Environecr - Vol. 6(3) 1978 
     
    
   
   
    
     The preservation mandate is now, and always should be, the corner— 
     
     stone of the National Park System. It is, however, a mandate which 
     
     must be interpreted with some degree of flexibility in the different 
     
     regions of Canada in order to be responsive to the cultural and 
     
     economic realities of the regions. This flexibility has been 
     
     lacking in the past policies and practices of Parks Canada, and 
     
     there Is no indication that a change is envisaged in the draft 
     
     policy paper under consideration. 
     
    
   
   
    
     The key issues are that Parks Canada has interpreted the preservation 
     
     mandate to mean that people cannot reside in National Parks and that 
     
     most resource utilization must be terminated. These interpretations 
     
     may be logical for wilderness areas, but they are not necessarily 
     
    

    
     the only or the best interpretations to apply to the settled regions 
     
     of Canada — such as the Maritime Provinces. In the Maritimes we 
     
    

    
     have many "natural areas of Canadian significance" - but they are not 
     
     wilderness. In fact most of them have a long history of human 
     
     settlement and use, often in terms of a dependency on one or more 
     
     resources of that natural area to support the livelihood of our 
     
     people. The people and the cultural landscape have become a part of 
     
     the ecosystem associated with the natural area, particularly in 
     
    

    
     terms of the agricultural and fishing communities associated with 
     
     our coastal regions. 
     
    
   
   
    
     Yet when Parks Canada comes to establish a new National Park at 
     
    

    
     East Point, at Ship Harbour, at Cape LaHave Islands, or at 
     
     Kouchibouquac the message is loud and clear: the people must 
     
    

    
     move out and the resource utilization must end. The message is not 
     
     acce table. The wilderness preservation ethnic is not transferra e 
     
     from the uninhabited Rocky Mountains to the settled shores which 
     
     support our way of life. We do have significant natural areas that 
     
     should be preserved through the National Park system, but they must 
     
     be established through a more flexible interpretation of the 
     
    
   
   
    
     preservation mandate that accommodates our people and works in 
     
     co-operation with them. 
     
    
   
   
    
     In Prince Edward Island we recently observed a sad situation at 
     
     East P01nt - a coastal area with one of the most spectacular beach/ 
     
     dune/lagoon systems in Canada, complemented by the cultural mosaic 
     
     of communities, farm fields, woodlots and inshore fisheries. There 
     
     is no question that the shore zone is of national significance nor 
     
     15 there any question that it would benefit from preservation by 
     
     establishment of a National Park. Yet when the proposal to