Enjoy!

August 12, 2010

Honourable Gordon Campbell                             

Premier of British Columbia

Room 156, West Annex

Parliament Buildings

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Dear Premier Campbell,

The successful completion of the initiative petition against the government’s decision to establish the harmonized sales tax is an historic democratic achievement. 

Unfortunately, the decision by Elections BC to not send the petition to the Legislature as prescribed in legislation, owing to a court challenge by your allies, threatens to thwart that accomplishment. It undermines the efforts of hundreds of thousands of British Columbians.

However, the decision by Elections BC does not in any way stop you and your government from taking action to ensure that the democratic will is respected. The Legislature is free to debate the HST initiative bill irrespective of whether Elections BC has handed the petition to the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives.

The public has spoken, and their will is clear. Therefore, I am writing today to urge you to respect the will of the people of BC by immediately calling the Legislature back into session and tabling the initiative legislation for debate. To do otherwise would show considerable disrespect to the thousands of British Columbians who signed the petition and the hundreds of canvassers who secured them. I would further suggest that you allow for a free vote so that all MLAs are free to respect the wishes of British Columbians.

We are at a critical moment in the democratic life of our province.  The initiative campaign is an unprecedented achievement.  The court proceedings can potentially stall the initiative petition for weeks, if not months. It’s now up to you to take action to ensure the democratic will is respected and the people’s voice is heard.

Sincerely,

 Carole James, Leader

New Democrat Official Opposition

Thursday July 15th
Maple Ridge City Hall, Blaney Room
7:00 pm

Michael Sather, MLA, Maple Ridge – Pitt Meadows.

DALTON SHOULD FOLLOW LEKSTROM’S LEAD AND STAND UP FOR HIS CONSTITUENTS, SAYS NDP

MAPLE RIDGE – Marc Dalton should listen to the voters in Maple Ridge-Mission and reject the HST, New Democrats say.

“Voters in Maple Ridge-Mission have been loud and clear in their rejection of this HST doublecross,” said Michael Sather, the MLA for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows. “It’s time for Mr. Dalton to pause and take a long hard look at what the people who elected him want him to do.”

Dalton has repeatedly backed the B.C. Liberals and their plans to bring in the HST, as opposition voices in his constituency continue to get louder and louder.

“I recall being in the house, and seeing Mr. Dalton stand up and call the HST the ‘Honest Sales Tax.’ The reaction in the house when he said that was one of disbelief – time and time again, this government says one thing and means another,” said Sather.

Sather went on to describe Dalton talking about his constituents, and how they “understand” why the HST is necessary. Referring to the rationale for the HST during the budget debate, Dalton said “In general, most people get it. Almost everybody seems to understand it.”

“When Mr. Dalton says that most people in his constituency “understand” why the HST is a good thing, he really shows how out of touch he is with the people in Maple Ridge-Mission,” Sather said. “What they understand is that they’re facing a $1.9 billion tax shift from businesses onto consumers, and that’s the problem.”

“If Mr. Dalton truly wants to be on the same page as the voters in his constituency, he should follow former cabinet minister Blair Lekstrom’s lead, and stand up for his constituents.”

Carole James and New Democrats are working with British Columbians from all walks of life, all corners of B.C., and all sectors of our economy to build a better British Columbia for the people of this province.

Join Michael and a panel of stakeholders on Wednesday the 23rd at St. Andrew’s United Church from 6:30 – 8:30pm for an open forum.

Date: Wednesday June 23rd

Time: 7:00pm – 8:30pm

Location: St Andrew’s Haney United Church

22165 Dewdney Trunk Rd.

Maple Ridge, BC

V2X 5T7

Closing or significantly reducing our obstetric services would also be problematic. Pregnant women need to see their obstetrician on a regular basis. After giving birth they may need to take their child to the obstetrician as well. Having to go outside the community would be time consuming and would add more stress to families, many of whom are already dealing with long commutes to work.

Losing pediatric and obstetric services would have a cascading effect on services in our area. Without obstetrics, in particular, there would be fewer surgeries and reduced need for anesthetic services. This makes it harder to keep anesthesiologists at our hospital and would affect all surgeries.

I am hosting a public forum for residents to express their concerns about these proposed changes. It is tentatively scheduled for the evening of June 23.

Below you will find the draft transcript of his speech and as always the official Hansard will be posted when available.

2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HOUSE BLUES

(HANSARD)

MONDAY, MAY 31, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — CLEAN ENERGY ACT

(continued)

M. Sather: It’s indeed my pleasure to join the debate on Bill 17, the so-called Clean Energy Act.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, it’s always fun to follow the member for Shuswap. Hey, it’s a beautiful place that I had the opportunity of visiting recently. The flowers are looking great there in Salmon Arm. I didn’t happen to see the minister around. I didn’t see the member around, though, and I guess B.C. Liberals aren’t going out in public that much these days.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I mean, obviously the member might have had the chance, if he dared to go out today amongst the people, to talk to them about the HST, or he might even want to talk to them about the Clean Energy Act, because there are a lot of fishermen in his area. I’ve talked to a lot of fishermen. They’re not happy with the arrangement that this government has with the private power producers.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They’re not happy about what’s going to happen and what is happening to their access to their fishing spots. They’re not happy about the loss of sovereignty — that’s what it amounts to — over our rivers and streams.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I don’t know if he wants to talk to them about big corporations. He can do that too, I guess, but the main thing is he ought to go out and talk to them about how they feel about what this government is doing around the private power producer act, which is essentially what this is.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It’s the consummation of a long relationship between this government and the private power producers. They have been in bed for a long time. The money keeps rolling in; it keeps rolling in. That makes them happy, as long as those donations to the B.C. Liberals are coming in, and they must be, because it seems that the minister is very pleased. And so it goes on and on.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But knowledgable observers have called this the worst legislation in the last decade, and I think they’re absolutely right. It’s simply a giveaway to private power producers being disguised as a clean energy bill. It’s anything but a clean energy bill.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Speaking of large corporations, the Joint Industry Electricity Steering Committee, which represents all of B.C. Hydro’s largest customers, had the opportunity to make a submission to the government’s Green Energy Advisory Task Force. They calculated that the export plans — yes, this is all about export, and we’ll talk about that a little bit more, I’m sure — are going to cost British Columbians $450 million per year in money-losing sales transactions.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, the previous speaker talked about, “Well, you wouldn’t want the NDP in, spoiling relationships with corporations” — making the case, I guess, in a roundabout way that they’re good managers of the resource. But how can they say that when they have put out a bill that the largest customers of B.C. Hydro say will commit B.C. Hydro — force B.C. Hydro, under this bill — to pay private power producers twice what their power would fetch on the open market?

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, there’s a good deal. There’s a really good deal. It’s a good deal if you’re a private power producer, for sure. But what does it do for the taxpayers of British Columbia?

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1545]

It sticks them to it — 120 bucks per megawatt hour to buy and about $60…. That’s what the people that are the biggest customers of B.C. Hydro say they’ll get — probably about 60 bucks, for 20 years. Over 20 years, at $450 million, that rounds out to about $9 billion. That’s a lot of money that this government is giving away to their friends in the private power industry at the cost of taxpayers. It’s really quite shameful.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I do hope that the member for Shuswap, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations, does go out and talk to his constituents and to all British Columbians about this bill. I know we did — a lot — during the last election, and as my colleague said, people are not happy with what this government is doing. They certainly won’t be happy with this bill and aren’t happy with this bill, even though they are perhaps more focused right now on another bit of legislation that was just recently passed by this government.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, the Energy Minister said: “Well, we have the right to pursue our agenda.” I think that says it all. This government feels that they have the divine right to pursue their agenda, whether or not it’s in the best interests of British Columbians, our environment or our energy supply. They have a divine right to pursue their energy. That’s what the minister said, and they did that.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Obviously, we know they did that with the HST — the same. There was the divine right, and they continue. The Premier was up earlier today pursuing that agenda, albeit futilely. Nonetheless that’s his right to do that.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I want to talk a little bit about B.C. Hydro because this act, Bill 17, forces B.C. Hydro to buy power for export and seek out new export opportunities. Why, in fact, would the government have to have a directive towards B.C. Hydro? It seems that they don’t trust B.C. Hydro that much either. We know that recalcitrant group from the B.C. Utilities Commission kind of stepped out of line a little while ago, and so they got whacked good.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think the government is sending this hard message to their “partners” B.C. Hydro: “Don’t you dare get independent. Don’t you dare have any thoughts on your own, or at least if you have them, don’t express them.”

