Hi Folks,
Attached and below is Michael’s exchange with Environment Minister Barry Penner with regards to Bill 10.
Just so you know, it’s a lengthy exchange.
2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
official report of
Debates of the Legislative Assembly
(hansard)
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Morning Sitting
Volume 5, Number 1
Committee of the Whole House
BIll 10 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2009
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 10; C. Trevena in the chair.
The committee met at 10:13 a.m.
On section 1.
M. Sather: It gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill 10, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2009.
Section 1 refers to Det san ecological reserve. What I wanted to find out first from the minister…. This one is close to the town of Smithers and is some 5.8 hectares in size. There’s an interesting part of this that has struck my attention. It says that “det san” is the Wet’suwet’en name
[ Page 1278 ]
for juniper, as it contains a regionally rare example of old-growth juniper.
For those of you that may know about juniper, it grows in two different forms in our province — a spreading mat form plant and a tree form. The berries, although not edible, apparently are good for your…. If you’ve got an outdoor toilet, it’s a good thing to put in. I’m told it’s a natural composter.
But what I really wanted to know from the minister is if he could describe a bit about this old-growth juniper and exactly why this is significant.
Hon. B. Penner: This particular property was brought to the attention of the Ministry of Environment by a number of local ecologists a number of years ago. The ministry assessed the property and agreed with those who had contacted the ministry that there were some unique values to be protected here.
The member has asked some specific questions around juniper. I noted a particular use that he has found for juniper. I can advise the House that “det san” is the Wet’suwet’en name for juniper. This particular ecological reserve, should the Legislature agree to pass this legislation, will contain a regionally rare example of old-growth juniper.
In addition, these 5.8 hectares that we’re looking at protecting here in the form of an ecological reserve also will protect rare and sensitive grasslands, shrub lands and savannah ecosystems on a steep south-facing slope. This particular ecosystem provides critical winter and early spring range for deer and excellent habitat for moose as well as for resident and migratory songbirds.
I should note that the transaction to purchase this previously privately owned land was concluded on March 31, 2008, and involved the acquisition of 5.99 hectares of land. If you’re looking at the notes in the bill, you’ll see we’re actually looking to establish 5.8 hectares as an ecological reserve. The remaining 0.19 hectares will be protected through a variety of legal encumbrances restricting what can happen on that remaining land.
M. Sather: Thanks to the minister for that elucidation. First of all, I want to say that I’m a very strong supporter of our ecological reserve system in British Columbia. It’s a higher order of protection and certainly does protect many unique ecosystems in our province, at least one of which I have in my constituency.
I just want to ask the minister, though, about the legal encumbrances of the 0.19 acres, I think he said, or something of that nature. Why did that part have to be preserved via that mechanism, whereas the rest of it is done in another manner?
Hon. B. Penner: For the 0.19 hectares I referred to earlier, I am advised that there is a pre-existing right-of-way to accommodate what we believe is a power line, although I’m subject to correction on that. Because of the pre-existing right-of-way and the rights or opportunities for selective tree removal to maintain that right-of-way for what we believe is a power line, those types of uses are not consistent with an ecological reserve. So it was determined that it would not be appropriate to include that right-of-way in the ecological reserve.
M. Sather: Of this 5.8 hectares then, what is the juxtaposition of the right-of-way? Is it along one side? Is it through a part of it? Where is it?
Hon. B. Penner: I’m being shown a small schematic which indicates that the power line right-of-way is located on the western fringe of the area to be designated as an ecological reserve — again, assuming that the Legislature approves the legislation.
The Clerk reminds me, as well, that maps are available for members to peruse in the Clerk’s office. There may not be a map of this ecological reserve, however, I am advised by my staff. But for the remainder or the balance of the areas contained in Bill 10, I am told that there are maps indicating what those areas look like, and those are available for members to peruse at the Clerk’s office.
M. Sather: So just that I’m clear then. For a provincial park, of course, we have legislation requiring a boundary adjustment if a power line was to go through it. The minister will recall the discussion we had around the Upper Pitt and a power line that a company wanted to put through a provincial park there.
When the minister said that the power line would be inconsistent with an ecological reserve, do I understand correctly that an ecological reserve and a class A provincial park have the same statutory limitations, then, with regard to boundary adjustments?
Hon. B. Penner: Ecological reserves are governed by a separate statute than parks and conservancies. There’s an existing law on the books called the Ecological Reserve Act of British Columbia, and that governs what activities are permitted, or not, in ecological reserves.
