Michael Sather's Budget Response
The following is an unofficial transcript of Michael Sather's comments in response to B.C. Budget 2008.
M. Sather: It's my pleasure to respond to the budget. Before I begin, though, I wanted to thank my staff, who have done such a capable job for me over these almost three years now.
In my constituency office there's Sheryl Seale, who is the foundation of our crew there. Sheryl is exceedingly organized — a very political person doing a wonderful job. Donann Kinar has been with me almost since the beginning and provides a really inviting atmosphere for constituents that come in, and that's a great thing. Carly O'Rourke is a young woman that I've just hired recently. She's a graduate from SFU and has a great and bright future ahead of her.
Here in the Legislature, Brian Kowalski, my legislative assistant, does a great job of keeping me going technologically and organizing things for me. Brian is a real outdoor guy too, which I really like. Cara McGregor is my communications officer, and Cara is always bright, helpful and willing to provide the communications information that I need. Paula Gunn is my research officer. I can only hope that all the members opposite, including the Transportation Minister, have such a capable research person as Paula.
We've heard the budget. We've heard the Premier provide us with what is hailed as a green budget, complete with the Finance Minister wearing the green shoes and what have you. There are things in the budget that we approve of and that I approve of. We approve of a carbon tax. I think that's a move that we have to go toward. I certainly have some difficulties with the way that it's unbalanced with regard to big oil and big banks.
What I want to see, and what I want to talk about today, is if the green rhetoric really matches the on-the-ground reality of being green. One of the areas that the government talks about is providing green energy.
I want to talk about an area that's near and dear to me — and to many British Columbians, the more they know about it — and that's the Upper Pitt River area at the north end of Pitt Lake. The other day I heard the member for East Kootenay talk about Fernie being the most beautiful place in British Columbia. I had the opportunity to go to Fernie not long ago, and it is a truly spectacular viewpoint from Fernie. But it's rivalled equally, I can tell you, by going up to Pitt Lake and looking up that valley on a beautiful day with the snow-clad mountains of Garibaldi. It's a tunnel that is absolutely spectacular on all sides. It's a fantastic area.
Although it's only 50 kilometres from Vancouver, to get there is difficult. You have to fly in, or you have to take the long boat ride up Pitt Lake. Having visited last year again during the summer, I renewed my acquaintance with it and just how spectacular it is. The area has been logged, but trees are growing back. It's an ongoing operation there, but the wilderness feel of the place is very tangible, very real.
Back in the '90s this river, due to a gravel operation that was proposed there, was actually on the list of B.C.'s most endangered rivers. I'm hoping that's not going to happen again. I'm hoping that the government is going to look long and hard at what's happening in the Upper Pitt with regard to the so-called run-of-the-river operations that are being worked on there.
There's a plan there by Run of River Power Inc., through their subsidiary Northwest Cascade Power, to dam and divert eight streams in the Upper Pitt. On the west side of the Pitt you have Boise, Homer, Pinecone, Steve and Bucklin Creek, and then on the other side, the east side, Corbold Creek, ZZ Creek and then Shale Creek north of that.
Now, it's not that I think all of these kinds of projects are bad. I don't. I haven't had a chance to look at all of them by any means, but I understand the one at Furry Creek, for example — off the Sea to Sky Highway — is a good operation and not environmentally damaging. That certainly can't be said for the Upper Pitt.
One of the problems with this whole process around these dam-and-divert projects that are going on is that there has been no reasonable access to the public in terms of decision-making around this. It's not only Bill 30, which has been talked about — how local government decision-making has been pushed aside — but the fact that the land use planning process that we used to have with the local resource management plans is not there. There's no way for the public to have a say in the formative parts of any project like this.
When it comes to the environmental assessment office, they form working groups. Non-profits that want to find out can't even find out who's on those working groups. So it's extremely difficult for the public to feel involved in this, and that is one of the reasons — certainly not the only reason — why there is so much concern.
