NEW PARKS POLICY UNVEILED
- Details
-
Hits: 1462
VICTORIA -- A few months ago, British Columbia's Environment Minister Bruce Strachan released a document, the significance of which was eclipsed by the battles over abortion, privatization and decentralization.
Striking The Balance, a 28-page report, was the first major policy statement in years on the future of the provincial parks system.
I suppose it's only natural that the report is aglow with self-serving prose, aimed at convincing British Columbians that the government is a responsible steward of their heritage.
After all, you don't expect a government report to dwell at length on the shortcomings of its policies. Despite its self-congratulatory tone, however, Striking The Balance is an important document because it spells out the government's long-range goals for the province's vast parks system.
Here are some of the major commitments Strachan makes in his report. By the year 2011, a hundred years after the first provincial park was established, six per cent of British Columbia's total area is to be incorporated in the provincial parks system, protected in perpetuity from any and all residential, commercial and industrial encroachment.
That figure stands now at roughly 5.3 per cent. Detailed resource management plans are also to be in place for all parks by the year 2011. These management plans are to provide expert protection of habitats for animals such as the grizzly.
The year 2011 is also the target date by which all commercial claims on parks now classified recreation areas have been extinguished. That goes for mineral claims in Strathcona and Tweedsmuir Recreation Areas, for instance, as well as cattle grazing claims in Cathedral Park.
Strachan expects a shift in emphasis over the next 25 years away from the creation of new major parks to relatively small recreation parks along the Inside Passage, in the northern Gulf Islands and other coastal areas.
The minister also predicts greater involvement in the management of the B.C. parks system by community groups, non-profit organizations, volunteer groups and by the private sector.
"Communities will be involved in both planning for and managing parks," the report says.
The report makes it clear that the government doesn't intend to unilaterally cancel commercial claims in wilderness areas. This means that mineral exploration and subsequent exploitation will continue wherever legal claims are in effect, including Strathcona and Tweedsmuir.
Commercial activity in these parks, now called Wilderness Areas, will continue until the legal claims expire or the government can accommodate the claimants in some other way.
For those who have only a vague perception of the existing parks system, here's a brief review.
In 1911, Strathcona Park became the first provincial park, followed shortly by other large parks such as Mount Robson and Garibaldi. The aim at the time was to provide a boost to recreation and tourism.
The demand for conservation of pristine wilderness areas didn't enter the picture for several decades, but in 1965, the Park Act was passed. Its purpose was to set aside lands "for preservation of their natural environments for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public."
With the introduction of the mandate to conserve park land, the stage was set for confrontations that are still with us today.
Opposing groups are competing for the same limited resources. Every time an area is designated a Class A Park, the forest industry loses a potential resource base; so does the mining industry. The fight over South Moresby was a good example. So is the current battle over the Stein Valley.
Class A Parks are inviolate. No logging, no mining, no commercial activity of any kind is allowed in Class A Parks.
Recreation Areas are destined to become Class A Parks as soon as existing resource commitments expire. No new commercial activities are granted within areas classified Recreation Areas.
Class C Parks are small community parks developed by the province. There are relatively few of them, and the government is committed to turning these parks over to municipal and regional governments for administration.
HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR DEBATE?
- Details
-
Hits: 2540
Judging from the snippets of debate you hear on the news every day, you'd think members of the legislature spent every waking moment insulting each other. Well, that's not always the case.
True, the daily question period is lively enough. Question period, introduced in the 1970s by the NDP government, is like a duel to be conducted in accordance with strict rules. Questions are to be asked in a non-argumentative manner and to be answered likewise.
In other words, there is to be no political grandstanding during this 15-minute exercise in parliamentary democracy.
That's the theory. In practice it doesn't quite work that way.
Nearly every question is preceded by a preamble establishing the premise of an incompetent, uncaring government having bungled something or other. The answers invariably contain a round condemnation of the opposition and, in this case, socialist principles.
The trick for the opposition is to make whatever point they want to get across in the form of a question. Often it'll go somethinglike this:
"Given the unprecedented attack by this government on seniors, the disabled and the disadvantaged, does the minister agree that this budget should be withdrawn?" Or: "Considering the public outcry over the government's latest example of ineptitude, has the minister taken steps to address the problem?"
The response might go like this: "Mr. Speaker, we're not surprised on this side of the House by the innuendo and scare tactics the socialists over there engage in. But believe me, Mr. Speaker, they won't fool the people. In answer to the honorable member's question ...."