The parks and protected areas act governs what types of activities are permitted with respect to parks, conservancies and other protected areas in British Columbia.
In both cases, if an area is established pursuant to that legislation — either the Ecological Reserve Act or the parks and protected areas act — and is added to the schedule to the act, the boundaries can only be adjusted by virtue of a statutory amendment brought here to the floor of the Legislature.
In both cases, there are those types of restrictions — significant restrictions on what type of activity can take place. But I think it’s safe to summarize that with ecological
[ Page 1279 ]
reserves, the type of activity that’s encouraged or permitted is even more restrictive than what’s permitted in a class A provincial park.
For example, in parks we encourage public outdoor recreation activities. We at times have built boat launches and campsites and picnic areas. That would not be the case for ecological reserves.
M. Sather: I certainly concur with the minister that ecological reserves have…. I know the government tries very much and is successful, when these are created, in making them have the least amount possible of the touch of humankind on them.
This ecological reserve — the minister has said it has a higher level of protection. If I understood him right, that would apply similarly, although under different legislation, to how it would to a class A park with regard to a power line. There’s no power line there yet, but this power line right-of-way is within the boundary of the ecological reserve, as I understand it.
Oh, it’s not. Okay. Thank you very much. The minister is shaking his head. That clarifies that for me. It’s not within the boundaries.
The other point on that one of interest to me is that this ecosystem provides critical winter and early spring range for deer and excellent habitat for moose and resident and migratory songbirds. I just wanted to comment. I’m so glad to see the inclusion of songbirds in here. We’re losing our songbirds in North America at an astounding rate, so any habitat that we can preserve, especially unique habitat like this, is a tremendous bonus to us.
I wanted to ask the minister, with regard to preservation of this critical winter habitat: was there a need for special protection of these species? I know moose and deer are generally fairly abundant in the province, but not necessarily in each part of the province. Was there a particular reason in terms of preservation that this critical winter and early spring habitat…? I’m assuming that for songbirds, it’s probably also spring and summer habitat — fall perhaps. Was there a particular concern, or was this more of a general type of…?
I know that when we form ecological reserves, there often is a real focus on a particular issue. In this case I’m thinking it’s the juniper, and this other part is not so critical. I just wanted to find out whether there was any specific reason why that habitat needed to be protected for wildlife or birds.
Hon. B. Penner: The member for Stikine will likely correct me if I’m wrong, but my guess is that in the area where this ecological reserve is to be established, it’s relatively rare to encounter savannah-like grasslands or ecosystem types.
This particular piece of land, as I noted, is on a steep south-facing slope. Because of that attribute, I would imagine it attracts a fair bit of summer heat and can be relatively dry compared to other areas, which opens it up as a grassland and shrub land, providing excellent opportunities for ungulates to graze in that area — in particular deer, but the member also mentions moose.
I’m told that the primary motivation for acquiring this particular piece of land is the existence of the juniper, which is where the member began his questioning, and also the fact that it is this sensitive grassland-type ecosystem which, my guess is — and I’ll stand to be corrected — is relatively rare at those latitudes and that far west in British Columbia.
M. Sather: I’m going to have to consult the member also because I’m not sure about that. I know that in the Cariboo and in the Chilcotin there are, of course, a lot of grasslands. The minister will know that. I spent some time around Smithers, but I’m not exactly sure about the rareness of it. Thanks very much to the minister for his comments on that ecological reserve.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
M. Sather: The first park — and we’re still on parks and ecological reserves — is Alice Lake Park, which is 6.8 hectares in the Sea to Sky corridor, which of course is the Vancouver to Whistler route — a very well-used park indeed.
It says that the acquisition of this forested parcel on the shore of Edith Lake, adjacent to the eastern boundary of the park, fulfils a longstanding park management objective. I wonder if the minister could fill me and the House in on: what is the longstanding park management objective that they have at Alice Lake that they’re helping to fulfil?
Hon. B. Penner: This is a situation where I think a picture or map is worth more than a thousand words for me in explaining how this piece of property fits in the overall puzzle of the plan for Alice Lake Park.
By virtue of the acquisition of this piece of land, which is about 6.8 hectares, we are securing public access and park protection for — it looks to me like — almost half or certainly more than a third of the shoreline and surrounding area of Edith Lake.
Now, while Alice Lake Provincial Park is named after one particular lake on the map I’m holding in my hands, there are at least four other lakes of note: Stump Lake, Fawn Lake and Edith Lake. It’s that last lake, Edith Lake, where previously there was a significant chunk of property, 6.8 hectares, that was privately held, roughly coinciding with the eastern boundary of Alice Lake Provincial Park.