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Who is doing the directing here? What we’re seeing is the cabinet taking over the role that the B.C. Utilities Commission used to have, that B.C. Hydro used to have. But then I guess the brain trust — the Premier and his cohorts — know more about electricity than B.C. Hydro, and they should just go out and tell them how to run the business.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That’s what they’re doing through Bill 17. They’re absolutely centralizing control of our energy future in the cabinet. Given the lack of confidence that right now, at least, is being expressed by the people of British Columbia about not only the cabinet but the whole government, I don’t know if that’s a very good idea.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This export plan by private power producers. Yes, we have had export before, but this one is lined up, albeit with very poor financial reckoning behind it, very nicely for the private power producers. California is obviously one of the destinations, one would think, for the power. They’re not particularly receptive. In fact, they’re not receptive at all to power from projects that are larger than 30 megawatts, and most of them or a lot of them out there…. That’s just what they are. They’re much larger than that.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Again, how is the government going to sell this power that we the taxpayers are going to have to pay for? I wonder.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1550]

Another one that’s really interesting, which Bill 17 brings in, directs B.C. Hydro to shape and store power. This is what opponents of the private power movement aided and abetted by this government have been saying for several years was going to happen. Now they’re out in the open about it.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What they’re going to do is use the heritage assets — the dams that we’ve had for years like at Revelstoke, like on the Peace River — for the benefit of their friends in the private power industry.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There’s a government backgrounder out there that says that any expenditures associated with exports are not included in domestic rates. The minister referred to that in his opening speech, but that’s quite frankly baloney. This is a subsidy for private power producers.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

These heritage dams that the citizens of British Columbia own could be producing relatively cheap power for domestic use, but instead they’re going to be holding back their water and their power to allow private power producers to export more power. That’s what this shape-and-store is all about. That’s what it’s all about, and it’s totally unnecessary.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If the projects they were doing could stand on their own…. But they can’t. Thus they’re getting these massive subsidies from this government. I don’t know what B.C. Hydro is going to do if they don’t have much capacity in their dams for this shape-and-store movement. If the dams are almost full, I guess they’re just going to let the water run by the generators so that those who are friends of the government and support them financially and otherwise can have free rein with our power. Certainly, there’s no B.C.-first policy in this province — not at all.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The private power producers will be using B.C. Hydro staff and expertise to get this work done, and they’ve already been doing that for a long time, actually. A lot of the run-of-river euphemism…. It’s not run of river. It’s dam and divert rivers and streams in British Columbia.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

A lot of that work of finding those places in this province was already done by B.C. Hydro before the opportunistic folks from the private power industry came on the scene. So they’ve had lots of subsidy, and they’re going to have more subsidy while they have B.C. Hydro as their agent doing shape-and-store and then being out there finding the market for them and delivering it to them. It’s all one big happy ball for the private power industry and this completely complicit government.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We’re already paying. Our hydro rates have gone up 18 percent since 2005. Lots more much worse news to come. They’re going to go up 9 percent more this year and 29 percent compounded over the next three years. Somebody has to pay. Just like the HST, it’s the regular taxpayers that will be paying for this misadventure with the private power producers of British Columbia.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The government talks a fair bit — or they did, and they still are, interestingly enough — about self-sufficiency. In fact, that’s all we heard for a long time: “Oh, we’ve got to have more private power for self-sufficiency.” Of course, at that time they were still in the closet, and they weren’t talking about private power for export. But now at least, they’re right out there about it. This bill brings them right out there about it, and shamefully so.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But when the government…. They spun this web of us being dependent on imports for power, and the whole thing is…. I don’t know what other word to use in a sham. It’s a sham. They don’t talk about the power that’s produced by Alcan or Teck Cominco or Fortis power. They provide 20 percent of our power needs in this province, but those bits of power don’t get to be part of the equation of whether or not we’re importers or exporters. Remember, the government has had that long discussion over the past few years before they came right out with it, to develop this bill for their friends.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1555]

Then there’s the Columbia River treaty, where we provide the capacity for the folks south of the border to produce power, or we can — in which, of course, we get paid for what we do for them…. On the other hand, we have the capacity through the agreement to take that power and use that power ourselves, but we don’t do that. That’s not considered, either, in the whole miscalculation about self-sufficiency that’s been going on with this government.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The Columbia River treaty downstream benefits, if realized, would provide over 10 percent of our current need. We would be, if we did that, in a 5.1 percent surplus position rather than a 1.5 deficit regarding electricity in this province.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The fact is that over the last 32 years, there have only been five years in which B.C. actually brought more power into the province than we sent outside the province. But the government has been carrying on this…. They like to talk about misinformation with the HST, but they’ve been carrying on this misinformation for a long time, and it’s an inconvenient truth — the reality of it.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think it was the Environment Minister who earlier today talked a little bit about Burrard Thermal. B.C. Hydro has to assume that Burrard Thermal really doesn’t exist, even in extreme low-water years. On the other hand, it has to be maintained, because all of that private power that they’re trying to get out there just might not be out there fast enough to provide for the needs they have at the time.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know how the government is always berating Burrard Thermal? It’s not like it’s running on dirty coal. It’s actually running on natural gas. The government in some respects is very fond of natural gas, but not in the case of Burrard Thermal, which produced in 2008 less than 1 percent of B.C. Hydro’s power.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The minister, the previous speaker, wanted me, wanted us to talk about Site C, and I’m glad to indulge him on that. Site C — now, there’s an interesting example of, again, a miscast group, including the Premier, that went traipsing by airplane up to Hudson’s Hope recently to basically announce that they were fully embracing Site C, that it was the best thing since sliced bread, and on and on. “So what if we haven’t done any environmental assessment yet. So what if we don’t have any consultations done yet with First Nations. Nonetheless, we’re foursquare behind it.” So they want to talk a lot about that.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Again, they don’t need this energy for so-called self-sufficiency. They want it for export. It’s interesting where some of that export would go. There is in the works now a pipeline to the northeast shale gas deposits in this province.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The final destination for a lot of that gas out of the shale gas deposits is going to be the tar sands in Alberta. Talk about clean energy. There’s no clean energy coming out of the tar sands. That’s the dirtiest energy you can get on the planet, and yet it’s being sold as clean energy. So there’s no way that we can take seriously much about Site C.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Speaking of natural gas, the government recently approved of the massive Cabin gas plant in the Fort Nelson area. That one is to process the very gas that comes from the shale gas deposits, but the company has said, “You know what? We can’t really do the carbon capture-and-storage process up there” — EnCana, to wit. And this is going to be a major polluter, actually one of the major polluters. In fact, by the time all is said and done, the gas plants up there are going to be producing more pollution than any other source in British Columbia.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1600]

Yet the Premier runs around talking about how green he is, and he has a green energy plan and a bill that’s supposed to be green. It’s anything but green.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There are actually other facilities up there. Spectra gas is actually going to employ that technology, and they have been working for the past 20 years on reducing their emissions. But that doesn’t count for EnCana, I guess. The Premier said with regard to that particular bit…. They talked about contributing to a net overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions on a continental scale.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Well, it’s interesting how interested the government now seems to be in what’s going on in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States but not very much interested, clearly, in terms of their action and what’s going on with greenhouse gases in our country.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B.C. Transmission Corporation. Bill 17 shelves — essentially guts — B.C. Transmission Corporation to pave the way for B.C. Hydro to be the complete service agent for the private power producers. That’s what it does. It’s shameful, but that’s the facts. They don’t really need the power they’re calling for. It’s up to 8,000 gigawatts per year. There was a cost too, which actually Will McMartin mentioned in an article about closing down B.C. Transmission Corporation, at $65 million, but that’s chump change for a government that says they’re so efficient and they’re looking out for the best interests of British Columbians.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Well, the B.C. Transmission Corporation, according to the minister, still has power. Hey, they can set domestic rates, but they can’t oversee the price of private power if they did. In fact, they did do that, and that’s exactly the reason why they no longer have much power at all.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They told the government in their clean call, their long-term acquisition plan, that we don’t need all that power. “You haven’t made a case for it.” They were quickly given the shaft by the government, and the minister says: “Oh well, BCTC gets to vet the energy purchase agreements.” I don’t know what “vet” means to the minister, but I expect it’s going to be the old rubber stamp. That’s the only vetting they’re going to get to do — to say yes and say it often.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So no public oversight of power-for-export at all. It’s lost through the virtual elimination of the B.C. Transmission Corporation. The minister can go around in his constituency and talk to his constituents about that, and I’m sure he’s going to find out that they’re less than amused. It’s part of the deregulation agenda that this government is so fond of.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

One of the win-win for the government too, by having everything private, is that citizens don’t get to know what’s happening. In fact, the Canadian Newspaper Association’s annual audit of Canadians’ access to government-held information found that B.C. has the worst access in the country. Not very surprising to us on this side of the House, but I think it might be pretty disappointing to the citizens of this province.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That’s the way it is. It’s a win-win for the government. They privatize our power, and then people can’t find out the details of what’s going on. It’s the privatization, deregulation and secrecy agenda that this government is pushing through with this legislation. They really ought to, as has been mentioned by my colleague, go back to the drawing board and think again.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If the HST hasn’t driven the B.C. Liberal Party’s fortunes completely into the ground, this bill is going to finish them off. Really, this is bad legislation that the people of B.C. won’t like at all.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1605]

It doesn’t matter how long the minister goes on about big corporations. It’s the lack of transparency. It’s the lack of respect for public assets. We see it in the fish farm industry, and we see it through Bill 17 with regard to energy.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, it’s the same idea with harmonizing the environmental assessment — the one project, one process that the government has come out with. At least those PAB guys come out with some pretty catchy slogans. I’ll give them that. They’ve got to get paid for something.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Again, it’s deregulating and lessening the environmental oversight, not increasing protection at all. We had a bit of that in the discussion in question period. When it comes to a leak from a gas-processing facility, there’s just no concern of the government to get out there on the ground and do something. Really they should, but that would be interfering. I guess the government feels that would be undue interference with a corporation.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

