The Steele report

,

Two large tankers operating in hostile waters can be a para-less journey..  in this case a metaphoric journey into the undecided. It is time to revisit where we are on the Canada Parks issue.

First let me be clear, I am not on either side in the battle.  I have no preference.  I am offering some outside observations from what I have heard and seen.  I also have a bit of an outline as to who may or may not be winning the day.

A while back I cautioned the no side to broaden their view.  Putting up  a sign or carrying a sign that just says NO is not helpful.  The reason is it allows the Yes side to define a group thought into a single identity with a negative overtone,  it allows the yes side to generalize “They are all the same”  the meaning  “They are negative obstructionists”

I have read the list of interests at the table trying to either point out problems or seek clarification and some resolve. On Wednesday I noted there are those saying, it could take up to two years to decide.  That sounds to me like a statement to calm the waters.  It is likely more rhetoric than fact.

There are any number of valid issues to be discussed and resolved, water, range land, recreation, soil conservation, and the list goes on.  The odd issue out here is the idea it will bring more tourists.  I asked a group of reasonable friends what they interpreted that to mean.   Answered varied.

1  these people want a small closed community

2  this community is suspicious of strangers

3  it is  a community that does not want change,

Those were the three main responses.  If these assumptions are true there are impediments to having these dreams come true.

Here is some insight on why that might not be the case:

1  Wanting a small closed community with a major highway running through it makes a closed community in the 21st century nearly impossible.

2  Suspicion of strangers or outsiders is not really a viable argument either.  The yes side can rightfully claim the opposite by pointing the fact this community elected an outsider to the position of mayor.  In fact the new mayor barely hung up the curtains on his front window when he took the oath of office.

3  Not wanting change in this world isn’t going to fly either.  Time marches on and change happens,  the idea is to see it is positive change.

There are many recognized groups working to define the ground rules to determine whether or not they can support the venture.  Because they are involved in the dialog does not mean they are for or against,  It means they are garnering facts in which to base a decision on.

Those who just say NO limit their ability to communicate their concerns.  They cut off access to the decision makers and they are defined as obstructive with little to offer except the word NO.

It should also be pointed out a referendum might not serve the interests of the NO side.  If this park is to be on crown land, then the referendum could very likely see the citizens of BC voting.  Where people in the South Okanagan might well vote NO the vast majority would likely vote YES.  In addition even more tourists would flock to the area.

Based on what I see the NO side is being more and more isolated from the process.  They have more visibility but less influence.   Be rest assured the decision will not be a local one, therefore to be successful the entire direction needs to change.

To have any hope at all NO has to opt in to the discussion, not just hold up signs saying NO

Two large metaphoric tankers are on a collision course, both filled with statistics, views, and placards saying NO, but then this whole idea has been debated for some time without resolution.

Fred Steele

Comments

  1. In my own personal quest for more knowledge about the proposed National Park Reserve in our area I delved into the history of other National Parks and Park Reserves within this province. It certainly gives an outline of how long negotiations take – years and years! It is evident that nothing is finalised until all parties have come to agreement. All information easily accessible. I agree with Mr. Steele that input of concerns by those who are against the establishment of a National Park Reserve is important and should be directed to them and Parks Canada should respond within an acceptable time frame – better communication is needed Personally I do not have the fear of the Federal Government that seems to be the case with many who comment here.

    Reply

  2. I missed the narrow mindset comment being insulting. It was not my personal view it was the impression many have outside of the arena as it were. i know many people in Oliver and surrounding area and they are not of a narrow mindset and I am amiss in not making that part of my comment clear.

    Reply

  3. That park reserve is a done deal! Mark my words. The yes side knows it and many from the no side are starting to realize it. That is why we see fewer no side opponents out there protesting and the yes side supporters sitting back, staying quiet and waiting for the hammer to fall. What’s happening now is just political smoke and mirrors, double talk, and waiting for things to cool down. The real motives for this park reserve have come out slowly over the years and those that threaten or are a detriment to the final outcome are asked to stay quiet and in the background so things can move ahead to the ultimate goal. A legacy for a senator or his family? More control by a group that wants payback for past injustices? Tit for tat, this would only decades down the road have them paying back others and us at the same point we are at now. The forced extinction of a way of life for some, that is looked down upon by others that would have their way of life forced upon others. Some think all worthy reasons for a National Park Reserve. But they are not reasons to force their views on others. Where does it stop?

