A change to the Park Act was introduced last month to provide increased clarity and certainty about certain uses of B.C. parks.
Sounds benign. But the bill has been greeted by confusion and suspicion, as the Opposition started a prolonged interrogation on what the government is really up to when it comes to changing allowed uses in parks.
Environment Minister Mary Polak unveiled it in the legislature as a means of increasing certainty and clarity when it comes to allowing recreation, tourism, commercial filming and research activities. Those include academic and investigative uses. All that clarity will come while ensuring the park is protected.
Zeroing in on the question of whether it makes it easier to build a road, pipeline or mine in a park, the New Democrats decided that it does.
Not directly. And not right away. But if you read it a certain way, while expecting ulterior motives from government, it could set the stage.
NDP critic Spencer Chandra Herbert also knocked the lack of consultation on the changes. He equated Polak’s position to: “We haven’t talked to anybody in B.C., but through my own synapses in my own brain, I’ve decided what’s best for the people.”
It’s the word “research” that has raised some hackles. Chandra Herbert’s stance was that there’s good research, such as understanding how a frog lives or trees grow or how to deal with the pine beetle.
Then there’s bad research, such as drilling for oil, taking ore samples or checking a highway route.
“We need research, absolutely,” Chandra Herbert said. “But under this section, you could potentially open the door for mining, for cutting of trees, for a bunch of things which nobody would ever think they would want in the park.”
Strathcona Park’s history lives on. That stretch of Vancouver Island wilderness was one of the first park designations in B.C. But the designation was amended in the 1960s to allow for a mine, something that’s almost inconceivable today. Unless you’re suspicious about the intentions of a government that is big on resource development. And it seems that more than a few people are.
“That kind of thing has occurred and could occur again, whether it’s with this government or a future government,” Chandra Herbert said.
A number of interest groups and individuals share that view. They’ve been writing letters warning that the amendment (Bill 4) expressly provides for industrial activity in parks and paves the way for removal of the protected status for industrial use.
Polak argued that the changes do nothing of the sort and are based on protecting parks. The research could help in determining routine boundary adjustments. It could also be important in determining the fate of projects that are near parks, but outside the boundaries. And the permitting allowed doesn’t give blanket approval, she said. Any permit granted still requires pages of approvals based on management plans and specific impact studies.
“Let me be clear,” she told the house. “These proposed amendments do not allow, promote or otherwise enable industrial projects in parks and protected areas.”
The government news release describing the bill gives innocuous examples of research, “like vegetation sampling, fish surveys and geotechnical studies, to assist in determining whether future economic development projects may be feasible.”
Green Party MLA Andrew Weaver joined the NDP in arguing the research angle. The bill doesn’t define research, and there are no limits on what kind of research would be allowed. He said the change would override current requirements that park-use permits not be detrimental to park values. “We are opening our parks to special interests whose intentions may not align with the interests of British Columbians.”
Independent MLA Vicki Huntington also came down against the changes. “I do believe language in the act has, perhaps completely unintentionally, inflamed concern throughout the province.”
An Opposition motion to table the bill for six months for consultations failed last week. So the one page of amendments will move to line-by-line debate later this session. Watch for a protracted argument over the meaning and implications of the word “research.”
lleyne@timescolonist.com