“My goodness, we wouldn’t want that. After all, we’re the government,” they say, “that got rid of all the red tape.” It would be red tape if you go out there and start asking questions of all these private power producers and those in the energy industry.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The Premier made it clear that he’s certainly not going to live up to any greenhouse gas reduction strategies when it comes to EnCana or when it comes to offshore oil and gas. What did the minister say about offshore oil and gas? People were asking, of course, about what’s happened down in Louisiana, the Gulf of Mexico. He said: “Well, they don’t know yet what caused it.” That was his response — that we don’t know yet what’s the cause of it, not that this is a real clear indicator that we should have some concerns. No.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think one of my colleagues said earlier it’s the only government in the west that’s pushing offshore oil and gas. Where is the clean energy in that? None whatsoever. The government has a lot of audacity to come out with this bill and call it the Clean Energy Act. There are a lot of uncomplimentary names, and some of them have perhaps already been used. But clean energy is not what this is all about.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, in my community it’s interesting to watch the discussion around incineration in the Lower Mainland. I think it was in the throne speech that the government said they weren’t going to allow the Lower Mainland to export their garbage. This sounds like a laudable deal. I mean, you should look after your own garbage. That’s a good idea. But I didn’t believe it, and the more I see of it, I don’t think that’s their motivation at all.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

These incineration projects are going to be private power projects. You watch. I asked the folks from the regional government, from Metro Van government: “What’s going to be the nature of these? Are they going to be owned and operated by Metro Vancouver? Are they going to be private?” He said: “Well, we don’t have a business plan for that yet.” Wherever they can find an opportunity to privatize, this government does so even when it’s an issue of our rivers, when it’s an issue of our birthright, when it’s an issue of protecting salmon and other fish.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This government doesn’t care. First and foremost, they want to privatize and invite in bad deals that have to be propped up by our public resource to even make it work at all. I remember the private power producer in my back yard saying at the open house: “Oh yes, we intend to sell this power locally.” They never intended to sell locally. It’s always been intended for export. It’s always been a bad deal for British Columbians. It continues to be a bad deal for British Columbians, and I will oppose it all the way as long as I can.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1610]

Michael rose to support his colleague’s motion and the draft transcript of his speech is copied below.
As always the official version will be posted when available.

2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HOUSE BLUES

(HANSARD)

MONDAY, MAY 31, 2010

Morning Sitting

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 14 — SUSTAINABLE WILD
SALMON STOCK AND AQUACULTURE

M. Sather: Well, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin that just spoke might want to also note that a group of eminent scientists recently, some 22 in all, from a forum at SFU, concluded that the downward trend in salmon is not due to overfishing. In fact, the percent of the run harvested has been declining for decades.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In any event, it is an issue that’s difficult to ascertain. No one has all the answers. But certainly, we have questions about fish farms on this side of the House, even if the member opposite doesn’t, and we will continue to pursue those.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We know that this government has a long relationship with the fish farm industry. We know that they get considerable donations from that industry.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1130]

When this government was first elected, what did they do? There were outstanding charges against a number of fish farms. The first thing they did was say: “Huh. To heck with those. Those are null and void. Those are gone.”

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

How can you do that? How can you just take charges and wipe them off the chart, with the stroke of a pen, for no good reason? That’s what this government has done, and they continue at all costs to pursue a single-minded, pro–fish farm…. This is the issue that I have with the government’s approach. It’s single-minded support at all costs for fish farms without allowing, it seems, any kind of dissent.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I had the good fortune, I guess I could say, of speaking to a couple of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands fish scientists recently. I certainly acknowledge their credentials. It was interesting to hear them talk about sea lice and fish diseases. To hear them speak, these are naturally occurring. Yes, that’s true. Both are naturally occurring.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The inference was that the sea lice problem, if there was any — the disease problem, if there is any — came from the wild salmon. That’s not what a whole lot of folks are concerned about, obviously. It overlooks the fact that when you put a whole bunch of fish in a small area or a whole bunch of human beings or any kind of animal in a small area, they’re likely to spread any disease that’s out there quite considerably.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Where the sea lice actually came from, where the disease actually came from is not exactly the issue. The issue is: is it being proliferated, and is it spreading to the wild salmon and causing a great concern?

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, those scientists talked about temperature of the water and the salinity of the water being a more likely cause. I don’t know. I’ve been asking around. I haven’t seen first studies that back this up.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Certainly, as I say, there is a diversity of opinion, and so there should be on any biological issue. Parameters are difficult to measure, and it’s almost impossible to control the various factors. That’s to be expected.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But there are issues that do give me concern around fish health and fish farms and those diseases. It’s astounding to know that the fish farms do report diseases at their farms, but they’re not required to. But what is worse than that is the fact that the ministry itself doesn’t have to let the public know. How can that be? An industry that is in waters that belong to all Canadians….

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They haven’t been able to privatize. I know the government is very fond of privatization, and maybe some would like to be able to privatize some of those waters. They haven’t been able to do that so far. Those are public waters. Why doesn’t the public get to know what kind of disease outbreaks there are on fish farms? But they don’t.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

With that kind of mismanagement — and that is mismanagement — it’s difficult for me as a former biologist myself to actually have a lot of faith in what the government scientists are saying, not because they don’t have the credentials or the knowledge, but they’re under this kind of political constraint. They’re under this constraint that doesn’t allow them to be free and open with what’s happening on fish farms. That’s worrying indeed.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The fact that they don’t have to report this to the public. Imagine you’re a cattle farmer and you have an outbreak of BSE on your farm. You betcha; that has to be reported to the public. Of course, that’s a disease that can directly affect human beings. But the collapse of our sockeye fishery, our salmon fishery, in many respects is having an effect if not directly on the lives of families that are dependent on wild salmon then certainly indirectly on our well-being, so they should be reported.

DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1135]

We saw the same thing in the Fraser Valley, where I come from, not that many years ago when we had an outbreak of avian flu in chickens. Wow. The government — in this case it was the federal government — acted quickly and decisively to go in and eradicate those chickens. They took it seriously.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The idea that the salmon farms should be required to take some drastic actions, perhaps to shut down those farms for a period of time, is certainly not out of order, but there doesn’t seem to be any will at all.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Another astounding thing. When there’s an outbreak on a fish farm, you know what the ministry staff does? They stay away. They stay away as public policy. That’s their policy — to stay away from a fish farm when there’s an outbreak of disease. They say it might spread the disease if they go there. Well, I don’t get that.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I thought that our folks were out there and our government was directing them out there to be where there’s a problem to ensure that the problem was being taken care of and to look after it in the public interest. I mean, when those people were going around to the chicken farms, they had all kinds of biosecure suits and whatnot on. Why can’t they do that to go and look at a fish farm? No, they stay away. That seems to be the whole idea of this government — hands off, and stay away.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There are a lot of concerns. I don’t see the government addressing it with regard to fish farms, and we certainly look for better things from them in the future, even though we’re not that hopeful.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Below you will find Michael’s statement in the Legislature on this topic and as always the official version will be posted when available.

2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HOUSE BLUES

(HANSARD)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

AGRICULTURE IN
MAPLE RIDGE–PITT MEADOWS AREA

M. Sather: Agriculture has been a mainstay in Maple Ridge for over 130 years. Three families in particular hold a special place in the history of agriculture in my community. William and Amanda Hampton and John and Mary Laity arrived in Maple Ridge by riverboat from New Westminster in 1879. John Laity paid a dollar per acre for his land, which he asserted was an outrageous price. He only agreed to it because of the fabulous view of the Golden Ears mountains. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The two families began farming next to each other, and their descendants, some six generations later, continue to farm the same land today. Residents and visitors alike were treated to the delightful scene of Bill Hampton working his horses in his fields until he passed away recently. Today Bill Hampton’s sons run a Jersey cow dairy, while their neighbours Paul and Matt Laity run a Holstein dairy herd. Heather and Don Laity, to the south of them, farm the famous pumpkin patch. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Just down the road from the Hamptons and the Laitys is the Davison farm. The Davisons have been farming their property since 1902. The Davisons also have a Jersey dairy herd as well as a cedar hedging business. Kerry Davison is planning to develop an artisan cheese processing plant and shop on their property. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Agriculture is thriving in Maple Ridge, but there is a cloud on the horizon. There’s currently an application to convert over 200 acres of prime agricultural land adjacent to the Hampton and Laity farms to an industrial park and associated uses. If accepted, this proposal would spawn more removal applications from the area. This would jeopardize the wonderful farm families in northwest Maple Ridge and adjacent Pitt Meadows. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As a former member of this House, Val Roddick, frequently reminded us, we all have to eat to live. Let’s remember that, and all of us do what we can to protect agriculture and farming families. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is the draft transcript and as always the official version will be posted when available.

2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HOUSE BLUES

(HANSARD)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 15 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA
AMENDMENT ACT, 2010

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 15; C. Trevena in the chair.

The committee met at 4:12 p.m. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Farnworth: Just for the Minister of Environment’s benefit, it’s my understanding that the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows will be leading off the questions on this particular bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

On section 1.