[1035]
[ Page 1280 ]
I’m told that the management plan had been to try and secure public access to that eastern shoreline of Edith Lake. By virtue of this property acquisition and now, hopefully, the inclusion of this property in the park and protected areas act and the schedule thereto, we will be accomplishing that management objective for Alice Lake Provincial Park.
It’s far easier for me to demonstrate this visually than verbally. If you see where the little yellow chunk is, that was the piece kind of missing out of the park — with your single-lens glasses. Anyway, that demonstrates, I think, fairly succinctly why B.C. Parks felt it appropriate to acquire that piece of land. That transaction was completed…. I don’t have the date when we acquired that property, but it was something that we had hoped to do for a period of time.
—Break—
Debate Continued
M. Sather: That’s helpful — in part. I know that different parks…. I’ve been to Alice Lake, but I must confess it’s been some time, and I don’t recall specifically the role of recreation in that park. With regard to the access to Edith Lake — and perhaps even to the park more generally — does the management plan, then, have a strong focus on recreation and that would be part of the reason that we would want or that B.C. Parks would want greater access to Edith Lake?
Hon. B. Penner: Like the member, it’s been some time since I’ve spent any recreational time at Alice Lake Provincial Park. However, I do recall that was the first time I felt angry at raccoons. I was probably seven years old and had caught a number of small trout and had left them on the picnic table, only to find them disappearing, courtesy of some visiting raccoons. However, I digress.
There is a popular campground in Alice Lake Provincial Park. I don’t recall if there are established hiking trails to Edith Lake. But I’m advised that all sides of Edith Lake are forested lands. By virtue of the amendment we’re seeking here, we will be able to secure public access and B.C. Parks’ ownership and management authority over all sides of Edith Lake, thereby making sure we have the ability to permit recreation as well as conservation initiatives.
Previously that 6.8 hectares was privately owned. It was forested land. I don’t know if there were harvesting plans or proposals. But given the nature of the forest in that area, it could have been valuable from a forestry perspective. By virtue of B.C. Parks acquiring that land, we’ll be able to manage it for both recreation and conservation.
M. Sather: Well, I can sympathize with the minister’s crisis over the raccoons. When I moved to British Columbia from Alberta, I started raising some geese, and I thought: “Oh, those big geese could fight off a raccoon — no problem.” Well, I soon learned otherwise and found a few feathers in the morning. I know about that kind of angst that raccoons can bring upon one. Thanks to the minister again.
Now, there’s a lot of controversy these days in our parks and a lot of conflict as the population rises, particularly in the Lower Mainland, between recreation users and conservation objectives. The minister has said that in this park we’re trying to achieve both objectives.
I notice that it says, with regard to the parcel, that it connects Alice Lake Provincial Park to other natural areas to the east of the park’s boundaries and to an extensive system of mountain bike trails. Are those mountain bike trails, then, completely outside the park, or are they inside and outside the park?
Hon. B. Penner: Hon. Chair, I appreciate your indulgence. I’ve been able to access a different map showing the park.
For the interest of members, if you’re ever planning to visit any provincial park, including Alice Lake Provincial Park, you can visit the B.C. Parks website, which I find to be a handy resource. You can seek out different parks by alphabetical order and click on that and print out a brochure at your leisure.
If you do that in the case of Alice Lake Provincial Park, you’ll learn that the park is named for Alice Rose, who was the first woman settler to hike and fish in this area, and that the park is surrounded by towering mountains, dense forests and grassy areas. Four freshwater lakes dominate the landscape, offering plenty of excellent family fun and adventure activities.
The member was asking about mountain bike trails. From what I can see on the map, there are a couple of trails that are designated for use — including mountain bikes, including one in the general proximity of Edith Lake. But according to the map I have, they’re not officially designated as going into that previously privately owned area to the east of Edith Lake. When this legislation passes, if it’s supported by the members of the House, then I guess
[ Page 1281 ]
it’s possible that trails will be established more formally on the east side of Edith Lake.
One of the more popular trails, apparently, is the Four Lakes Trail, which is eight kilometres in length and takes what is described as a circuitous route past all four lakes. Biking is permitted September 15 to May 1. Presumably, that restriction is to try and avoid conflicts on the trails.
It is my view that recreation and conservation can go hand in hand and that they’re not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts. That’s one of the benefits we have with the B.C. Parks system. We do try to manage for multiple objectives.
I think Alice Lake is one of those areas where, obviously, we are encouraging recreation. There are more than 100 campsites that are enjoyed by many members of the public, particularly families.