Sometimes the government plants a question. The other day, Cliff Michael, Socred MLA for Shuswap-Revelstoke, said he had a question for Premier Vander Zalm.
"There was recently a pamphlet with a red front page distributed by certain members of the NDP containing quotes from the leader of the opposition. One headline states: 'Chronology of Corruption.' Has the premier examined this pamphlet, and is he considering libel action pertaining to those false statements?"
The premier replied that he just happened to have one of the pamphlets with him.
"The first headline in this red brochure is lies. Mr. Speaker, this is despicable material; it's garbage, garbage and more garbage -- NDP socialist garbage."
It was the second time in a week, that the premier had referred to NDP material as garbage, and not in a quiet voice either. If anything, he yelled out his remarks.
When ministers is stumped by a question or simply don't feel like answering, they can take questions on notice, that is they can come back with an answer at a later date. Some questions are never answered.
In short, question period is usually a knock-'em-down, drag-'em-out affair where members of the legislature do the people's business with their gloves off.
The excerpts you hear on radio and TV are taken from questions period. You never see the speakers because television cameras aren't allowed in the legislature, except during the throne speech and the budget speech and for the official opposition's reply to those speeches.
There is however, another side to legislative debate. When the MLAs discuss specific legislation, introduced by the government, or spending estimates, the debate is more sophisticated and civilized.
The purpose of discussing spending estimates is for the government to obtain legislative approval to spend whatever the budget calls for. This time around it's about $11 billion.
During the debate of the government's spending estimates, the opposition is free to grill ministers on every single item in their specific budgets. Why does the minister want to spend so much on this program and why so little on that? Why was this program cut and that one eliminated all together?
During these debates, you rarely hear the kind of angry outbursts that mark the question period. Which isn't to say that one is more valid than the other.
For those who prefer their political meat raw, question period is the obvious choice; those who are more interested in reasoned dialogue, might opt for the regular debate. Pick your favorite.
GUIDLINES NOT GOOD ENOUGH
- Details
-
Hits: 1344
VICTORIA -- Conflict of interest has become one of the most dangerous traps for politicians, a trap that can snap shut with deadly accuracy on not only the indiscrete and imprudent but also the careless, hasty and naive.
And yet, for all the perils it entails, conflict of interest has yet to be clearly defined, thus giving politicians distinct guideposts by which to manoeuvre through public life.
As it is now, we all think we know a conflict of interest after someone else gets entangled in one. Few of the politicians caught in a conflict of interest in the last few years were aware of the danger when they embarked on the course that would eventually get them into trouble.
Former B.C. highways minister Cliff Michael is a good example. In his capacity as highways minister, Michael met a lot of movers and shakers, the kind of people who like to refer to themselvesas the doers, not talkers.
It didn't take any devious scheming or improper motives for Michael to ask a few of these people whether they might be interested in buying some property he wanted to sell. Maybe it wasn't totally innocent, but it certainly wasn't deceitful or corrupt.
Naive is probably the better word. Yet, that stupid movecost him his cabinet post, a steep price to pay for something that can at worst be described as dumb.
Then there was the case of Advanced Education Minister Stan Hagen. He was flogged and hung out to dry when someone found out that his company had been doing business with a university.
Fortunately for Hagen, it turned out that he had disassociated himself from his company before the business transaction in question took place, and he was reinstated in his post.
The latest victim of these nebulous conflict of interest charges is none other than Premier Vander Zalm. The NDP has said that the only way Peter Toigo could have found out about discussions in cabinet about the B.C. Enterprise Corporation holdings was from his friend, the premier.
It was the premier, the NDP said, who told his right-hand man, David Poole, to get in touch with Toigo and arrange for a meeting with the board of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. The purpose of the meeting? To get his bid in, pronto, for the properties.
By doing so, said the NDP, the premier may have violated his oath of secrecy, which forbids any cabinet member to divulge matters discussed by cabinet. That's the oath he promised to obey when he was sworn in as premier.
The accusation puts the premier behind the eight-ball, even if it's spurious, because under existing guidelines, it is the premier who decides what is and what isn't a conflict of interest.
The premier decided that Hagen had not been in a conflict of interest. The premier decided that Michael had, indeed, been in a conflict. Under the guidelines governing conflicts of interest in British Columbia, the premier is the final arbiter. Thumbs up, the politician is spared; thumbs down, he perishes.
The premier is understandably furious and indignant about the accusations that he violated his oath of secrecy, but some of the blame for this mess must go to him. The opposition has stubbornly called for specific and detailed legislation governing potential conflicts of interest, and the government has rejected the id with equal stubbornness.