M. Sather: Hon. Chair, I had to rush from another meeting, so just give me half a minute to grab my papers.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Section 1 is schedule A, and there are amendments to two ecological reserves. I wasn’t too clear looking at this. We could deal with them separately, I guess. The first one is Meridian Road (Vanderhoof) Ecological Reserve, and this was established by order-in-council previously. I wonder if the minister could start by telling me when that OIC took place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1615]

HSE – 20100519 PM 034/PLP/1615

Hon. B. Penner: We’ve had to just peel our way through the mists of time here, and it appears that this ecological reserve was first established by order-in-council in the year 1977. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: Well, that is some time ago. So it’s now enacted in schedule A or will be as a result of this legislation. So can the minister just explain what the purpose is, then, of enacting it into schedule A? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: We’re not substantively changing the boundaries, but by moving it from schedule B to schedule A, it’s reflective of the fact that we have a more accurate legal description of those boundaries than was the case in 1977 when the original order-in-council was passed.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Ecological reserves that are referred to in schedule B refer back to the original order-in-council establishing those ecological reserves and rely on the legal description that was contained within the original order-in-council, in this case again, back in 1977. We are now at the point where we have a more accurate description, and therefore, it’s appropriate to move it into schedule A of the act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: I think, as I read through the bill there are some similar points, probably, that are going to come up with a number of these parks and ecological reserves — the metes and bounds and the land description. Maybe I could get, then, the minister to explain to me what…. I mean, I understand that it’s more accurate, he said, but could he be a little bit more specific? Why is it more accurate? How is it more accurate? And, yeah, leave it at that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1620]

HSE – 20100519 PM 035/LCG/1620

Hon. B. Penner: This is part of the ongoing process of being more precise about our description of boundaries for protected areas generally — and in this case, in particular, an ecological reserve. The original order-in-council quite likely referred to an attached map upon which would have been drawn a red boundary, which would then become the legal boundary for the purposes of the order-in-council. As the member could appreciate, some of those lines drawn on maps may not have been 100 percent accurate as to location.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It’s being replaced, as you read in section 1, by reference to a plan which has been submitted in the Crown land registry in the coast district and Cariboo district, known as plan 12, tube 1979. Not sure if the tube looks like this, but I expect it has some maps that have more detailed descriptions. I’ll leave it at that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: I can appreciate that the lines on some of those maps back in the ’70s were probably not that accurate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Could the minister just then tell me a little bit about — because I don’t see it in the backgrounder — this particular ecological reserve? What’s the purpose of it? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1625]

HSE – 20100519 PM 036/DAG/1625

Hon. B. Penner: As the member will be aware, ecological reserves are areas of British Columbia selected to preserve certain representative features and natural ecosystems. They’re not designed to encourage recreation. In fact, the ministry doesn’t in all cases extol too widely their particular attributes lest we inadvertently encourage more people to travel to those locations and perhaps cause some ecological damage. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They’re also set aside at times for research purposes, and so people are able to apply to the ministry for permits if they want to conduct various scientific research. They are the highest level of protection within our protected areas network because they represent some very unique attributes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In this particular case, as I recall, the Meridian Road Ecological Reserve contains a representative sample of Englishman fir that is located in the Nechako Plateau. It’s, I think, relatively high elevation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: I imagine that’s Engelmann fir, but anyway…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

An Hon. Member: Engelmann spruce. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: Yeah.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I’m a big fan of ecological reserves, and I’m sure the minister is too. As he said, they do set aside some specific ecological attributes of our province. Some of them are rather small, and I think some of them are quite a bit larger. We have one in my constituency, Pine Mountain ecological reserve, and as he said, they’re not often known by the public because recreation is not encouraged in them, which is a good thing because not everywhere that we have nature should we have the heavy footprint of humankind.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I know in our reserve there are issues with people entering into the Pine Mountain ecological reserve. I’m glad to say…. I think it would be the ministry that not long ago made some changes so people couldn’t cross the ditch and get in there. But I digress on that.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It does say Vanderhoof, so I assume, then, it is in the Vanderhoof area. Could the minister be more specific in terms of where in the Vanderhoof area it is? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: Just to clarify my previous answer, the type of tree that’s particularly distinctive in this ecological reserve is the Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir as well. I’m advised this particular ecological reserve is approximately 40 kilometres south of Vanderhoof. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: I appreciate that definition from the minister, that description.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The other ecological reserve that’s mentioned under section 1is the Stoyoma Creek Ecological Reserve, which is in the Yale district, which I think would be somewhere in the Hope area. These districts are very large. I am assuming that the primary reason that it’s here is the same reason as the previous one discussed with regard to the boundaries not being as accurate in the day when this was formed. But maybe I’ll ask three questions in one here. When was it? Did it come in by order-in-council? Where, specifically, is the ecological reserve, and what are its attributes? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: To summarize, I think the member’s questions here were: when, where and what. The question of when: first established in 1990 by way of order-in-council. In the year 2000 it was added to the Protected Areas legislation, schedule B, and then, year 2010, we’re proposing to move it to schedule A. So with this particular ecological reserve, it looks like something significant happens about every ten years.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As to where, it sounds like this particular ecological reserve may be in or very near my constituency of Chilliwack-Hope. It’s approximately 4 kilometres north-northeast of Boston Bar in the Fraser Canyon.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As for what: it in particular protects a diverse forest site, which is in a transitional climatic zone. As you move north through the Fraser Canyon, you’ll notice you’re going from a typical coastal and wet climatic zone to something much drier. So this is in the transitional area. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1635]

M. Sather: I appreciate the description. I’ve got the idea of where it is now, north of Boston Bar. I travel that area quite frequently, and I know exactly of what the minister speaks with regard to the transition zone. I just was up there recently. There was a beautiful bloom of balsam root, bright yellow flowers that you can see right from the highway in that area.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It’s good to have, I think, a representation of the transition zone, because without going into a lot of detail, there are a lot of reasons to conserve transition zones in nature. So that’s well-received.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

With that, that’s all the questions I have on section 1. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

M. Sather: This one, it looks to me like it’s strictly a consequential amendment in that it strikes out Meridian Road Ecological Reserve. Schedule B is amended to strike out Meridian Road and to strike out Stoyoma Creek Ecological Reserve. I assume I’m correct in that, that it’s consequential. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: It is consequential to section 1. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

M. Sather: Section 3 is a much larger section in this bill, encompassing a good part of the bill, anyway. So we’re starting on section 3(a). This section says that schedule C — we’ve talked about A and B, and we’re now on C — is amended “by repealing the descriptions of Brandywine Falls Park, Buccaneer Bay Park, Sasquatch Park, Skihist Park and Valhalla Park and substituting the following descriptions.” I’ll take them in order on the bill.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The first one is Brandywine Falls Park, which is located along the Brandywine river 14 kilometres south of Whistler. It’s being expanded by 270 hectares. That’s a fairly healthy expansion, to protect critical habitat for the blue-listed red-legged frog and other amphibians.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The red-legged frog is a species that I know is found in my constituency as well, although it’s somewhat questionable. And it is a blue-listed species, so it’s at risk. That is part of the reason for this park as described. I’m wondering if the minister can tell me a little bit about the distribution of that threatened species, the red-legged frog, in British Columbia and how significant in the continuance, I guess you could say, of that species this particular park is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1640]

HSE – 20100519 PM 039/DOT/1640

Hon. B. Penner: If I remember correctly, the red-legged frog species in British Columbia is a member of the Ranidae family of frogs, true frogs, and based on recent surveys they indicate that they prefer cool temperatures, moist forests and wetlands with trees. They prefer to breed in shallow ponds or well-shaded, slow-moving streams. So that tends to describe quite a number of coastal areas in British Columbia.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Just what their full extent of range is I don’t have here with me, but suffice to say that this measure in this section that we’re talking about for Brandywine Falls has a significant component of that type of habitat that I just described. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: I appreciate that description. As the minister will know and as people all over our country and North America realize, amphibians are at risk and are declining, and we don’t seem to know exactly why. It may be, as some have suggested, that it has to do with climate change. If it is, in fact, then the drying trend that we are experiencing is going to put these amphibians at further risk.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So parks like this are maybe the only thing that saves some of these species from at least local extirpation. I can’t say about extinction because I, too, don’t know specifically about the range of that frog. But, suffice it to say, that these are important parks in our system, and we can only be glad that we have them. Brandywine Falls, as many people in this area will know, is not far from Vancouver, up the coast. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1645]

The second park on the list here is Buccaneer Bay Park. This park is located on North Thormanby Island on the Sunshine Coast. It’s being expanded to include 44.5 hectares of intertidal marine foreshore. The thing, in reading this, that interested me was that it says: “This addition protects seagrass meadows and sand shoals, which provide habitat for a rich variety of marine life, including shorebirds, salmon, rockfish, sand lance and Dungeness crab.”