But also, it allows us to restrict the type of activities that take place — for example, limiting the time of year when bikes are permitted on trails and also prohibiting various types of activity that are prohibited under the Park Act. We’ve already touched on that earlier, that there are significant restrictions on what type of activities are permitted in a provincial park by virtue of the park and protected areas legislation.
M. Sather: The minister mentioned that, as I understand it, the mountain biking or cycling in general…. Certainly, mountain biking, by the sound of it, is restricted to the fall, winter and maybe spring area time frame. Of course, on the west coast that’s the time we have the most rain and the most amount of mud, which can lead to serious deterioration in trails.
Does the park management plan for Alice Lake have any protocols, including enforcement provisions, to ensure that the trails are maintained in good condition vis-à-vis the use of mountain bikes and preserving the other half of that two-pronged approach that we all want — that is, the conservation part?
Hon. B. Penner: I don’t have a copy of the park management plan for Alice Lake Provincial Park with me here in the House, but I would be surprised if the management plan got into that level of detail. Typically, they set broad objectives.
The day-to-day management of a park is something that’s different and would likely take into account what types of impacts are being noticed or not in the park and what changes are suggested. I would have to believe that there is a reason why the brochure and the map, actually, that I’ve been handed…. As I look at it closer, right on the map it’s indicated in a couple of places next to the little icon indicating somebody on a bicycle. It says September to May only. There must be some reason why that restriction was put in place.
I do note that a couple of these trails seem to extend from or incorporate what’s marked on here as a gravel road on the map — not suggesting all of the trails are on gravel roads but that some of them certainly seem to stem from what’s just simply identified on here as gravel road, without any other name attached.
Given those apparent restrictions on the time of use or the seasons of use for mountain bikes, I have to assume that the people responsible for the management of this park on a day-to-day basis have seen fit to permit mountain biking at certain times of the year but not others. Again, it’s another example of the multiple use that you can find in our provincial park system.
Again, we do try to encourage recreation. It’s a healthy thing for people to do, generally, if they can avoid falling off their bicycles and hurting themselves or hurting other people due to encounters on the trail.
Other activities the member may be interested in that Alice Lake Provincial Park is well known for…. In addition to trout fishing, which is something I remember doing with my father, I’m told that now canoeing and kayaking are popular activities at lakes in the park. As well, fishing and shellfish harvesting and the removal of other marine life is permitted but only where you have an appropriate licence to do so.
M. Sather: I suspect the minister is absolutely right that the timing of trail use is to try to minimize conflict between users.
The minister brought up an interesting facet, an important facet of course, of biking or mountain biking, and that’s the risk factor. It can be a spill, or it can be, as happened to a good friend of mine who is a very avid mountain biker…. He’s about my age, and he had a heart attack during a mountain-biking expedition. So there are, of course, a number of risks.
With regard, then, to preservation of the trails and attendance to individual users, whether mountain bikers or others, that could become injured, can the minister inform the House as to what sort of range or contingent or other management contingent there is for Alice Lake Park?
Hon. B. Penner: I don’t have that information here with me, and I don’t have the appropriate staff for that.
M. Sather: We’re aware that there have been cutbacks in rangers, in some parts of British Columbia at least. Have some of those reductions in rangers been in the Lower Mainland and Sea to Sky corridor parks regions?
Hon. B. Penner: Again, I don’t have that information here with me, and the staff who…. I should introduce Ken Morrison, seated to my right, and Peter Trotzki, to my left or to the viewers’ right. They work assisting us in defining park boundaries and legislative amendments
[ Page 1282 ]
generally, but they’re not the staff in the ministry that are well positioned to answer questions around staffing. They deal with park boundaries and the like and legislative amendments.
The Chair: Member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I would remind you that we are discussing Alice Lake Park and the changes in the boundaries as specified in this bill.
M. Sather: Thank you, Madam Chair. We certainly are. The formation and the expansion of our parks is strongly supported by this side of the House as well as the government side. However, it is an issue. It’s great to expand parks, but unless we have the management contingent to look after them, it can become a bit of an exercise in futility.
I would like now to move on to subsection (a) of section 2, which repeals the name of Brooks Peninsula Park and substitutes the following. This is where I’m going to get into trouble with my pronunciation, so I’m going to depend on the minister’s superior linguistic capabilities in this regard. It’s substituted with the name Brooks Peninsula Park, also known as Muqin Park. I don’t know if that has anything to do with the venerable Maquinna or not.
