Proposed Park Act changes are contrary to public trust

Discussion in 'General Paddling Discussions' started by ken_vandeburgt, Mar 6, 2014.

  1. ken_vandeburgt

    ken_vandeburgt Paddler

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    There are proposed changes to the Park Act that you should know about. They could have a very negative impact on your favorite Marine Provincial Park.

    Write your MLA; especially Liberal MLA's. Our government is rushing this through without any public consultation.

    http://www.andrewweavermla.ca/2014/03/0 ... parks-act/
     
  2. explorer777

    explorer777 Paddler

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    61
    Location:
    Langley BC
  3. Astoriadave

    Astoriadave Paddler

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,642
    Location:
    Astoria, Oregon, USA
    Viewing from afar, this appears to be a slippery slope, indeed.

    In the US, the Mining Act of 1890 or so permits exploration and development of mines within wilderness areas, a monstrous hole in the Wilderness Protection Act. I have hiked past a couple defunct exploration sites, and they are just downright ugly, not to mention the damage to streams from toxic minerals released from exploratory mines. Totally antithetical to any wilderness concept or parks recreational use.
     
  4. jk

    jk Paddler

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    276
    There's nothing in this proposed bill that is a direct threat to parks. It's how it may be open to interpretation that scares me. Feasibility studies for research sound innocuous, but consider that the entire Japanese whaling industry is undertaken on the basis of "research"...
     
  5. mstoc.co

    mstoc.co Paddler

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    71
    Location:
    Victoria
    JK,
    Section 9.3.2.d is the direct threat to parks. Once this amendment is written into law, the legal avenue would be in place to allow the Legislature to move the boundaries of a park at will. Need a coal mine in Strathcona? Move the boundaries of the park so that a mine can operate outside the protected area. Does a proposed pipeline bisect a park? No problem if the park's property line can now be moved to accommodate.

    I didn't see it at first either but Mary Polack (our Minister of Environment) was on CFAX 1070 last week and did a terrible job of concealing Bill 4's intention.
     
  6. jk

    jk Paddler

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    276
    Well, they don't need Bill 4 to move boundaries of parks. They do it all the time. But yeah, I see a mounting sense of dread when that language is combined with "a prescribed project or a project in a prescribed class of projects" -- language so vague it allows almost everything to qualify. It sounds like this bill is laying the groundwork so that pipelines, hydro lines and such won't be impeded by parks. And this after announcing a whole new whack of parkland last week! One step forward, two steps back.
     
  7. ken_vandeburgt

    ken_vandeburgt Paddler

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155