    We all have to live here together for generations to come and if we can’t get along now what hope does the future have. Park or no park. The problem with most of the laws, and other decisions being forced on us at the present (and the recent past) is that they have been politically based, pushed forward by people behind the scenes or fringe groups that seem to have control over or threaten loss of votes to those in power. They are not based on reality or a sense of right and wrong, let alone taking into consideration all points of view to come up with a decision that we all can live with. I have in the past changed my views towards things. I was against the site C dam because I’ve been to that area of BC and the loss of habitat would be devastating. But with all the leaf lickers pushing for electric cars over fossil fueled ones, the power has to come from somewhere, not to mention the power needed for the increase in population. My attitude towards different people has evolved. But that took a willingness on both sides to drop the bull and approach each other on the most basic level, equality. Or as it was put so brilliantly many years ago, “treat others as you would have them treat you”. That way you see that we are all basically the same. We all want to live a simple life with no hassles or stress, we want to make ends meet and have enough food to satisfy our hunger. The problems come with greed. I have met many people in my 63plus years on this planet and I have never met anyone that I hate, met many I don’t care for, but that is on them. They use and deceive others, they cheat, steal and or lie to get their way or get power over others. They have no sense of right and wrong and anything goes as long as they end up on top or get their way over others. I was brought up in an era that was the best by far, but this era brought with it more greed and it has continued to grow unchecked to the present day.

    Case in point. If Alberta had only come to BC years ago when the pipeline was first discussed and problems arose and tried to settle things out with BC. Instead of taking the point of view, we’re going to put it through BC and there’s nothing you can do to stop it. It just might be in the ground and pumping oil now. They found taking one point of view and trying to bully their way over everyone didn’t work. And the environmentalist’s shouldn’t pat themselves on the back to hard, as they were out on the water protesting in their yellow plastic oil based kayaks in front of Kinder Morgan. A ” do as I say, not as I do” moment in time. When you open your eyes and look at things from every ones point of view, you see all the hypocrisy out there. Sad but true.

    Also sad but true, that if the park goes in, and the thousands of people come and tromp all over the park, the land it was supposed to save may be the last nail in the coffin for it.

    Reply

  4. I think that the concern that Parks Canada has not consulted sufficiently is a distraction. No decision has been made to establish a National Park and all that will be negotiated the summer is a nonenforceable MOU outlining a process for the negotiations over the next two years or more.

    I think that the estimate of two years for the negotiation process is aspirational experience acquired in the establishment of other parks across Canada in the last few years suggests that it’s probably going to take a lot longer. More likely it will be 4-6 years.

    Ultimately I think that the ONA will agree with Canada and the province on a formal agreement establishing the park. The park, at least one on their terms, is very consistent with first Nations values. Most importantly it is a recognition of Aboriginal rights to their traditional territory beyond their reserves. It preserves ecological values by prohibiting development of lands within the park for other purposes And also on private lands to the extent that Parks Canada buys them for fair market value It preserves traditional hunting and other land-use rights of First Nations and gives them a significant role in co-management of the lands.

    The wildcard is more the provincial government. Any deal would require the transfer by the province to Parks Canada of provincial lands within the boundaries of the proposed park. If there is a change in government at the next provincial election, that could create uncertainty as to the level of provincial support for the park.

    The issue of whether the establishment of a park will result in a unmanageable influx of tourists is, in my view, a red herring. Currently we have approximately 375,000 visitors in the south Okanogan each year, a third of which are friends and family. Parks Canada’s estimate is that establishment of a park would increase tourism in the area only by about 5%. Most of the folks who visit the park would be tourists already coming to the area to visit the wineries, to golf, go tubing and for other recreational purposes.

