This is a copy of a letter sent to the then Reeve of St. Edmunds Township, Brad Davis from the Minister of the Environment, John Roberts. It is dated April 7, 1982. Areas pertaining to our current position of opposing retail space in the Visitors Center are highlighted in yellow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brad Davis
Reeve
St. Edmunds Township
Box 70
Tobermory, Ontario
N0H 2R0
Dear Mr. Davis:
On behalf of Parks Canada, I would like to thank you and your joint Committee of Councils for your work to date in determining local opinion on the concept of establishing a national park on the Bruce Peninsula. I have been following the results of your meetings and open houses. As I said in announcing the consultation step we are now in, any decision to proceed with a park depends on the views of the people. The decisions of the two councils to form the joint Committee and provide a familiar forum for the people of Lindsay and St. Edmunds Townships to express their opinions and learn the implications of the national park proposal is excellent. When the Committee is satisfied that the people understand what establishing a national park would mean to them individually as well as to the area and has reported back to you, I will be pleased to receive your recommendations.
From the feedback I have received to date, several issues concerning the proposal appear to require clarification. I thought it might be useful at this time to provide you with a position on these points which may help the Committee in dealing with each issue.
First, let me address the issues concerning expropriation and the purchase of lands for national park purposes. As I stated in my press release of December 2, 1981, no expropriation would take place for the acquisition of private land for a national park and no pressure would be applied to private land-owners to sell their property to Parks Canada. Should the concept of the park proceed to the point of establishing boundaries, Parks Canada would only then proceed with the purchase of private lands - on a willing buyer - willing seller basis. The price would be determined through the process of appraisal and negotiation with the objective of fair value. The final decision, as I have said, always rests with the owner.
The second issue deals with land-owners inside a park boundary who do not wish to sell their properties. Parks Canada would work closely with land-owners within park boundaries to ensure that their holdings are adequately buffered from adjacent park uses. Private land-owners would continue to use their lands as they had before the park was created and would have unrestricted access to their property. Parks Canada would have no authority over what private land-owners do with their lands and, therefore, could not impose any direct or indirect restrictions on activities and uses on private lands. Traditional activities and uses on private lands within the boundaries of a national park are subject to municipal and provincial regulations.
Concern has also been expressed about the possibility of a constantly expanding park area. This is not characteristic of national parks. By definition, a national park is an area of such size and configuration as to meet the objectives of adequately preserving and representing the major themes or elements which distinguish the area. In the case of a new national park such as the Bruce proposal, if there is support to proceed, we would undertake a detailed study to determine the land necessary to make it a national park. This would, of course, be done through public consultation and I can say that Parks Canada would have no requirements beyond the limits of the study area in terms of size. It should be remembered, however, that a national park must be of sufficient size to enable the natural communities within its boundaries to survive even though other land uses may change outside its boundaries.
Concern has also been expressed about the nature and extent of development that would take place within a national park. Our overriding policy in national parks is to encourage the development of facilities and visitor services outside of parks to the maximum extent possible. Visitor facilities and services developed within the park are mainly those associated with the actual use and management of it. Such things as trails, access roads, picnic and day-use facilities, fall into this category. Services such as overnight accommodation of a commercial nature, restaurants, gift shops, outfitters, grocery stores and service stations, will, I hope, be provided by the private sector outside the park. Only if there is no way in which essential services can effectively be provided outside the park would we consider introducing such enterprises inside the park. It is important to know also the process by which development decisions of this nature are made. Once a decision is taken to proceed with a new national park, a management plan is prepared. This is done through a public consultation process and sets out not only the nature and extent of facilities to be provided but the guidelines under which the park will actually be operated and managed. It is during this process of management planning and consultations with the provincial government, municipalities, the private sector, local people and interest groups that we are able to define the role that each can play - both inside and outside of the park in providing the various services and facilities. That, of course, only takes place if the decision is to proceed with the concept.
The final issue involves a general thread of concern which seems to run through all of the others and that is a sense of "distrust". There is a probably little that I can say in a few lines which would substantially alter that and I can only suggest that we be judged by our actions. I have said that we want the views of the people of the Bruce to guide our actions with respect to the establishment of a park. I have directed that these views be obtained through an open, all cards on the table, public consultation process. While the area represents an important element of the Canadian landscape and would make a valuable addition to Canada's outstanding system of national parks, we have no intention of trying to mislead anyone on the advantages or disadvantages of that option. We simply want to ensure that when people do make their final choice they do so on the basis of sound information, not hearsay. It is the wish of the people and not the actions of government which holds the balance.
Once again I would like to commend you for your efforts and those of your Committee and I look forward to receiving your recommendations concerning the national park proposal.
I am also writing to Mr. Milton Hayes, Reeve of Lindsay Township, along these lines.
Yours sincerely,
John Roberts