I wanted to ask the minister just what process took place, resulting in the change of the name of Brooks Peninsula Park.
Hon. B. Penner: I’ll attempt to assist the member with pronunciation efforts. I have a bit of an advantage, perhaps, in that I was up in that area a couple of months ago and had a briefing at that time.
To assist the member, we are retaining the name Brooks Peninsula Park but also adding the name Muqin Park, which is in recognition of one of their elders. There’s a significant history to that part of the west coast of Vancouver Island, according to the Che:k:tles7et’h’ First Nation.
As I recall from my visit there, there had been, I believe, a significant battle that had taken place on that peninsula. Obviously, it was a significant turning point in the history of their first nation. They have communicated to B.C. Parks their interest in recognizing the role that their elders had played and the significance of that peninsula to their first nation.
It was an honour for me to travel to that area. I think it was in July, but I stand to be corrected. I was greeted by a significant contingent from the village that had ventured out to that area. Among other things, we enjoyed a fabulous salmon feast. The salmon had been barbecued or roasted on an open fire, and it was a very special afternoon that I had an opportunity to participate in.
Suffice to say, the first nation felt it was appropriate that B.C. Parks recognize the first nations interest in that area by incorporating into the official name of that provincial park a recognition of their elders’ past involvement, and that explains the name.
Now, exactly when these discussions were concluded or took place, I’m not immediately familiar. I would be able to get that information, though, for the member if he’s interested in the timelines and the sequence of events.
M. Sather: That’s very interesting and to be applauded.
In 2(c) the description of Canal Flats Park is repealed. Can the minister just explain why that was done?
Hon. B. Penner: I’m told that back in about 2004, at the annual convention of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the village of Canal Flats had approached the ministry and asked about the potential transfer of this small park to the village.
[L. Reid in the chair.]
There was then some subsequent correspondence between the ministry and the village where the mayor of that community formally requested transfer of the park to the village. There was an assessment undertaken of the park values and just what role that particular park played in the overall provincial park system.
Subsequently, in April 2005 there was a letter sent to the mayor and council of the village of Canal Flats indicating that the assessment supported the request for the transfer of this community-oriented park to the village, and such a transfer would take place subject to various consultations and approval by the Legislative Assembly.
That brings us to today. I can indicate that there have been subsequent conversations with the village and the Ministry of Environment — including, I think, most recently just last month in Vancouver — where the people from the village of Canal Flats continued to seek this transfer. It’s something that fits with their community plan in terms of trying to operate it as a community-oriented park.
M. Sather: On section 2(d), Cape Scott Park, this is an addition, to a very popular hiking park on Vancouver Island, of only 0.8 hectares, which appears to be solely for the purpose of a parking lot. Can the minister inform me on that issue?
Hon. B. Penner: This piece of property was acquired by B.C. Parks by way of a donation from Western Forest Products. The approximate value is $30,000, so we’re grateful for that donation of land. This particular area had been used previously as an informal or somewhat ad hoc parking lot, giving hikers access to the North Coast Trail.
[ Page 1283 ]
I know that the member for North Island — I hope she doesn’t mind me saying this — was, I think, quite pleased when the legislation was introduced that this particular piece of land was going to be added to Cape Scott Provincial Park because of the growing interest amongst hikers, not just in British Columbia but elsewhere, in traversing the North Coast Trail.
The Ministry of Environment has invested significant funds — hundreds of thousands of dollars, in fact — in the last couple of years to upgrade and extend the North Coast Trail to provide additional tourism opportunities and attraction to that area so that people can complete a loop trail.
By formalizing the previous ad hoc parking lot arrangement, we’re giving greater certainty to visitors to the area, to hikers, that they can properly park their vehicles in order to access the fabulous vistas that are available along the North Coast Trail through Cape Scott Provincial Park without having to worry that their vehicles would actually legally be in trespass because they’re parked on private land.
So thank you to the donation from Western Forest Products. If this legislation is approved by the Legislature, then people who are accessing that area can park with a certain degree of peace of mind that they’re on publicly owned land within a provincial park and are parking their vehicles in an area that’s now officially designated for that purpose.
Just to go back to the member’s previous question around Canal Flats, I should also indicate and would like to put on the record that if the Legislative Assembly approves this legislation and the amendment regarding Canal Flats Provincial Park, the Ministry of Environment will Crown-grant the lands to the village of Canal Flats for park purposes. There will be a reversionary clause in the Crown grant directing that if the lands cease to be used for park purposes, they revert back to the ownership of the province.