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If the minister and his assistants can tell me just a little bit more. I did study marine biology a bit when I took my degree in zoology, but I came out of Alberta, so we didn’t get out to the coast that much. I’m just curious. What, in fact, are seagrass meadows and sand shoals? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: With respect to the question regarding Buccaneer Bay Park and some of the attributes there, the seagrass meadows, I’m advised, are meadows of a grass that grows in the salt water. It can be up to several metres deep, but from a distance it might look like a terrestrial meadow rather than one that’s actually growing out of the salt water. I believe the member also questioned sand shoals. My understanding is that that would be an area just off the shore comprised mostly of a sandy surface but under the water.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

A bit more information on our mutual friend the red-legged frog. In particular, the red-legged frog is found all the way along the west coast of North America from Baja California to southern British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1650]

The subtype that frequents certain parts of British Columbia — including, apparently, some of the Gulf Islands, including Galiano Island but also the Sea to Sky corridor and parts of the Fraser Valley — exists, as well, in Washington State, Oregon and northern California. Then the broader type goes all the way to southern California, including Baja California — but on the west coast. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

R. Chouhan: Madam Chair, may I have leave to make an introduction, please? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce about 40 students from one of the best secondary schools in the province of British Columbia, Burnaby South Secondary School. They’re all here visiting us today and learning about the legislative procedures. They’re also visiting our capital, going around and learning about the historical places. They are joined by their teachers. Please join me to welcome them all. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Debate Continued

N. Macdonald: Just a quick question about Dry Gulch Park. I see it’s within section 3, and I just want to thank the co-critic for giving me the opportunity to step up quickly and ask this question. There are changes to Dry Gulch. I wonder if the minister could just describe the scope of the changes, what exactly is taking place and then the reasons for the changes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: This particular park, I am advised, was established in 1956 and I believe has a number of campsites — perhaps 26 is the total I’ve heard — for people’s camping pleasure. It has been found that when the park was initially established, there was a road that was inappropriately included inside the park boundary. This amendment will correct the error that had been made a long time ago. It will be corrected by removing 25/1000 of a hectare or, stated differently, just over 2/100 of a hectare to correct this. So the park remains at about 29 hectares in total size. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

N. Macdonald: Just one quick question then. Is it in any way tied to any development that is going to happen above the park that for some reason the road needs to be identified in a different way? Or is this simply and completely just a housekeeping measure and that fundamentally the park is not going to be impacted — or any territory in near proximity? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1655]

HSE – 20100519 PM 042/NML/1655

Hon. B. Penner: We’re not aware of any proposed change of use, but it has been a longstanding issue, apparently. There’s something known as Dry Gulch Road, which passes through a corner of Dry Gulch Provincial Park and provides access to a property, a block A, district lot 8996 in the Kootenay district. The office of the surveyor general was requested to research the status of the road within the park. After a detailed review of the historic records for the original Crown grant — so we’re going back a ways — the office of the surveyor general has concluded that Dry Gulch Road is and has been a road under the Transportation Act, and it has a 20-metre right-of-way. When the boundaries of the park were established in 1956, the road right-of-way was included in error within the park. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister for that response. I wanted to go back to Brandywine Falls Park. With regard to roads and rights-of-way, is there a B.C. Hydro right-of-way in Brandywine Park? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: We will have to check and get back to the member on this one. We don’t have…. Oh, maybe we do have a detailed map. One moment, please. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1700]

HSE – 20100519 PM 043/BJM/1700

After consulting a map that we have of Brandywine Falls Park, it appears that there might be more than one B.C. Hydro transmission corridor. We believe that the transmission lines were established prior to the park boundaries being established in legislation.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There is some interesting history associated with this particular provincial park. Some people have asked: “Where does the name Brandywine come from?” Some people believe that the name is attributable to a couple of explorers or brave souls that were working for the Howe Sound and Northern Railway many years ago. Two fellows — one by the name of Jack Nelson and another by the name of Bob Mollison — were out surveying the area, presumably for the purpose of constructing a railway, and came across the falls and had a friendly wager as to whose estimate as to the height of the falls might be more accurate.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As you might guess, the wager apparently was that the successful guesser would be entitled to a bottle of brandy at the other person’s expense. I’m told that the successful person was Mr. Mollison — his guess coming closest to the correct height of that particular waterfall of 70 metres. It’s quite an impressive waterfall to go and see.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: That’s fascinating, and I presume the loser got the wine — or how does that work? Anyway, interesting story. Thanks to the minister. The history of our province is truly magnificent, and that is a beautiful falls. Anyone going up to Squamish-Whistler is well-advised to stop in and check them out.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think before I continue with my list, I have a colleague that wants to ask a question on Ningunsaw, I believe. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Donaldson: I would like to ask the minister…. Under this section 3 there is a reference to a park in Stikine, in the constituency I represent. It’s Ningunsaw Park. It’s an important ecosystem that the park covers — grizzly bear habitat, some valley bottom up to alpine — and the section is to reduce a number of hectares in the park. I would like to ask the minister what the intent is behind this amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1705]

HSE – 20100519 PM 044/HBW/1705

Hon. B. Penner: This park was established in 2001. At the time the legal description referred to one of the boundaries as being 50 metres from the centre line of Highway 37, but the actual boundary wasn’t surveyed. Instead, the legal description relied on a description of it being 50 metres from the centre line of Highway 37.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In 2008 Highway 37 was surveyed, and a more accurate park boundary has been established. It does result in the total area of the park being reduced by approximately 3/100 of a percentage point, going from 15,708 hectares to about 15,703.6. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer and that clarification. From what I heard, it was to do with a surveying issue, and that’s what I heard from the minister.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I appreciate, in reference to the overall size of the park, that it’s only four hectares, according to the section, if I’m reading it correctly. However, it’s what those four hectares could be used for. For instance, you know, would this mean that any other kind of development on Crown land could then proceed within those four hectares, and would that impact, potentially, the actual park in any way?

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We know that we put lines on maps — right? As people, we put lines on maps, and sometimes those lines on maps don’t follow the natural watershed or the natural ecological systems, so by moving that centre line boundary over, does it open up, for instance, corridors for development that would be proximate to the park that could then impact the park? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1710]

HSE – 20100519 PM 045/DOT/1710

Hon. B. Penner: I think I can put the member’s mind at ease. It’s not one contiguous block of land. Rather, it’s a combination or summation of multiple slivers along the highway right-of-way that are being adjusted by way of the survey that was done in 2008. In that area it includes a dike which obviously will continue to be there, hopefully, for flood protection purposes and a number of areas that I believe are used on the side of the road by the Ministry of Transportation for road maintenance activities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the minister for that answer. Of course, once I read the bill, I got out my maps and started trying to collate between the ministry’s website maps of where the park is and the maps that I have. I love maps so I have lots in my office of my constituency.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

One thing I couldn’t quite determine, and maybe the minister could advise. Is this the route that the northern transmission line, if it is given approval and proceeds, will be covering? Is that part of this area where the park is, as talked about in this amendment? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: We’re not aware of this being the corridor for the proposed northwest transmission line, but in any event, this is not the reason for these amendments. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Donaldson: Would the minister be able to provide to our constituency office or to my office a map of this area indicating where the pieces of land that are going to be withdrawn from the park are going to be located? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1715]

Hon. B. Penner: We’ll work to do that. I’m just looking at a map that’s been reduced in size from about six feet to letter size, and it’s impossible to determine where those various slivers are. We’ll try to get a larger scale than that for the member and for myself. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. And finally…. As I said, I was looking at the maps I have and determining traditional territories, and from what I can gather on the maps I have, that area is part of the Tahltan First Nation’s traditional territories. The minister can correct me if I couldn’t figure out the lines and the boundaries properly on that. Could he describe the consultation that has occurred with the Tahltan over this change on their traditional territories of Crown designation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: I can advise the member that just about a year ago, July 17, 2009, B.C. Parks sent a consultation letter to the Tahltan First Nations seeking identification of any concerns and requested a response by September 2009. I’m not aware of us receiving any expression of concern about this proposed amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that information. In the minister’s purview, does he consider sending a letter — the extent of consultation around aboriginal title issues when his ministry’s involved? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: Prior to B.C. Parks communicating with the Tahltan First Nation, I am advised, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure also were engaged in consultation and also did not receive any communication of concern about the proposed alignment or boundary adjustment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: Returning to Brandywine Falls Park, again, the reason I asked about the B.C. Hydro rights-of-way, and the minister confirmed there were at least a couple…. It got me thinking. I don’t know if exactly at that area but in that general area there are some independent power production projects for run-of-the-river power, and I just wonder if the minister can confirm whether or not there are any of those projects in the area that he might anticipate them wanting to put another power line through —  in this case, Brandywine Falls Park. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1720]

Hon. B. Penner: We’re not aware of any proposals for additional transmission corridors within Brandywine Provincial Park. I am familiar with the project the member refers to. That’s an existing and operating project built above and outside the park boundaries. It’s a 7-megawatt run-of-river project which has been in operation now since, I think, 2003 or 2004 and does not in any way interface with the provincial park boundary. It’s built outside the park boundary. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: I think I’ve seen it. I’m sure I have. Is it Furry Creek or something like that? Anyway, moving on to Sasquatch Park, I have a question, kind of a process question. The ministry provides the lovely backgrounder, which I appreciate, on a lot of these parks and protected areas, but some are in the backgrounder and some aren’t. This one isn’t. I just don’t know what the rationale is. Why are some in the backgrounder and some like Sasquatch Park not in it? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: I too was wondering why this particular provincial park was not highlighted in the backgrounder, given that it’s fully within my constituency that I have the honour to represent, and it’s a provincial park that I have had an opportunity to visit from time to time, most recently on a fishing trip with my father, my wife and a friend of ours from Thailand.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I can confirm to members here that we caught a grand total of one fish, but, nevertheless, I think it was a memorable experience for our young friend from Thailand. His parents had sent him here as an exchange student, and I think the opportunity to go out fishing on the lake was a wonderful opportunity.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The explanation I’ve just been given is that the backgrounder is used to highlight new parks, conservancies, ecological reserves or additions to those forms of protected areas, not for administrative changes. What’s happened with Sasquatch Park is administrative in nature, although it appears that the park is expanding in size in terms of the total number of hectares reported. I’m told that it doesn’t really represent an increase in actual lands being added to the park. It’s the result of more accurate surveying that has led to this change. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: I’m glad the minister has had a positive experience there. I haven’t had the pleasure of going to that park, but it’s not far from where I live, either, so one of these days I intend to make it out there. The next park listed in the bill is Skihist Park. That is one that I am quite familiar with — stopped there and camped there not infrequently. It’s just beyond Lytton on the Thompson River not far from where the Thompson meets the Fraser. It’s a great park for birding, which I love doing. The Nashville Warbler. If anyone wants to know a good place to see the Nashville Warbler, go to Skihist Park.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Unfortunately one of the downsides with Skihist, and the minister probably knows this, or he knows of similar situations, is that the pine beetle has moved from the lodgepole pine into the ponderosa pine that are in that park. So a lot of them have been removed right around the campground, which is a sorry thing to see.  [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1725]

