A much anticipated director’s motion was debated by the regional district board at their regular board meeting on April 19.
The gallery was packed to hear director’s opinions regarding Osoyoos Director Stu Wells three part motion regarding the issue of a national park in the Okanagan – Similkameen.
The motion’s three points requested that:
1. The Province of B.C. re-engage in formal discussions with the Government of Canada re the proposed South Okanagan Similkameen National Park.
2. That the Regional District Okanagan Similkameen be briefed on the results of the feasibility study report that was submitted to the province in December of 2010 and that the province release it to the public.
3.That the Regional District Okanagan Similkameen be briefed during and at the completion of these formal talks re the national park.
Director Wells stated that he felt that this was a “rather innocuous motion to reopen the dialogue. It was good rationale to have First Nations involved – personally, and this is not the opinion of the town of Osoyoos – I would like to see this go to referendum.
There are questions to be answered. I’d like to see the report come in from the First Nations – the history, cultural proponent of it, and the other band is looking at the economic and financial implications to the bands. So there is a lot of information out there that’s going on, and the engagement should continue.”
Oliver rural Director Allan Patton agreed that all reports and studies regarding the park issue should be made public.
“This paints the picture of taking one side or the other,” Patton continued, referring to the preamble of the motion which outlined the reasons for the motion, “ and we want to move to go down that road, and I’m not going to go down there. So, I want to amend the motion to add into number (2) ‘and that the province release to the publicany other relevent reports and studies related to the park in our area.’”
Discussions derailed with procedural arguments began after Patton’s attempt to amend the motion. Wells declared it an unfriendly amendment, but after consultation it was discovered that a director could ask that the motion be split to deal with each of the three points separately. The preamble, or “recitals” portion of the motion were not considered part of the motion itself, although West Bench Director Michael Brydon pointed out that the preamble was subject to interpretation by the public.
Keremeos Director Bauer said that the feasibility study was relevant to his decision on the park.
“Without it I would have trouble deciding whether this is the time to continue.”
Area “D” Director Tom Siddon told the board that he believed it “would be a terrible tragedy to turn down a national park, it’s an opportunity that won’t come again.”
Siddon declared that he had supported the park since day one, noting that it was a devisive issue, adding that he thought it was premature of the province to interupt the process that was taking place. He gave the examples of the Steveston Cannery in Richmond and the Haida Gwai National Park as successful examples of economic growth from gaining national park status.
“It was inappropriate to interupt the dialogue that was taking place, especially amongst the First Nations… this board needs to take a position – and I don’t see it as taking a position as to whether there is a park or not, I don’t know that that is our decision to take – but I think it’s time for this table to have a healthy debate about the pros and cons of a national park in this area. And we do need the business case.”
Siddon questioned the reasoning behind the secrecy of the feasibility report, declaring that that alone was reason to request the province to rejoin the discussion.
Siddon noted that some people would be displaced by a park, but downplayed the idea that a large amount of land was at stake, saying that the park territory would amount to 10 square kilometres, or 1 / 5,000 of the province, if one considered flatland.
“I understand people will be displaced, there will be compensation, money will change hands,” he said, “I understand there is some provision for ranchers to continue.”
Siddon said that the prospects of filling restaurants, hotel rooms and wineries outweighed the concerns of the few, suggesting that a few people caught the attention of the provincial minister and got the park cancelled.
“It belongs to all the people of Canada,” he concluded, “the government of Canada has, for almost 10 years now, pursued this intiative, all of a sudden, a few people get to the doors of Minister Lake and get the project cancelled. I want it to be reopened for all of those reasons.”
Princeton rural Director Brad Hope said it was “all about discussion,” commenting that if ranchers were losing their livlihood, then he couldn’t see the board supporting it.
Area “B” Director George Bush agreed with the point regarding the release of the feasibility study but admitted that he was not in favour of the rest of the motion.
“It’s about agricultural preservation,” he said, commenting that if a park were established, in 200 years there would be no ranching, mining and limited recreational use.
“We’ll spend millions taking this land out of agricultural production,” he said, “it’s not good for Canada.”
Director Patton reitterated that he did not want to see the board taking a position on the issue, while Osoyoos rural Director Mark Pendergraft endorsed the second point of the motion, noting that the directors needed that information to make any decision.
“When the province shut this down, I felt they were throwing the issue in our laps,” he added, “and that’s exactly what they’ve done.”
He concluded by saying that a large part of the proposed national park lands is destined to become a provincial park if the national park fails.
Oliver Director Ron Hovanes admitted that this was a discussion that the board should have had a long time ago, but that it was premature to make a decision without the facts. He supported all three recommendations, including a referendum on the issue.
Princeton Director Frank Armitage thought that only those most affected by the park should participate in a referendum, advising the board to be patient and stay with the process.
Director Brydon also commented on the issue of who should participate in a referendum, noting that his area, being somewhat urban, would probably offer a large degree of support.
“We have to take a very strong stand,” he said, “and put this issue back in the federal court – there is going to be winners and losers. We can’t have a referendum – we need federal leadership. The winners will have to pay the losers – we aren’t going to decide this,” a comment to which Area “G” Director Angelique Wood agreed.
RDOS Chair Dan Ashton admitted that a lot more discussion would need to take place over the issue, noting the presence of Canadian Helicopters Base Manager Jan Rustad in the gallery.
“We need to ensure that the ranchers and Canadian Helicopter’s interests are protected,” he said
Director Patton declared that a referendum should be decided only by areas “A,” “B,” and “C.”
Director Wells concluded the discussion by saying that it was “too bad citizens couldn’t have watched this debate,” admitting that he had heard a few statements he would “like to tie into.”
The board voted on each of the three points individually, with the following conclusions:
Point one: Directors Patton, Wood abstained from vote, Bauer, Bush opposed, motion carried.
Point two: Carried unanimously
Point three: Motion carried, Bush opposed.