Certainly, in the communications I’ve had with the village of Canal Flats, they have told me they intend to use it for park purposes. But this added provision that I just mentioned will ensure that those lands continue to be used for a park purpose.
M. Sather: Thanks to the minister for giving that further information on Canal Flats. That’s an important piece.
On section 2(g), which is the Naikoon Park addition, this is an interesting one to me. I’ve spent some time up there. It’s a beautiful area of windswept beaches on the north end of the Queen Charlotte Islands. One of the things that has always interested me about the Charlottes — and I didn’t know this until I visited — is that there are sandhill crane populations up there.
I wondered if the minister could tell me a little bit more about the sandhill crane population on the Charlottes and in Naikoon Park in particular — any information he might have about the relative abundance, if it’s going up or down. I know there have been some studies up in the Charlottes area recently on cranes, I think at least partly in relation to a wind farm development. I just wonder if the minister or the people with him today can give me any more information on the crane population in Naikoon.
Hon. B. Penner: I’m afraid I don’t have any information with me right at the moment on how the sandhill crane population is faring. I do note, however, that the establishment of the parks and conservancies on Haida Gwaii generally will go some distance to protecting their habitat.
I, too, have some fond memories of Naikoon Provincial Park and can certainly attest to the fact that it is windswept. It was quite windy the day that I was standing there on the beach. I suppose that helps explain the interest of some people in developing the wind power project off the coast there by the same name — if not spelled somewhat differently than I think the provincial park name is spelled but pronounced the same way.
I’m sorry. I don’t have the particular details about how the sandhill crane population is faring. I do note that I saw a number of black bears on the day that I went to the beach in Naikoon Provincial Park, but I don’t recall seeing any sandhill cranes that day.
M. Sather: Yeah, I remember being in a cabin up there and thinking that that thing was going to blow right off the spit. It’s tremendous the way the wind can blow up there.
Moving on to section 2(h), the Squitty Bay Provincial Park addition, Squitty Bay Provincial Park is on Lasqueti Island. It says that “this acquisition protects extensive shoreline habitat and uplands within the coastal Douglas fir ecosystem, which is the most rare and least protected ecosystem in B.C.”
So coastal Douglas fir ecosystem. I’m not sure if I’m understanding that sentence right, because the coastal Douglas fir ecosystem, I think, would be quite common, wouldn’t it? Can the minister just tell me a little bit more about this least protected ecosystem in B.C.?
Hon. B. Penner: Just a little bit of background, first, on this particular acquisition, which I know was some time in the making. I’m told that the total purchase price was just in excess of $1.5 million. Four partners contributed to the acquisition, and I would like to recognize their efforts and thank the following: there’s an eco-gift worth $178,000; the Islands Trust Fund board, $143,000; the Nature Trust and the Land Conservancy, $107,000; and then the province of British Columbia coming in at just over $1 million in terms of contributions to help acquire this addition to the park.
[ Page 1284 ]
The addition represents 38.5 additional hectares, which will more than triple the size of the existing Squitty Bay Park. So it would go from 12 hectares currently to in excess of 50 hectares.
The member asked some questions around coastal Douglas fir ecosystem and why that ecosystem is as small as it is. I’m just advised by staff that it’s a question of geography and climate. It’s never been a particularly vast part of British Columbia that’s had that particular ecosystem, constrained by geography and climate more commonly found in the southeast part of Vancouver Island as well as the Gulf Islands and perhaps pockets in the Lower Mainland.
I’m told that one example that some people in the Lower Mainland may be familiar with is the area around Lighthouse Park in West Vancouver as an example of coastal Douglas fir ecosystem type in the Lower Mainland.
Obviously, this part of British Columbia has also experienced the greatest population growth of humans. This is where people have tended to migrate, probably for the same reasons. Geography and climate have attracted people here and put them in conflict with this type of ecosystem in terms of the trees themselves.
So this acquisition was deemed appropriate for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was that it helped us add further legal protection to this Douglas fir ecosystem type.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
M. Sather: Section 3(b) is Skaha Bluffs park, which, from reading the press and knowing a bit about Skaha Bluffs, I think is considered one of the real scores in this legislation.
This is a class A park. We have had, it seems to me, some changes in designations A, B and C of parks over the years. Can the minister just tell me: do we still have those classifications A, B and C? Just briefly, what are the differences between them?
Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct. Under the Park Act — park and protected areas act, pardon me — there are different categories of provincial parks. The vast majority are identified as class A provincial parks, and 604 is the total, in fact, in British Columbia. I’m not sure if that would include Skaha Bluffs. If this legislation passes, we’ll actually have 605 class A provincial parks, I’m now advised.