But what I love about this part of the bill is that Skihist is being expanded by 353 hectares, and the description talks about how the area includes a portion of the historic Cariboo wagon road — which I’ve walked on many times; it’s very interesting — and offers new opportunities for natural and cultural history interpretation. That’s a great thing. As I say, there is a campground there. There was, the last time I was there anyway, a lay person who stayed there during the season, but the natural and cultural history interpretation…. I’m just wondering if the minister can explain: through what mechanism would that interpretation be done at Skihist Park? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Elmore: I seek leave to make an introduction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I’d like to welcome here to the Legislature…. We have a grade 4 and grade 5 class from St. Andrew’s School in Vancouver-Kensington. Accompanying them today we have the principal, Ms. Mary Mayley. We have the grade 5 teacher, Ms. Monica Low. We have the grade 4 teacher, Mr. Adam Kwan; the kindergarten teacher, Mrs. Scally; accompanied by many parents: Mr. Obayo, Mr. Solis, Mrs. Chu, Mr. Ray, Mrs. Rivera, Mrs. Ti, Mrs. Makarayan and Mrs. Vincent.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Great students. I met with them earlier. I hope they really enjoyed their tour of the Legislature. I certainly enjoyed meeting them and all the parents. I’d just like everyone to please extend them a warm welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Debate Continued

Hon. B. Penner: It’s my understanding that this area would have some interpretive signage. In addition, there’s information available on the Ministry of Environment website. As the member notes, this existing park is being significantly increased in size from an existing 33 hectares to about 386 hectares. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: Could the minister just tell me what side of the park is being extended, then? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1730]

HSE – 20100519 PM 049/LLM/1730

Hon. B. Penner: This part is being expanded uphill from the highway and also along the highway, but mostly uphill from the original park boundary. I’m advised that the park was initially established in the year 1956. Oh, and there are also 56 campsites available for your camping pleasure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: The next park on the list is Valhalla Park, which is a very significant park in the Kootenays that the minister, of course, will be aware of. It’s being expanded by 62.7 hectares. I’ll ask first of all what part of that park is being expanded. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1735]

Hon. B. Penner: In answer to the member’s question, this property is located on the west side of Slocan Lake. As I mentioned in my second reading remarks, the province worked with a number of other partners to secure the funding in order to acquire this private stretch of land right along the lake, including the foreshore. Apparently, this had been a piece of property of interest to a number of environmental groups for a considerable period of time.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It had been known as the Valhalla Mile because it represents a strip of land alongside the roadway and the lake. It was a piece that was missing in terms of shoreline protection in the park. I suppose the correct way to describe it would be the Valhalla 1.6 kilometre.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It has now been acquired with the assistance of Burkhard Franz, who is the landowner; the Land Conservancy of B.C.; the Valhalla Foundation for Social Justice; the Columbia Basin Trust; the B.C. Hydro fish and wildlife compensation fund; the B.C. Trust for Public Lands; the regional district of Central Kootenay, the Toronto-Dominion Friends of the Environment Foundation; and many other donations from members of the public.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As well, $700,000 was made available from the Ministry of Environment’s land acquisition capital account, and all of the contributions from the other individuals are certainly appreciated. That helped us acquire the 62.7 hectares of privately owned land. In addition, we have moved, with this amendment, to include in the park boundary 18.3 hectares of foreshore on the west side of Slocan Lake. This added land and foreshore will increase the size of Valhalla Park, which was first established in 1983 and has been 49,893 hectares in size until this amendment.  [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: Well, that’s a very good-news story. I think it sounds like a wonderful addition to one of our landmark parks in the province. That concludes subsection 3(a).

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I wanted to talk for a minute about 3(b), (c), (d) and (e), two of which have already been mentioned, so I won’t delve into them in any great deal. They are Dry Gulch Park, which the member from Columbia River talked about; Ellison Park; Eskers Park; and Johnstone Creek Park, all of which, my understanding is, have some deletions from them.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The thing I want to ask the minister about…. At least, prior to today — I didn’t go to the Clerk’s office today, but I’ve been there two or three times — these maps were not provided to the Clerk’s office. I know that our research department had asked for them as well. I wonder if the minister could explain why they weren’t provided.  [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: I’m advised by staff that the maps were in fact delivered the day that the bill was introduced in the House.  [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: Sorry, could the minister repeat that? I didn’t hear what he said.  [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: I’m advised by staff that the maps were in fact provided to the Clerk’s office on the day that the bill was introduced in the House.  [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: Well, that’s curious, because as I say, I was there three times, at least, asking every time where these parks are, and the Clerk’s office said they would inquire of the minister’s office as to where they were. That would have been yesterday or the day before. Did the minister’s office get an inquiry from the Clerk’s office saying that they didn’t have these maps? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1740]

HSE – 20100519 PM 051/BJM/1740

Hon. B. Penner: Not sure why there would be a communication mishap, but I’m advised that maps that looked pretty much like these ones were, in fact, taken by the gentleman seated to my right to the clerk’s office the very day that the bill was introduced here in the Legislative Assembly. I can’t speak to where they went after they were delivered there, but the gentleman seated next to me tells me he personally took them to the office of the clerk.  [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: Yes, I’m familiar with the appearance of the maps. I’ve perused them a fair bit. I’ll have to follow it up with the clerk’s office, and they should be there. In fact, in a previous discussion of protected areas, the minister chastised me for not consulting maps at the clerk’s office, and rightfully so. I didn’t know that they were there at the time, and he was right to point out that I should peruse those maps.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

When you’re talking about protected areas and parks and other things, you need to look at those maps, and so I hope that the minister will ensure in future that they are there. You know, one of the clerks told me that I was the first person to ever look at them, which really shocked me, because we should look at them. It’s part of our due diligence and certainly can learn a lot from that.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I wanted to talk about the two parks that haven’t been mentioned. One of them is Ellison Park. Can the minister explain just where Ellison Park is?     [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1745]

HSE – 20100519 PM 052/BJH/1745

Hon. B. Penner: This particular park with this particular spelling of Ellison is located west of Vernon. The reason I say this particular spelling is there are other provincial parks, or at least one that I’m aware of, by the name of Allison, but that’s spelled with an “A” as opposed to an “E.” This Ellison, with an “E,” is west of Vernon, and we received a request from the city of Vernon looking for some changes to the existing road right-of-way through the park, in particular to address four pressure points on the alignment. The net result is a deletion of about just under 1/10th of one hectare from this particular provincial park, which is 220 hectares in size. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: So there is a request from the city to delete some land. I didn’t quite get that. I’m not sure what the minister said. What was the reason for the request? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: A combination of safety issues and the need to provide some utility services. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: I’ll move on to subsection (d). This is Eskers Park. Again, I haven’t seen the map or any description of it, so could the minister begin by telling me where the park is? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: Eskers Provincial Park is approximately 40 kilometres northwest of Prince George. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: That’s exciting. It is, in fact; it’s very interesting country up there. Eskers are beautiful land forms, for those who don’t know what they are. They’re like a long tunnel that’s sort of shaped like this. They’re a glacial artifact, and they’re pointed on each end — a lot of fun to hike on.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The other one…. Sorry, that’s the last one. No, there is one other one, Johnstone Creek Park, but just one last question about Eskers. It’s increasing in size slightly from 3,979 hectares, I guess, to 4,044 hectares. Can the minister just explain how that came about, or why it’s increased in size? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1750]

HSE – 20100519 PM 053/LLM/1750

Hon. B. Penner: This property was purchased by the Ministry of Environment at a price of approximately $168,000. It was considered important to ensure that the park can be managed as one contiguous unit and includes a meadow, wetland and pine forest habitat. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: That’s great. The other one is Johnstone Creek Park, and I’ll ask the questions together then. First, the minister can tell me where it is. Also, it appears to have a deletion of property. Can the minister also tell me where that deletion is, if I’m reading it right, and what the reason for it was? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: Hon. Chair, 1956 was a busy year for park establishment in British Columbia. Like the other park we were talking about in the Fraser Canyon a few minutes ago, this park was also established in 1956. It’s located east of Osoyoos on Highway 3, features 15 campsites and is 38 hectares in size.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This particular boundary amendment has been requested by the Ministry of Transportation to help them meet safety standards and also to provide access to aggregate located outside of the park for highway maintenance or construction purposes. In order to access that, they needed this amendment. This amendment would result in the removal of 2/10 of one hectare of land from the 38-hectare park. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: What I understood the minister to say is that by this legislation, there’s a road that will go through the park to access aggregate outside the park. Is that correct?  [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1755]