Considering the significance attached to conflicts of interest in politics today, it is incomprehensible that such conflicts are subject to guidelines only, and that a politician's career can be decided by one person, interpreting those guidelines.Who will judge whether the premier violated his oath of secrecy?
It is in the nature of such charges that, no matter how unfounded they may be, they must be looked into. And what if the charges are correct? What if he did tell his friend, Peter Toigo, what had transpired in cabinet? Should he resign?
Why should he? There is no legislation compelling a politician to resign if he tells tales out of cabinet. What the premier shoulddo, however, is introduce legislation that will, once and for all, not only outline just what a conflict of interest is, butalso provide for appropriate consequences.
An matter as important as conflict of interest, a matter which can ruin a politician's career, if not his life, should not beleft to the vagaries of guidelines. It should be enshrined in legislation, subject to the rulings of a court of law.
A law governing conflict of interest would prevent many of the recurring political spectacles. With a law in place, it would become a matter of laying official charges or shutting up.
CABINET SPLITS OVER TOIGO AFFAIR
- Details
-
Hits: 2035
VICTORIA -- The continuing controversy over the proposed sale of Crown lands worth in excess of half a billion dollars is beginning to take its toll on Premier Vander Zalm. He's losing his cool.
Pressed by reporters during hallway interviews and opposition MLAs in the legislature for explanations why his principal secretary, David Poole, interfered in the bidding process for the properties, the premier became extremely testy.
He repeatedly walked away from reporters, expressing his reluctance to give newspaper reports too much credibility. In the legislature, he accused the NDP of being forever preoccupied with studies and more studies, rather than working for the province's economic vitality.
If it had been up to the NDP, the premier said, there would be no B.C. Place Stadium, there would be no Sky Train. There would be no progress.
The disposal of the publicly-owned properties, administered by the B.C. Enterprise Corporation, has, of course, nothing to do with the Sky Train, the stadium or with progress. It only has to do with whether the taxpayers will get their money's worth from the sale of the lands they own, and whether the process is above-board.
The question also isn't whether Peter Toigo, a personal friend of the premier's should have been able to bid on the lands. The question is whether the method by which he was invited to submit his bid was proper.
On the auction block are 4,850 hectares of land, including the Expo site at Vancouver's False Creek, the Westwood lands in Coquitlam, and BCEC holdings at Whistler and Victoria's Inner Harbor.
Economic Development Minister Grace McCarthy asked for bids on the Expo site last fall. One of the bids was from Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-Shing who offered $300 million for the 100-hectare site. And then, last December, the premier's chief aid, David Poole, arranged for a meeting between Toigo and the board of directors of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation.
As late as last month, the premier said friend or no friend, Toigo was too late to put in his bid for the Expo site. A short while later, he altered his stand. If Toigo wanted to put in a bid for all the BCEC holdings, that was a different matter. Next thing we knew, Toigo was offering to take the entire 4,850 hectares off our hands for $500 million.
At this point things begin to get fuzzy. McCarthy said the BCEC board had been very reluctant to meet with Toigo. Poole said the board had been very enthusiastic. Board members said they had been anything but enthusiastic.
The NDP accused the premier's office of unprecedented interference in the affairs of a Crown corporation. Now under pressure, the premier said he could see nothing wrong with Poole's action. Any citizen was entitled to get all the information that was available in connection with the proposed sale of the lands.
The opposition wasn't buying it. Vander Zalm, they said, was giving preferential treatment to his friend and chief fund raiser. When he belatedly appointed Poole to the BCEC board, the howls got louder.
Out of the blue came media reports that Attorney General Brian Smith had ordered an investigation into Toigo's part in the BCEC affair. The reports were never substantiated. Nor was the speculation laid to rest.
There were rumors that Vander Zalm was on the verge of dismissing Smith from cabinet and firing Ted Hughes from his post as deputy attorney general, but held back sat the last moment.
And that's where the controversy stands now. Pressure on Vander Zalm shows no signs of letting up. The premier remains at odds with McCarthy and Smith, not to mention the opposition.
Galling as it may be for Vander Zalm, his best move right now would be to follow a suggestion by the NDP to order an independent market analysis of all BCEC holdings.
From the premier's point of view, there may well have been nothing wrong with bringing another bidder into the picture, even if that bidder happens to be a good personal friend.
On the other hand, when a controversy grows to such proportions that the premier is losing the un1qualified support of two powerful cabinet ministers, a second look is in order.
Find out what Beyer had to say
Election are always a hot topic
When is the Budget not a hot search