feel about that, the suggestion that we can develop more within a provincial park and still coexist?
Mr. Garfinkel: I don't think there is room for coexistence in that case. I don't feel there's any room for --
Mr. Bisson: He raised one point -- that's why I went out to talk to him, because I was wondering how they deal with it. Currently, there are -- I forget what they're called -- water management plans, which I think is what they're called, that they have to have to run a power dam. One of the effects of this legislation is to null and void the water management plans. I'm just wondering, should we be including water management plans in the legislation on currently existing facilities? Because it would be kind of nuts to get rid of them, I would think.
Mr. Garfinkel: On currently existing --
Mr. Bisson: Yes, the current ones that are there now, because you have to have a water management plan to run the -- do you think we should --
The Chair: I'll have to say that you can answer the question very briefly, but that's it.
Mr. Garfinkel: I can't just instantaneously come up with an answer. It's something I'd have to think more about.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much for having come in and for making your very thoughtful deputation before us today.
Original hansard may be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/q8jjh |