Hon. B. Penner: That’s not quite correct. There is an existing road. This is to clarify that that road is not within the park boundary. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: I think the minister is going to have to draw a little bit more of a mental picture for me. So there was a road going through the park to the aggregate site, and this is to clarify that the road is not in the park. It’s deleted, then, from the park. It was considered part of the park and now it’s not. Is that it? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: This is one case where a mental picture would be better facilitated by looking at a map than by trying to describe this in words. What I’m looking at here is a plan showing that the existing access into the park comes off of Highway 3 and then curves slightly. At the point where it curves, I presume to the east, and stays just barely within the park boundary, there’s also a T-intersection or junction going off into an adjoining parcel of land that is not in the park.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It appears to me that that junction leads to this source of aggregate that the Ministry of Transportation already controls, but this amendment would help clear up the fact that that spur or junction and any alignment change would not be within the park.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It’s right on the fringe of the existing boundary, and the road just kind of trundles along that and presumably, there’s a piece of it and its 2/10 of a hectare. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: I think this is important to understand because if it’s a new road, a spur through the park, that’s of interest. I think what the minister is saying, it’s alongside the park on the boundary of the park, but it must be, I’m assuming, incurring part of the park thus requiring this legislation. Is that correct? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: It’s an existing road that has an existing spur, and this amendment will make clear that the spur that’s leading outside of the park to the Ministry of Transportation gravel or quarry area is outside the park. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: The reason I’m carrying on this discussion…. I think it’s an important issue whether we’re creating…. I think there is a precedent in Manning Park, if I’m not mistaken, of roads serving parts of parks.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Again, my understanding is that the spur, the minister said, was an existing road. If it was an existing road and it was next to the park or through the park, I’m trying to understand why it would necessitate any legislation. Why not just leave it the way it was? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1800]

HSE – 20100519 PM 055/DAG/1800

Hon. B. Penner: As I said, a map would be helpful. If the member had that, I’d be happy to provide it to him. As indicated, the existing road is within the park, but the roadbed itself is defined as not being in a park. On either side of the road right-of-way or roadbed is provincial park. Ministry of Transportation has deemed that for safety purposes they need to change the location of the roadbed and move it over a little bit in one direction or the other of this existing road. That necessitates the 2/10 of one hectare change. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: Well, we could go on about the map and why I don’t have it, but that would sound like the parrot story from Monty Python, so we won’t go there. So they move the road, and we’ll leave it at that.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Subsection (f) is regarding one Juniper Beach Park. The explanatory notes say that it “enacts in Schedule C a Class A park, Juniper Beach Park, that was previously established by order in council.” Again, I think this is one that sounds very similar to some of the other descriptions we’ve had, so I don’t believe that it’s necessitated for me to ask the minister a question on that. Subsection (g) repeals the description of Marble Canyon Park, and subsection (h) is Ningunsaw Park, which was covered.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Subsection (i) is with regard to Tyhee Lake Park. I see that it’s in the Telkwa area near Smithers, and it’s being expanded by 5.6 hectares as a result of a private land acquisition. It actually sounds like a very productive area. It protects a large cattail and reed complex that hosts a high concentration of breeding loon pairs, grebes, other waterfowl and songbirds.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It sounds like an excellent addition to our parks system. I don’t think the minister can add too much more to that for me, but if he chooses to at any time, he’s certainly welcome to do so.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Subsection (j) is Upper Lillooet Park. This one strikes out a mineral claim, a Ministry of Forest cutting permit — actually three mineral claims, as I understand it. Could the minister just explain why those claims and forest-cutting permit are struck out by this legislation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1805]

HSE – 20100519 PM 056/CLM/1805

Hon. B. Penner: I think the member’s a little bit confused in his question, but I’ll try my best here to explain. The changes being made here represent less than 1/10 of a hectare being removed from the park. It has something to do with a mineral claim that was overlapped by the park boundary. This is correcting that. There’s no change in the area figure for the park stated, given the small amount of land being removed. The total area remains at 19,996 hectares.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Then there’s a comment that one of my staff made — something to do with a cutting permit. As a result of improved mapping, we have confirmed that in fact the cutting permit is outside of the park and does not need to be excepted from the description of the park because it’s already outside of the park.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Just to go back to this curious question about what became of the maps, I’ve been advised by staff in my office that they did receive a call from the MLA’s office about a different set of maps, which the member’s constituents apparently brought to a meeting with the Minister of Forests and Range. The constituents apparently wanted to get those maps back from the Minister of Forests and Range. For some reason, people were calling my office about that. We did not have those maps.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I’m advised also by the Clerk-at-the-Table that the member spent some time in the Clerk’s office looking at the Bill 15 maps that we’re talking about right now. At no time would the Clerk’s office have had the maps that were left at the Minister of Forests and Range’s office. I’m not sure where that particular set of maps went. That was pertaining to something other than Bill 15, which is the legislation we’re discussing here today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1810]

M. Sather: Well, the minister opened up the map box again. I’ll just simply to say that those four maps that I referred to are not there, and they are the subject of this bill. But that’s all I have on section 3. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Section 3 approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

On section 4.

M. Sather: Section 4 is with regard to Otter Lake Park, and it amends the description of Otter Lake Park to remove two existing roads. Can the minister explain why these roads are being removed? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. B. Penner: It’s been said that the wheels of justice sometimes turn slowly. In this case, the wheels of legislative amendments sometimes turn slowly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1815]

Apparently there was an agreement reached about a quarter of a century ago that this change would be made, after discussions between an individual and the government of the day in the early 1980s. So better late than never. This change is being made to except a portion of an existing roadbed from the description of the provincial park. By virtue of this legislation we’re discussing today, though, that roadbed will be deemed a protected area, which will allow B.C. Parks to continue to control access on that roadway.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The total area involved here is about, I think, a quarter or a third of a hectare. But it apparently goes back to some direction that Tony Brummet, then Minister of Environment and Parks, gave to staff several decades ago. I’m pleased to report we’re getting around to it now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

M. Sather: Section 5 amends the description of Cariboo River Park to remove an existing road similarly. Can the minister explain the removal of that road? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: This amendment also is not dissimilar to some of the other ones we’ve already discussed, as it also pertains to an existing roadbed or road right-of-way. I’m told that the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan made recommendations about establishing a park or protected area in this region of British Columbia. Their advice was that this road should be excepted or exempted from the park boundary description. For some reason it wasn’t, and here we are, about 15 years later, fixing it up. This was initially established, I think, in 1995 in legislation. So 15 years on, we’re correcting that error. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Schedule B, now we get to an area that I think is of particular interest to the minister. It is, indeed, a beautiful area and park, and that’s Skaha Bluffs Park. I believe in second reading the minister mentioned, and I recall this too, that the park, in fact, was just brought in last year. We’re already adding to it, which is wonderful.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I just want to make reference to the Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep that the minister referred to at length in second reading. Truly it’s a beautiful sight to come across. I agree with him wholeheartedly on that.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I have been to Skaha Bluffs, and my recollection is that it is near a provincial highway there. I wonder if the minister can confirm for me whether or not the bighorn sheep inhabit the area near the highway or on the highway. I know at Spences Bridge, for example, the bighorn sheep there come down to the highway quite a lot. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1820]

HSE – 20100519 PM 059/DOT/1820

Hon. B. Penner: I appreciate the member’s questions about Skaha Bluffs Provincial Park. His recollection is correct that we did bring forward legislation last fall that initially established Skaha Bluffs Provincial Park. At that time, the parcels of land that we designated as class A provincial park were Crown land parcels that encompassed the areas most commonly frequented by the rock climbers.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This amendment is adding a parcel of previously privately owned land known in the local area as sublot 18. I think that’s how it’s been referred to — yeah, sublot 18. It does a couple of things. It provides secure access, as I noted in my second reading remarks yesterday, so that there’s continued access for mountain climbers and other people.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I want to underscore here that this area is not just for hard-core rock climbers, but it’s entirely suitable for families and children to go and take a stroll. There are many rolling hills, and it’s a very leisurely pleasant area to go for a walk. So it’s really multifaceted. True, there is some hard-core rock climbing available at the northern end of the park, and if people want to do that, good on them. I think most people, though, would prefer to enjoy the trails just to the south of that, many of which are through sublot 18, which is this parcel of land that we’re discussing today.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So acquisition of sublot 18 helped secure the public access as well as the right to walk on that land and enjoy it as a trail. But just as importantly or, in some people’s view, more importantly the eastern portions of sublot 18 stretch up and over some bluffs and into another area that is considered very important habitat for the bighorn sheep.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The last time I was there with Mr. Speaker, the bighorn sheep that greeted us came up from the western side of the property, just above the highway. I’ve never seen them on the highway myself, but they seemed to be coming, they came up towards us from below where we were standing and below where we were standing is the highway. So they were somewhere in between, and they made their way past us and up some bluffs, not the completely vertical ones, but they moved their way up to some clearings and presumably then carried on to this area known as the eastern side of sublot 18.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is all a long way of saying that this is a multiple win. It’s good for public enjoyment, it’s good for families, it’s good for people who enjoy hard-core rock climbing, and it’s good for the bighorn sheep because this area is now protected from potential development.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There had been some concerns expressed locally that subdivision development or even perhaps big-box stores might be considering locating on sublot 18, which is a benchland on the western side. So it would be relatively easy to build on, if that’s what somebody wanted to do.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So I’m pleased that we had the assistance of a number of partners, and I just want to recognize them here again today. The Nature Conservancy of Canada, the Land Conservancy of B.C., the B.C. Trust for Public Lands and, also, the Mountain Equipment Co-op helped raise some money through their membership because many of their members enjoyed rock climbing there.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think with this addition and the new access route that we’ve been able to secure with the cooperation, by the way, of one of B.C.’s fine new wineries Painted Rock Estate Winery, which is right adjacent to the park, this area will now be more frequently visited by families.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I have given instructions to staff to see if we can establish some basic campsites there which would be an affordable option for young families visiting the Okanagan. Combined with the stunning vistas, the beautiful hiking trails and the next door winery, I think this park will get quite a few visits in the future.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Just a cautionary note, though, that in addition to bighorn sheep, I’m told that there are western rattlesnakes present throughout the area. I hiked there a few times now — mostly in the summer, once in the winter — but I have not yet come across any snakes. But you could see how it might be a good habitat for them and good for them. I don’t think we need to be as concerned about rattlesnakes as some people would have you believe. Obviously, you want to respect them, but some people maybe overestimate the concern.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