    Publisher: Sorry Al but your comments right out the Parks Canada Playbook – off the shelf. It is propaganda. The only word for it. And Al what Ottawa done in this area for endangered species in the last fifty years. Ottawa and their money almost non existent to the those with eyes.

    Reply

  5. As usual I enjoy the writing of Mr. Steele but no doubt this episode will ruffle some feathers. Being outside the box gives a different perspective on the issue and this is not always a bad thing. I am also neither for nor against a National Park however throughout this whole issue I have been irritated by the amount of misinformation that has been spread about. Mr. Publisher mentions here that the National Park does not have the resources to fight fires – this was clearly covered by Sarah Boyle in the Media Session which was covered by CBC on Tuesday and they do in fact have the resources. The Province is a big part of the feasibility study and always has been and this is clear for all to read on both Federal and Provincial websites.

    Publisher: What Sarah says is not always based on fact Carolyn. The BCWService can have bombers, helicopters and dozen of personnel to a scene within an hour. How would Parks Canada do that with only minimal Parks staff in an Osoyoos office. Would Parks Canada have all those resources you speak to sitting idle for six months of the fire season?

    Sorry my reporting is not misinformation – There is a serious lack of clarity on many issues about the proposed (decision made) park.

    Reply

    • When I referred to misinformation it was not in direct reference to your reporting at all. It was more about the urban myths regarding the number of tourists that would come 30,000 was one figure toted around along with no access to horse riders and no grazing for ranchers, expropriation of property and it goes on and on. Do you know for a fact that there would not be a reciprocal agreement between BCW and a proposed NPR to provide a unit for that specific purpose. And no I do not believe the decision has been made, there is a long way to go yet. We all interpret what we hear differently that is for certain.

      Publisher: Good to hear your views. I just wish views on the No side and more importantly the YES side were as intelligent as yours Carolyn. I do think that how a fire would be handled would be one of the first answers to give the public. I am not sure where the myths come from but you might join me in saying the concept of a National Park in the middle of heavily built up area with three + major on the ground industries is “rather mythical and mystical” – a dream of one man Senator Ross Fitzpatrick. As an elected politician of many many years I have never seen a government agency talk to people with such contempt. One parks staff at the recent info session said to a pioneer with 5 generations on the ground here – “we would like to tell you all about the area”.

      Not sure where that one flew in from.

      Reply

  6. Fred – you are wrong and you are right.

    1. The No side standing in the drizzle with a No sign – means nothing. Time to engage the enemy with intelligence. How? Analyze what is needed to get a park and then pick it apart. Parks Canada has failed to consult in a meaningful way. They have spent gobs of my money to change minds. Is that really very democratic or ethical.
    2. A three way deal needs three partners and the local one is the partner to work on – The Osoyoos Indian Band. If all of members of the band wrote a letter to the chief saying “we don’t need a National Park” – then the NPR is dead.
    3. You cannot change the mind of Ottawa or the local MP so move to the province and launch a stronger campaign with Linda Larson to stop this in its tracks using the LRMP.
    4. BTW Fred people here are not afraid of visitors or tourists. They just don’t want rights to their backyard to be given to people who have no investment in the area. Wineries, vineyards, orchardists, ranchers and many others have serious concerns that have not been answered.

    To insinuate this is a narrow mindset is wrong and insulting. It is easy to take your position – while being in Kelowna. If you lived here, enjoyed hunting and fishing and had a wonderful home in the hills you truly would be worried about your future.
    5. The recent Richter Creek fire is a warning. Parks Canada does not have the resources to fight fires like the BC Wildfire Service – best in the business. Parks Canada would allow the timber to be scorched – it’s policy.
    6. A referendum will never happen. A local referendum would have to be conducted by the RDOS. Town of Oliver is Bi-focal – looking one way and then the other. How? Pass a motion – make a few happy but send a rep to Penticton that supports the Park. ??
    Nothing will happen on that front.

