To the Editor:
Dear Andre and the Board:
I was most disappointed in your letter of July 3 “reaffirming “ the Chamber’s stance to not currently support the national park proposal.
Actually I and many other park proponents have been asking the chamber to support the “reengagement and re-opening of the park talks” rather than actually supporting the park proposal. There are several outstanding issues but under the way the park establishment system operates, Parks Canada is not allowed to negotiate with stakeholders, including HNZ, unless the provincial government gives the go-ahead to re-open talks. Re-opening talks does not mean the park will be established but it does mean that Parks Canada can talk to stakeholders and see if common ground exists. I cannot understand where the downside is for the chamber and area businesses in this scenario.
Furthermore, in your letter of July 3, you mention numerous businesses that have “expressed concerns and opposition” to the park proposal. I have gone through the list of chamber members and I find it difficult to see many, if any, businesses other than HNZ, that could potentially be adversely affected by the park proposal. Furthermore, any concerns can only be addressed by Parks Canada if the process is re-opened.
You spent considerable space pointing out the benefits of having HNZ operate in Penticton and area. I do not ever remember anyone denying the economic benefits of their operations. HNZ does not currently have unfettered access in perpetuity to their training areas. They must obtain provincial permits and must file environmental impact assessments in order to obtain those permits. The park proponents are advocating for business security for HNZ and a national park. Parks Canada made it clear in their letters that they would continue HNZ’s park use permits within a national park. If Parks Canada were to agree to the same terms as HNZ currently has, I don’t see how that would throw their operations in jeopardy. Once again Parks Canada can only work out a suitable agreement with HNZ if the talks are re-opened.
As part of a recent trip to visit relatives in Saskatchewan, I made a visit to Grasslands National Park located in southern Saskatchewan where I spoke to local ranchers and park employees. When the park was established about 25 years ago, many local ranchers were against the concept and swore they would never work with, or sell their land to, the park service. Several things have recently happened there that suggest the ranchers in the south Okanagan could possibly be accommodated. First, the Parks Act has been amended so that grazing of cattle is now allowed in parts of Grasslands NP. Secondly, many of those ranchers previously against the park are now on board and will tell you they support the park. Several of them have been working with the park to help re-establish some threatened species on their adjoining properties and just recently two large parcels were sold to the park by ranchers who had previously said “over my dead body”.
But once again Parks Canada cannot re-open negotiations with the local stakeholders until the provincial government re-engages.
Therefore, I urge the board to look again at this issue and support the re-opening of talks between Parks Canada and the area stakeholders. The chamber needs to take the stand that they support the establishment of a national park only if HNZ gets business security and the valid concerns of stakeholders such as the local ranchers can be addressed.
Sincerely,
Robert C Handfield, Kaleden