And then there is the western screech owl, which also enjoys that habitat, and again, when you go there you can see why. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: Yes, it indeed is a beautiful place. I’ve birded up there. You can see Cassin’s finch, you can see western bluebirds, and if you’re standing right over the bluffs the swifts are just whipping by there at a huge rate of speed. It’s a great place.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now I want to move on to the South Chilcotin Mountains Park. For listeners, there’s a history to this park. It was formed by the previous NDP government in 2001.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

When the current government was elected that year…. In the subsequent years — 2004, to be exact, I believe — the government decided that…. In my understanding it was triggered by pressure from mining interests that wanted to have access to the park for the mining interests. The government of the day changed the park to what — at the same time indicating their intentions to move the boundaries…. They changed the park. It became known as the Spruce Lake protected area.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

After that, and I’m not familiar with the specifics of the land-use planning process, but I understand there was quite a lengthy process that occurred, and so this is…. Now we’re seeing, I guess you would say, the end point of it, with what I would call the recreation of the South Chilcotin Mountains Park.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I wanted to ask the minister about some of the zoning adjacent to the park. There are some zones there that are referred to as mining tourism zones, and I’d just like to ask the minister if he could explain what a mining tourism zone is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1830]

HSE – 20100519 PM 061/LLM/1830

Hon. B. Penner: As I understand it, the member is asking about mining and tourism zones. Those will be officially designated, just for the government’s attention, through an order-in-council that would be led by the minister and Ministry of Forests and Range, responsible for the integrated land management bureau. My understanding of the mining and tourism zones is that they do not permit or will not permit commercial timber-harvesting activities to take place, but would permit tourism development as well as exploration and development of minerals. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: Well, it seems like a classic description of an oxymoron to me, Madam Chair. I can’t imagine tourism going well with mining at all. But hey, maybe if the mines are successful in those areas, there will be some tours of them.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I wanted to ask the minister about one of these tourism zones at Paradise Creek, which is on the northeast side of the park. Can the minister tell me: that zone — was part of it in the previous Spruce Lake protected area? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: I’ve just been flipping back and forth looking at various maps, and I believe the answer to the member’s question is yes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1835]

M. Sather: Can the minister then give me…? It doesn’t sound like he’d have the exact amount. But can he give me an approximation of how much land has been moved from the former Spruce Lake Protected Area then to the mining and tourism zone? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: There are, as the member knows, three proposed mining and tourism zones, and they total, the three of them, 14,550 hectares.  [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: Yes indeed, there are three tourism zones: Taylor Creek, Paradise Creek and Slim Creek. So in total, those mining and tourism zones are 14,550 hectares, I believe the minister said. So what I’m trying to get a sense of is how much land was lost, though, from the previous Spruce Lake Protected Area to now become mining and tourism zones — an approximation at least. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: The three areas combined amount to 14,550 hectares.  [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: So I’m understanding, then, that 14,550 hectares of the previous protected area were lost to mining and tourism areas. That’s a concern for me. It certainly is a good thing that we have the park. My particular feeling from my perspective is that there has been a considerable cost to that.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I wanted to ask the minister also…. Spruce Lake is the primary destination in that area, and there are a couple of exclusions, small ones, by Spruce Lake. Was the purpose of those exclusions that they’re private property? Is that the reason? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: I believe there are two private inholdings — private pieces of land.  [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

M. Sather: This section 6 is schedule D, and there are several amendments and establishments of new parks. I see that the time is moving on. I wanted to finish up today, so I’m not going to have the opportunity to talk about all of these lovely parks, though it excites me greatly to talk about parks at any time.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I did want to ask or make mention, anyway, of Fred Antoine Park, which is also in the Lillooet district. There are a number of these parks that are in the Lillooet district. This one is 8,230 hectares. My understanding is that environmental groups are quite pleased about the formation of this one. I wonder if the minister could say a few words about the attributes of that park. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1840]

Hon. B. Penner: Subject to what members of the Legislative Assembly decide in the next little while and subject to the Lieutenant-Governor’s approval, if passed, this bill will establish Fred Antoine Park. At 8,230 hectares in size, this new class A park is proposed to be established as a result of the Lillooet land and resource management plan.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I’m told that it includes a complete and undisturbed watershed known as Antoine Creek and the upper elevations of Fred Creek. I’m not sure who Fred is, though. The park protects a unique range of dry forest types and provides critical wildlife winter and spring range. It offers a wilderness recreation experience and contains numerous signs and artifacts of First Nations traditional use. Fred Antoine Park is located approximately 25 kilometres northwest of Lillooet and is in the asserted traditional territory of three different First Nations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: One of the other parks, Marble Canyon Park on the Sea to Sky Highway, I’m quite interested in as well, reading about it. The park protects internationally significant coral-like stromatolite formations in the lake and globally significant fossil occurrences. I’m just wondering if the minister’s staff have any knowledge about the fossil occurrences. Is that something that’s known to the public or researchers? Is it being accessed and used, as it were? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: We don’t have all the details here, but we believe that there are significant examples of fossils occurring within this proposed provincial park. Marble Canyon Park is being expanded by 1,994 hectares by virtue of this legislation. It is also a follow-up to the Lillooet land and resource management plan.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It protects natural scenic and recreational values in Marble Canyon and Marble Lake, highly significant First Nation cultural values and important provincial recreation opportunities, such as rock climbing — which we talked about earlier — hiking, fishing and camping. As well, the park protects internationally significant coral-like stromatolite formations in the lake. I understand there’s been some research done about that, and apparently it’s a topic that we can discuss at a future date. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: Yeah, it sounds very interesting about the formations in the lake. I’ve never seen anything like that. I’d like to talk to the minister about that at some future occasion.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Oregana Creek Park is being formed as a result of the Kamloops land resource management plan. It protects a small area of ancient forest containing representative examples of old-growth cedar-hemlock forest and associated vegetation communities. It’s along the upper reaches of the Adams River. Is this park beyond the area where the famous salmon run is, the sockeye run? The minister is indicating it is, I believe. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1845]

HSE – 20100519 PM 064/PLP/1845

Hon. B. Penner: I’m not 100 percent certain, but I believe that this park will be located above the reaches of the spawning beds. Nevertheless, ministry staff advise me that it will serve an important purpose by protecting riparian areas along the upper reaches of the Adams River and will serve as a valuable seasonal habitat for mountain caribou.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The park itself will be located approximately 150 kilometres north of Salmon Arm. So that puts it a considerable distance beyond the mouth of the Adams River and Shuswap Lake where most people associate the sockeye spawning activity as taking place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Sather: Subsection (f) mentions the description of Mount Robson Park. There’s a change there, I guess, with regard to that famous park, and I’m just wondering if the minister could explain what that change is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Penner: The member may recall that a number of years ago, we brought an amendment through a piece of legislation similar to this one that had all kinds of variations to existing and new park boundaries. At that time 478 hectares were removed from the park boundaries to facilitate the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion project. That was, I think, two years ago, if my memory serves correctly, perhaps three years ago. But at that time I indicated that it was the government’s intention to find additional lands as compensation for the park.

[DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This amendment that the member is referring to would add 911 hectares of what we call compensatory lands to the existing Mount Robson Park, which is pretty large as the member will know. It will now go from 224,374 hectares in size to 225,285 hectares in size, but I think it will probably grow a bit more because of the 478 hectares that the Legislature removed from the park for the pipeline project, we expect that a considerable portion ever that will be able to be returned to class A park status in due course. So stay tuned — perhaps next year — and we’ll be in a position to add some of that land back. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

M. Sather: This section amends the description of a conservancy that I can’t really pronounce, I don’t think. We’ll call it the Nekite Estuary Conservancy. It does remove land as well. Can the minister just explain why land is being removed and where? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1850]

Hon. B. Penner: This amendment proposes to correct an error. When two hectares of foreshore and two hectares of upland area were included in the original conservancy boundary, that apparently was not the intention. The lands in question were a former forestry camp and, again, were included in the conservancy in error. This corrects that mistake and reflects the original intention of the land use agreement that was reached a number of years ago respecting the mid- and north coast. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:51 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.