Why does Asian Carp make Trump think of Mark Carney?
Murray Wood ponders the question raised after Donald Trump insulted the Prime Minister in the middle of a random social ...
It’s not a done deal yet, but Saskatoon is closer to establishing one of the only urban national parks of its kind in Canada.
Currently, there is only other national urban park, located in the Greater Toronto Area.
Read more:
- Saskatoon considering options to curb trespassing under bridges after fire
- Park Standoff: Tax dispute has a Saskatchewan regional park at odds with its residents
- $1 million earmarked for new regional park campsites in Saskatchewan
Celene Anger, general manager of community services, said the City of Saskatoon has been working with the Meewasin Valley Authority, Parks Canada, Indigenous groups and key stakeholders over the last several years to progress to the third of four stages in the process.
During Wednesday’s Governance and Priorities committee meeting, city administration was looking for approval on three recommendations, which included endorsing the vision and governance by Meewasin Authority and Parks Canada, approving provisional park boundaries and providing a letter of support subject to the confirmation of federal funding.
But the debate during the meeting wasn’t without some controversy and push back from two local environmental groups, including Candace Savage with the Saskatoon Swale Watchers and Joanne Blythe with Wild About Saskatoon.
More than 150 people also wrote to the city to express their concern over what they said were the park’s “newly proposed boundaries (that could) reduce the amount of protection of the Small and Northeast Swales endorsed by council on Feb. 22, 2023.”
The letters urged councilors to vote against administration’s second recommendation.
Saskatoon city administration outlined “provisional” boundaries for what could be one of Canada’s first urban national parks. (City of Saskatoon/Submitted)
“It is not appropriate to introduce this drastic and harmful revision as a kind of, ‘Oh by the way,’ without justification, rationale or context,” Blythe wrote in a letter to council.
Both Savage and Blythe made presentations calling for more transparency from city administration about the future of the portions of land not included in swale areas.
Coun. Bev Dubois also questioned the adjusted boundaries, noting that city council did endorse the Small and Northeast Swales in 2023 and that the proposal in front of the committee appeared to reduce that.
“Can you talk to us about why we’re doing that? What are the advantages, what are the disadvantages and how we move forward one way or another?” she asked.
Mike Velonas, chief executive officer of Meewasin Valley Authority, said it was about positioning Meewasin and the project “for readiness,” “if and when” the federal government decides to fund the program, adding that he expected changes to the boundaries in the future.
“We know that we want to designate the Meewasin Valley as a national urban park. Some portion of it. That intention is what’s paramount here. The specifics of the boundary, the nuances of where the boundary is, and we have invested years – literally – in nuancing that boundary,” he said.
“The idea is that the Northeast Swale will be included in the national park.”
As the boundary debate continued, Cindy Yelland, city solicitor, asked for a pause in the meeting “before we make a decision we can’t back away from later.”
Later in the meeting, Coun. Jasmine Parker asked Anger about the consequences of not approving the boundaries.
“If council was to not approve in principle or endorse the boundary today, that would require us to go back to the beginning of the process and that could put designation at risk by not having a council endorsed boundary for that designation process,” she answered, noting “refinement” was expected for the city owned property.
Coun. Dubois put forward an amendment to the second recommendation, indicating that the provisional boundary that city council approved in Feb. 2023 be endorsed, subject to engagement and possible future refinements. The motion passed unanimously, along with the other two recommendations.
The next stage of the planning process will include public consultations in late 2026 and a public hearing expected in early 2027.
