Gatineau Park could learn from Rouge Valley

Published by Open File on Friday, July 15, 2011
http://ottawa.openfile.ca/blog/news/2011/gatineau-park-could-learn-rouge-valley 

The federal Conservatives recently announced their intention to create Canada’s first urban national park at Rouge Park in the Greater Toronto Area, the culmination of over two decades of local advocacy. Some conservationists in the National Capital Region might have groaned upon hearing that, since there’s a park in their backyard they’ve thought for years deserves the same distinction. But Rouge Park’s fate could inject new energy into the movement to transform Gatineau Park into a national park—and it should.

Many residents who live anywhere near Gatineau Park have long advocated for greater protection for the park, up to and including national park status. That protection, they say, is integral to the park surviving in an era of clear cuts and subdivisions. The first of the park’s notable defenders was James Harkin, Canada’s first national parks commissioner—he started the job in 1911—who envisioned Gatineau Park as not only Quebec’s first national park—but Canada’s first national park outside the Rocky Mountains.

That vision was reflected in a letter Harkin sent to then-deputy minister of the interior William Cory on Dec. 3, 1913.

“The East has no national parks like those in the Rockies, and it is proposed that the country develop a broader scheme of park than exists in any other country ... Bringing into effect the proposed Gatineau Park ... would, I think, more easily commence this scheme.”

How could that vision for Gatineau Park have changed so much within a few generations? Why is Rouge Park—sprawling urban wilderness on the outskirts of a large city—worthy of national park status if Gatineau Park, which shares many of those attributes, is denied the same fate?
More recently than 1913, others have taken up the cause where Harkin left off. On Oct. 5, 2006, Liberal senator Tommy Banks commented in the Senate that Gatineau Park was supposed to be Canada’s first national park—period.

“If there is any place in Canada that ought to be a national park ... it is Gatineau Park. For one thing, it was supposed to be Canada’s first national park created under the National Parks Branch— not only the first national park for Quebec, and not only the first national park advocated to be created outside of the Rocky Mountains of the West, it was also the first park advocated for creation by the first parks branch in the world, which was in Canada.”

Senator Banks went on to say that Gatineau Park is the only federal park in Canada that is not a national park.

Paul Dewar, the local NDP MP, has also contributed to the file. In 2008, he launched a community campaign to protect Gatineau Park, following in the footsteps of his local predecessor, former NDP leader Ed Broadbent —and has either introduced or supported various prospective laws that aim to protect the park.

We’ve heard a number of reasons why Gatineau Park can’t be a national park. One is the Quebec government never ceded ownership of the land to the feds, while others say the exchange has already taken place. That there are already two national parks in Quebec lends credibility to the notion that the province is open to such parks.

Critics say it would also be too expensive to convert Gatineau Park into a national park due to the cost of meeting International Union for Conservation Nature standards. Parks Canada seems to have no problem adhering to these expensive standards in the case of Rouge Park.

A reason we’ve heard from former Liberal MP Marcel Proulx: Gatineau Park’s allowed recreational activities might change if it’s a national park. The main activities in the park now are camping, hiking, biking, canoeing, and downhill and cross-country skiing—which we also find in Banff National Park. People wouldn’t be able to own property within the park, which would affect cottages, but the Town of Banff—a municipality within Banff National Park that currently has a population of over 8,000—could provide us with a model for accommodating recreational residential development at Gatineau Park.

Proulx also commented that visitors wouldn’t have free access to the park if it became a national park.
According to the Parks Canada website, it costs $9.80 to visit a national park, and “every time you visit a park or site you are in investing in its future.” I’m sure that those using Gatineau Park wouldn’t mind investing in it for less than the price of going to the movie theatre.

Rouge National Park could be the first of many urban national parks in Canada. As the importance of cities increases globally, Parks Canada should introduce a new urban national parks sub-group. Such a program could help to preserve urban wilderness across Canada.

Maybe that means including Cypress Provincial Park in West Vancouver, Fish Creek Provincial Park in Calgary, and the North Saskatchewan River valley parks system in Edmonton—or any other parks that deserve the distinction.

It’s time to at least reboot the discussion about the future of our own urban federal park. After all, it’s right down the road from the same legislature that approved the initial financing of the urban national park that will envelope the Rouge Valley. What better time could there be to talk about it?