Making Sense of the National Parks Proposal

If the Bowen Phorum is any indicator, there is certainly a lot of hyperbole out there about the proposed National Park, the status of Crippen Park, negotiations in the event of a 'yes' vote,and how the referendum results might impact all of the above.

I will be voting 'yes', for the dual reasons that I think it worthwhile to pursue an opportunity to acquire parkland, plus 'yes' means simply that we are ok with the idea of the establishment of a park- knowing that the details of what lands, the management, the costs/benefits, upsides and downsides would be fully revealed in the course of events that would unfold in the years following the vote.

I have written quite a lot of background on the Metro Vancouver perspective, but want to update the information. At the Parks Committee meeting November 2, correspondence dated October 5 from the BC Chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society was discussed. Basically, they were encouraging Metro Vancouver Parks to work collaboratively with PC and the Province in the establishment of a National Park on Bowen. Specifically, they laid out the perceived advantages of Crippen being turned over to PC.

Chair Gayle Martin had responded to them a October 6th, indicating that as there had been no proposal from Parks Canada to Metro Vancouver, it was premature for her to comment.

I spoke to this, suggesting that a supplementary letter be written which reflected what has, to date, been the discussion at Metro Parks and between staff.

The proposed letter would have included the following clauses:

1. MV has a strong interest and fiduciary obligation in maintaining the integrity of its Regional Parks system, and

2. MV Parks has indicated a willingness to consider a 'Value Proposition' from Parks Canada in regard to Crippen Park.

However, the Committee, backed up by CAO Johnnie Carline, demurred at even that, saying that until an actual offer comes forward from PC, there is really nothing to talk about.

Of course, there is a bit of a Catch-22 in all this, inasmuch that Bowen Islanders want to know what might happen to Crippen as part of an NP, to help inform their vote. Yet, it is pretty clear that Metro is in no hurry to dispossess themselves of Crippen, and is acting very cautiously. As well, Metro is extremely aware of public sentiment on Bowen, the petition, and the hyper-political atmosphere surrounding the issue.

Believe me, Metro Vancouver Parks is a conservative organisation, not given to rash decisions. Notwithstanding, the new head, Gaetan Royer, has met with PC's Richard Carson, and had cordial discussions about different options.

So- what this means for Bowen voters is that there is no way of knowing on November 19th whether Metro Van. Parks would see fit to 'turn over' Crippen to PC, co-manage, lease, or accept money for upkeep of Crippen if a gateway to the NP. But any negotiations would be protracted and by definition, would have to be of benefit to all parties.

But any fear that we would lose control of the process is simply not true, as we are represented at Metro Vancouver, and have, since we incorporated, always had a representative at the Parks Committee. In any case, MV is sensitive to Bowen's interests.

Same thing at the provincial level. Following Mr. Bawtinheimer's promise that Bowen's wishes would be respected in negotiations between the Province and the Feds., this was backed up by the Environment Minister, The Honourable Terry Lake.

So Bowenians' interests in land not owned by Bowen Islanders have received pledges that they will be respected. Not bad, seeing as how the Province has never before said they would protect even Crown Watershed, let alone all the Crown lands on Bowen.