The difference between, for example, a class A park and a class B park, of which there are only two now in British Columbia, is the test that must be met under the park and protected areas act.
If the member is interested, he can direct himself to section 8 of the park and protected areas act. It talks about the different legal tests that must be met before any types of activities are permitted. I did some of this in summing up second reading debate on Bill 10, where I read some of the definitions or descriptions of activities that would be permitted, or the legal test that’s applied, in a case of class A provincial parks.
In the case of a class B provincial park, it says in section 8(4): “A park use permit referred to in subsection (3) must not be issued unless, in the opinion of the minister, to do so is not detrimental to the recreational values of the park concerned.” That’s the legal test for activities in a class B park.
There are also class C parks. There are now, I’m told, 14 class C parks, which tend to serve more of a local purpose, a more community-oriented purpose, and that’s why in section 10 of the park and protected areas act it states, “(1) Every Class C park must be under the jurisdiction of a separate park board appointed by the minister” — typically with representatives from the local community. Then it has some further descriptions of how the board must be constituted, etc.
By far and away the most prevalent type of provincial park is a class A provincial park, where, in section 8(2) of the park and protected areas act it states: “A park use permit referred to in subsection (1) must not be issued unless, in the opinion of the minister, to do so is necessary to preserve or maintain the recreational values of the park involved.”
So there are different legal definitions of what the test is before activities are permitted to occur in those parks.
I would like to take this opportunity just to correct something that the member for Victoria–Swan Lake said during second reading debate that I think was incorrect. He said that there is an increasing reliance on using orders-in-council to establish provincial parks in recent years by this government. That, in fact, is not correct.
About ten years ago there would have been approximately 16 provincial parks that were established only by order-in-council or by regulation. Today that number is, I believe, seven. With the passage of this legislation, I believe that number will be six.
Increasingly, what we’re doing is adding parks to the schedule, to the park and protected areas legislation, which means that to make changes to those park boundaries or descriptions requires a visit to the Legislature here for debate amongst members and possible approval. I just wanted to note that.
We did use the order-in-council mechanism in order to initially establish conservancies, particularly in the Haida Gwaii area, to meet a commitment the government made in response to a request from the Haida that these conservancies be established by the end of last year in terms of legal protection. We did that.
Now we’re here with this legislation to add those areas to the schedule, to the park and protected areas acts.
[ Page 1285 ]
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
M. Sather: Now we get into a number of conservancies in Haida Gwaii, a.k.a. the Queen Charlotte Islands. The first one: Daawuuxusda conservancy, perhaps? An interesting part of it…. It says there: “Biogeoclimatic zones within the conservancy include subalpine as well as low altitude hypermaritime variants.”
I’d never heard that phrase before — hypermaritime variants. Can the minister enlighten me on what that means?
Hon. B. Penner: I thank the member for identifying that interesting phrase. I can only assume that for those that make a living in defining biogeoclimatic zones, there’s some particular significance to that phrase.
My estimation is that it’s referring to areas very close to sea level. When you read the full sentence there in the backgrounder talking about: “Biogeoclimatic zones within the conservancy include subalpine as well as low altitude hypermaritime variants,” I’d have to imagine that that’s got something to do with being extremely close in proximity to the ocean and the waves, but I stand to be corrected.
I do note that there’s talk here about the pipe organs and the columnar basalt rock formations which, again, are the result of the interaction with the ocean and the significant wave activity in that area. Anyway, that leads me to believe that that description refers to the interaction with the ocean or being in close proximity to it.
I note that this is a pretty large conservancy that’s proposed here — 70,293 hectares in size. For the interest of members, to draw a parallel, that’s approximately the same size as Manning Provincial Park that many people in the southern part of British Columbia will be familiar with if they ever drive through the park on Highway 3 or spend time hiking in and about that area. So it’s a significant addition to protected areas on Haida Gwaii.
M. Sather: Moving on to the Damaxyaa conservancy. It says that it’s an important habitat for marbled murrelets. Marbled murrelets, of course, are one of the three species that came under species at risk. They came under the species-at-risk coordinating office, formerly under Agriculture and Lands, now in this ministry. Can the minister tell me: has there been any research on marbled murrelets in that conservancy?
Hon. B. Penner: I don’t have information with me at the moment here in the House to address the member’s question with respect to marbled murrelets in this particular conservancy, but my general understanding is that we have seen some encouraging signs, generally speaking, with respect to marbled murrelet populations in British Columbia. To the extent that we can establish additional habitat protection, which we’re proposing to do here through this legislation, it should further assist in the recovery efforts for the marbled murrelet.
