Hi All,
Below are the transcript of Michael speaking with regards to Bill 10, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2009.
As always Michael brings local concerns into the debate.
2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HOUSE BLUES
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(HANSARD)
HOUSE BLUES
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2009
Morning Sitting
M. Sather: It’s my pleasure to stand today to address Bill 10, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2009, which brings in nine new conservancies, one new park and an ecological reserve. I will be voting in favour of this bill. As a long-time conservationist, I certainly endorse the inclusion of more protected areas, some of which sound quite unique and exciting and good for wildlife as well as for recreational benefits. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I’ve had the pleasure of working with some of the organizations that are involved with the Skaha Bluffs acquisition, such as the Land Conservancy when we acquired a couple of parks that are regional parks now, in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. These conservancies were designated for protection before, as a result of land use agreements, etc. The conservancies, of course, are a lower level of protection than B.C. Parks, and therefore, I have a little bit of concern that the government seems to be moving more and more to conservancies and less to parks. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to make a comment on what the minister has mentioned, on one thing he mentioned with regards to conservancies — that being wildlife viewing and that it’ll enhance wildlife viewing. That’s a very important issue both to the enjoyment of more and more British Columbians and people around North America and throughout the world and also to the economy of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Wilderness tourism has become very large, but I have to say that I am concerned with regard to the effects on wildlife viewing that some of the initiatives of this government, particularly around the independent power projects and around the grizzly hunting up the coast, which is so-called trophy hunting, which I simply do not endorse…. I was a long-time hunter at one time during my life but never a trophy hunter. I cannot understand that philosophy, and a lot of British Columbians agree with that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Having said that, however, it is an issue that a number of people do support and participate in, and it also has an effect on the economy. So there are two sides to that agreement. But the issue with the grizzly bear, particularly up the coast, is of concern to conservationists. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Of course, the major problem that I have with the Ministry of Environment in terms of…. Well, a major problem, anyway, is the lack of protection on the ground in our parks, and that’s reflected by an 18 percent cut in the February ’09 budget to the parks and protected areas program. In fact, the budget now is almost 20 percent less than it was back in 1999. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The February ’09 budget made an 11 percent cut to the ministry. There were cuts to park funding including shorter seasons, full closures of parks and laying off of park rangers. In my constituency and my community of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows we have Golden Ears Provincial Park, the largest park in terms of visitors and a very large park geographically as well, in the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1045]
I can’t tell you how many complaints I hear, Madam Speaker. They are numerous, about the state of that park, the disrepair [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HSE 20091008 AM 010/klm/1045
of the trails, the lack of action to repair them, the garbage that’s strewn around and not being collected, the roads being closed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
People use that park year-round, or they try to, but the roads are often closed to the park in the wintertime. That’s upset a lot of people, and it shows really a lack of commitment by this government to put the resources on the ground where it counts. The conservancies count, the park designations count, but it also counts big-time to have the protection enforcement and resources on the ground, and that’s what we’re not seeing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So the Ministry of Environment budget dropped 19 percent between “Budget 1.0″ in February and “Budget 2.0″ that was presented last month. Mind you, with that cut — and I’ve outlined some of the important areas that have felt the brunt of those cuts — there was a boost of 63 percent to executive and support services. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Also, of course, we know about the infamous work-free zone that Ministry of Environment officials have been enjoying — apparently, the minister knowing nothing about it or condoning it if he did. That’s the last thing that people of British Columbia want to see. They want to see more environment people on the ground, out there working — not having taxpayers pay for big, plasma screen TVs, etc. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So prioritization is important. The ministry has got to get it right. The minister has got to get it right. This decrease in the parks budget — this has been going on over a number of years, and the minister, I’m sure, has heard many times from citizens, conservation groups, etc., about this concern. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Of course, we had the paid parking. That’s been very, very unpopular. Unfortunately, paid parking in parks has kept users away from the parks. Just the exact opposite effect of what you want. You want more people coming to our parks to enjoy the beauties that they have. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So there have been a lot of…. Notwithstanding the fact that this is a positive bill overall, it does not address, of course, the many negative factors in the ministry, and we’re looking for that from this government. So hopefully that kind of legislation is going to be forthcoming before this session is over. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We now have two ministers and a parliamentary secretary heading the ministry but still very little action on important environmental issues, like the collapse of the sockeye fishery and important water allocation issues. I’ve talked in this House before about the collapse of the sockeye fishery and the lack of action by this government. I just want to mention it again in passing that it’s a disaster and that it’s a crime that this government has not picked up…. The minister announced some kind of a public probe — by whom, when, and by what terms no one knows, and nothing on the ground. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Water allocation issues are huge in my constituency. They’re big in the Okanagan, and we need to see action by the government on that front. This bill doesn’t bring in any regulation or law to deal with the incursion into parks by independent power producers. The critic previously mentioned about Bill 84 in 2003, which allowed for more and more industrial and commercial use in our parks. The IPPs, the so-called run of the rivers, are a big one. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister will know the huge dispute over the Upper Pitt in my constituency now, the Upper Pitt River and the fact that the power producer wanted to go through the park, a class A park, with a power line. That was ostensibly cut off by the minister, and it was for a period of time, but I’ve talked to that operator, and he’s still working on it. Now he’s looking at tunnelling under the park. The fact of the matter is the whole project is a disaster. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1050]
There’s nothing in this legislation. We haven’t seen any will on [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HSE 20091008 AM 011/dag/1050
the part of this government to address the fact that the people of British Columbia do not want industrial and commercial development in our parks in any way, shape or form. We didn’t want to see the expansion. Yeah, there’s some, we know. In Manning Park there are some historical facilities and in some other areas as well. But they don’t want to see a carte blanche of industrial and commercial development in our parks. They don’t want to see the downgrading of the primary purposes of parks, which are (a) for the protection of species and (b) for the enjoyment of British Columbians. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The aforementioned Bill 84 in 2003 amended the Park Act to allow park use permits to be issued for resort or tourism development. That was a huge scare to British Columbians. Then we saw in 2006 the lodges in parks policy , and they had one planned in Golden Ears Park. Thank goodness that people in British Columbia were extremely concerned about this, and they raised a great deal of opposition to it, and it seems to be off for now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But none of this is off the books. The possibility is always there that any time the government sees fit to raise the issue of more lodges in parks, the commercialization in parks, the destruction of the primary purpose of our parks, that could happen again. So we remain and British Columbians remain worried about that and vigilant to the necessity of…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This government’s primary purpose is always for commercial development, whether it be in parks or elsewhere. There are some places that it’s just not appropriate to expand commercial development such as resorts, and B.C. parks are one of those areas. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I could say a lot more about this bill, but I know there are a number of other speakers that would like to address it as well. With that, I will take my place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
