Language Matters:The Gain Game by Mike McIvor
In the world of politics, including the politics of national parks, it is essential that citizens pay very careful attention to the way language is used - or misused. Take the early stages of long range planning for the Marmot Basin Ski Area in Jasper National Park as an example. Right now, we are waiting to hear what Parks Canada has decided following its analysis of public comments on draft Site Guidelines for the ski area. (The final Site Guidelines, approved by Parks Canada CEO Alan Latourelle, will provide the context within which Marmot may put forward proposals for development.) At the same time we will learn to what extent the Agency is willing to play the “gain” game.
Here’s how the game works, in a nutshell. As a government regulator and land manager, with jurisdiction over public land and public resources - let’s say in national parks, for instance - you develop some sympathy towards certain business owners who have been complaining for years, if not decades, that if their operations are not permitted to expand, they will die. But you have a legislated mandate that requires you to constrain development in the interest of protecting those public lands and resources. What to do? Well, you could simply manipulate the intention and meaning of words contained in an important planning concept and triumphantly declare that by allowing new and expanded development on the ground, in exchange for moving a line - re-configuring a leasehold boundary - on a map, you will have achieved a “substantial environmental gain”. Maybe this illusion will be sufficient to satisfy the landowners, the people of Canada.
Unfortunately, the paragraph above does not describe a merely hypothetical situation. This all began at a meeting in Lake Louise in January, 2005 where then Environment Minister, Stephane Dion stated that he was prepared to consider exceptions to the existing ski area management guidelines if “substantial environmental gain” could be demonstrated. In fact, he insisted that given his responsibilities, he had an obligation to do so. And the conservationists in attendance said “fair enough”. Who could argue against something that would produce an environmental gain?
A few weeks later, at a meeting in Banff to discuss ski area planning, then Executive Director, Mountain Parks, Bill Fisher presented Parks Canada’s official interpretation of this concept: “environmental gains must be substantial and address major ecological issues”. It seemed clear and straightforward. Further direction was offered in the final Management Guidelines (these provide the overall framework for Site Guidelines at individual ski areas) released by former Environment Minister Rona Ambrose in December, 2006. Here, environmental gain is defined as “a positive change in key ecological conditions” and several criteria - magnitude, geographic context, ecological context - are listed for consideration to determine if an ecological gain is substantial.
But somewhere along the road from Lake Louise, where the concept of “gain” was first articulated, to Marmot Basin where it will be tested in application, some Parks Canada officials drove this planning vehicle into the ditch. They are promoting the idea of a leasehold reduction in exchange for expansion of development as a substantial environmental gain. But the gain they are touting is completely illusory.
This idea of leasehold reduction or reconfiguration as a strategy in ski area planning has been around for a while. BVN commented on it in a letter responding to the draft Management Guidelines in May, 2006. We wrote that while, in principle, it seemed reasonable enough, we were “concerned this will be nothing more than a paper exercise with no real on-the-ground changes in patterns of use other than an expanded footprint”. In other words, we could imagine a situation where an ecologically significant area within a leasehold was being damaged, or sensitive wildlife disturbed, or vital habitat alienated, and by reconfiguring the boundary and re-locating the activity causing the problem to a less significant site, a positive change in key ecological conditions could occur. But we were concerned about the gain game. We must have had some inkling of what was coming.
In the draft Site Guidelines for Marmot Basin presented by Parks Canada for public review, some exceptions to the Management Guidelines are proposed; in exchange, the boundary of the ski area leasehold would be reduced. There is no question the area that would be removed from the leasehold is ecologically significant.
However - and this is key to understanding the gain game - this area has not been developed in any way and receives very little use. Furthermore, even if it remains within the leasehold, full authority over how it is managed in the future, rests with the land manager and regulator, Parks Canada. And Parks Canada is not under any obligation to approve any development or increase in use. The only reason current ecological conditions would not be protected in perpetuity would be if Parks Canada shirked its legislated mandate for maintaining or restoring ecological integrity. Moving the leasehold boundary line on a map will do absolutely nothing to produce “a positive change in key ecological conditions”.
So, where is the “substantial environmental gain” heralded by apologists for the draft Site Guidelines? On paper! In a literary form commonly referred to as fiction. Parks Canada’s stated primary goal for management of ski areas is “to achieve long term land use certainty” yet the only certainty with respect to Marmot is that if proposals for additional development are approved, there will be an expanded footprint and negative changes to ecological conditions.
The outcome of the Marmot process is extremely important. Three ski areas in Banff are watching closely and will demand equivalent concessions as a minimum. We must encourage Parks Canada to pull this planning vehicle out of the ditch. Because the losers in the gain game will be the integrity of national parks and the integrity of language.
Mike McIvor is President of the Bow Valley Naturalists