M. Sather: I’d love to talk to the minister later about the encouraging signs for marbled murrelets. That’s good.
Moving on to the Kamdis conservancy, which is a network of protected estuarine wetlands which have been identified as internationally significant. I wanted to ask the minister if these wetlands had been or were threatened in any way, and will this conservancy help to alleviate that?
Hon. B. Penner: I don’t have too many specifics here with me, except I can say that there’s been interest expressed for a considerable period of time in establishing protection for what we’re calling the Kamdis conservancy, 1,896 hectares in area.
I’m being shown a map here by my capable staff in the ministry showing that it’s right along an inlet, and it, I believe, comprises lands typically known as estuary in nature. By their definition, estuaries tend to be sensitive. Also, because they provide access to a water course, they are sometimes an attractive place for various forms of development. By virtue of this addition in terms of a conservancy, we’re seeking to protect that foreshore from future development.
M. Sather: On K’uuna Gwaay conservancy. This one contains endemic and rare wildlife species habitat — endemic being that they evolved in that place. Can the minister tell me what any of these endemic and rare wildlife species are?
Hon. B. Penner: I don’t have a list here of the endemic wildlife species found in that conservancy, but I would be happy to provide the member with that information. I’ll make a note to follow up and to get the member that information.
M. Sather: On the Sgaay Taw Siiwaay K’adjuu — oh, this is a mouthful — conservancy. This one also supports a wide variety of rare, endemic and disjunctly distributed plant species — the minister may not have the specifics, but I just would like to ask him — including the alp lily, Taylor’s saxifrage, club-moss, mountainheath, Queen Charlotte twinflower violet and Queen Charlotte avens. I think there might be a mistake there — Queen Charlotte twinflower and then violet. So there’s a violet as well, but it’s not a twinflower violet. I know enough about botany to know that. Does the minister know, or can anyone there assist him on what that means?
Hon. B. Penner: We’d be happy to provide clarification on these names, along with the other information that I indicated in response to the previous question.
[ Page 1286 ]
M. Sather: The last conservancy on this section…. Oh, hang on. No, it’s on the next section.
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
M. Sather: The Tlall Conservancy contains a rare Sitka spruce, devil’s club ecosystem. For most hikers, they’ll want to keep that rare. If you’ve ever hiked through devil’s club, that’s some mean plant. I should know where Tlall is, but I wanted to ask the minister just exactly where it is. I’ve forgotten.
—Break—
Debate Continued
Hon. B. Penner: The Tlall Conservancy is proposed to be located in the Tlell River watershed and encompasses much of that watershed. It appears, from a map I’m looking at, to be located upland and to the west of the Hecate Strait.
Just to further respond to the member, sometimes I’m led to wonder what causes certain species, whether they’re plant or animals, to have the names that they’ve been given, but devil’s club is not one of those things. It is entirely appropriately named.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
M. Sather: This is the “Rescission of orders in council,” which is a good thing —transferring orders-in-council to park. A lot of these conservancies — or, I guess, all of them — probably were created by order-in-council.
Members of community groups have expressed their concern that those were susceptible to deletions and boundary changes. Some of those, like the B.C. Wildlife Federation, fought hard in the 1970s to ensure that it would have to go through legislation, through the Legislature, to have major changes or boundary changes.
This increases their level of support, a level of comfort, because they oftentimes…. I think some of the groups felt that they weren’t — or, perhaps, weren’t — party to the formation of some of the conservancies.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
M. Sather: These are final agreement consequential amendments, and 7(b) is repealing the descriptions of Big Bunsby Marine Park — once again, I haven’t been to it, but I’ve seen pictures of it, and it’s really spectacular — and Tahsish-Kwois Park.
I can’t really figure out what the reason is for repealing those descriptions. If the minister can explain that to me, that’d be helpful.
Hon. B. Penner: I’m advised that this is merely a drafting matter. In effect, what this section, section 7, purports to do is amend section 28 of what was known as Bill 45 back in the year 2007, which mentioned the names of three particular parks in the context of that legislation.
It mentions Brooks Peninsula Park, but because of what we debated a little bit earlier this morning, we’re adding to the name of Brooks Peninsula Park a parallel name of Muqin Park. This is, in effect, a consequential amendment tidying up the reference to Brooks Peninsula Park that was made in Bill 45 from 2007 so that it’s consistent with the new name that we’re providing to this area in response to a request of the first nations.
Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. B. Penner: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