    Reply

    • Well put Jack.

      I wonder if the no side has actually asked the question. “what could be identified in the feasibility study that would show that a park is not in the National interest”? It has become abundantly clear that local interests aren’t enough.

      It would seem to me that they would have to determine this and make it clear during the study period.

      I have seen and heard bits and starts of this, but nothing comprehensive. Of course they don’t have a federal budget to do it.

      Do you have a cost so far to Parks Canada for this initiative? The number i heard was $4 million?

      Publisher: Not sure Parks Canada is really interested in anyone’s concerns. And money – bottomless pit in Ottawa – heard we now funding fire damage in Paris. To Al Hudec – I was the first to publish unvarnished or no candycoated parts of the NR research Group third party report. You could conclude nothing other than statements indicating Parks Canada had done a poor job of consulting the people vs “stakeholders” and priority sectors. Do the people not count? Oh yes to the decision – Al – the decision was made years ago we are just in the sell/pr stage like a condo development. Many media said only 40 percent of the people have concerns while allowing hundreds or more points of view from Vancouver region, or North Okanagan or other parts of Canada in the analysis. Totally unfair.

      Reply

      • Sure, Parks Canada wants this it to happen-this type of desert grass ecosystem is the only major category of ecosystem in Canada that isn’t currently protected by a national park, so it’s a priority for parks Canada. But that doesn’t mean that it’s going to happen. Establishment of the park requires tripartite Agreement between Parks Canada, the province and The ONA. That will take several years to negotiate.

        Publisher: Al you rarely answer my questions or assertions. You continue to read from the playbook. Divide and conquer. Use our money to persuade those than cannot be controlled. I know I know – I am now persuaded to wear a flack jacket and a baseball cap and just say No. But you would be deceived it is time for those against the park to dissect the facts, the propaganda, the playbook and find a strategy to stop this silly idea in its tracks. No-one has given me one concrete reason for a park. If it is a good idea why was it not proposed in 1911, 1921, 1931, 1941, 1951. That was the first 50 years of Parks Canada. That would have been the best time to save the owls, the endangered species before the big bad settlers arrived to live, work, hunt, fish, and build homes, wineries, orchards, super markets, car dealerships etc.

        Does this mean smarter people are running Parks Canada now? Come on. The people can be fooled some of time but not all of the time or… something like that.

        Reply

    • Hey I am only going by impressions I got from statements people have brought up over time. i heard people say we don’t want more tourists a park would bring. When that is said and not explained further it becomes a fact by default that even worse becomes the overriding impression real or not.
      As for who gets input, the Park is proposed to be a federal resource therefore everyone gets a say. At least that becomes the reasoning fair or not.

      The whole point of this was for me not to take sides and provide some input as to what many on the outside deduct from the proceedings. I merely pointed out the NO side limited the input because they did not debate the issues to a large enough audience. As for the government agency yes I think that they are determined but an engaged no side talking to a wider general public would or could mitigate some of the negatives here. i also learned some different points of view as well. i was hoping both sides would engage in a discussion with more meat on the bones and that is happening. Again I did not set out to be right or wrong I set out to provide a view from the outside looking in and I hope I did that.

      Publisher: Everyone has a point of view, right. A couple of years ago Mary Polak, Minister of the Environment and Parks invited two mayor and two councillors – from Osoyoos and Oliver to sit down and hear all presentations from the Yes I do and No I don’t groups. I was one of those persons. At days end all of looked at each other and said these group want the same thing. Protect the environment, attract business and tourists and leave the people who live with similar rights that they have had previously to enjoy their backyard. Parks Canada was not in the room but just the thought of a foreign government sweeping into the area usurping controls from local government and the province sent a wave of fear into some. It is happening now – Parks Canada wants our back yard.

      Parks Canada should say at the outset that local control is important or is all the control moving to “the Tower” at 30 Victoria Rue, Gatineau. Fred – I don’t think you get it. It’s about control. A new level of government we are not used to and really do not trust.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*