The Upper Pitt is an absolutely spectacular fishery as well. Not only is the scenery magnificent, but we have all five species of Pacific salmon there — the sockeye, the pinks, the chinooks, the coho and the chum. In addition, we have a species of trout there as well.
The largest population of coho in the lower Fraser Valley is there in the Upper Pitt. The coho salmon is a fishery that's very much under duress. There's a recent report from the department of Fisheries and Oceans last October that said: "The conservation of Georgia Basin coho has been an issue since at least 1989, and a major concern in the decline of coho is the loss and degradation of freshwater habitat due to increasing economic and development pressures in the Strait of Georgia."
That's exactly what we're concerned about here — the environmental pressures that these projects are going to put on the coho and other salmon there, other fisheries there.
The coho in the Upper Pitt are also threatened. They're at their lowest levels ever. We get information there…. I get it from talking to folks who live there, particularly Dan Gerak and his wife, who run the Pitt River Lodge up there. It's an excellent facility.
We have, as well, the cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, bull trout and steelhead. Steelhead, of course, are a highly prized fishery. I think the member opposite is a steelhead fisherman and has spoken in the House about that. They, again, are under duress. Dan Gerak tells me they may get as few as 50 steelhead returning this year, so that's of great concern.
I want to talk a little bit about what is the problem specifically with the dam-and-divert projects for the fish — looking at an 80 to 95 percent reduction in the flow of these streams, and it's over a long area as well. In the Upper Pitt, those eight streams would be dammed from 3.2 up to 4.6 kilometres.
The salmon and the trout in that system depend on these streams for both spawning and rearing. It's extremely important habitat. The river itself is glacial. It's very cold, and as such, it's not that productive in terms of the food that the salmon and trout eat. So the streams are kind of the lifeblood of the whole system there.
The reduced flows in these streams that are going to result mean that the wetted width of these streams is reduced. Some of that wetted width is not very deep, so you're losing the productivity of the aquatic invertebrates upon which those fish depend.
These are kind of the basic nuts and bolts of how a fishery works, how fish survive. I think we all, on both sides of the House, want to ensure that our salmon are not put in further jeopardy. When you reduce the flow on a stream as well, to that extent in particular, the water is more shallow, and it warms to temperatures that are often fatal to fish.
A stream is also a living entity in terms of its habitat. You need to have a constant recruitment, as they call it, of boulders, gravel and rocks as well as the woody debris. The rocks are brought down, and they provide shade for the fish when it's hot. The gravel of course provides substrate for spawning. That material, the woody material as well, provides not only organic nutrients to the stream but also some of that cover I already mentioned with regard to the rocks.
When we get this kind of a reduction in flow, you're making the river sterile. That's of great concern to everyone who is familiar with that situation.
The time of year when that material gets washed down is in the spring, during the spring freshet. But that, unfortunately, is also the time when the run-of-river projects are in operation because they depend on that heavy flow in the spring. So that's the time of year when the diversion of the water is going to have the greatest negative impact.
There will also be increased risk, and I'm certain there will be additional siltation, from landslides due to the work that will be done to lay all these pipes and to make the dam. I know that when I looked at the Ashlu up in Squamish, I saw heavy equipment right in the stream.
There's no doubt that the detrimental effects are considerable. We can get complete failure of the technology, as well, in terms of letting the water through the creek. That happened in Miller Creek near Whistler not long ago.
Sometimes I hear government members or proponents of these systems say: "Well, don't worry about it, because all the water is going back into the stream." But there are a couple of problems. One of the things is that the fish, certainly in this system, are above where the water goes back into the stream. They're affected directly by the negative aspects of the reduced water.
So we have coho, chinook, steelhead, cutthroat and rainbow trout spawning and/or rearing above the generator site — that's where the water goes back into the river — in Boise, Homer, Pinecone, Steve and Bucklin creeks. Boise Creek has fish-bearing waters not only to the fish barrier above it but all the way up.
The threat, however, is not confined simply to the area above the intake because, as I mentioned, with the recruitment of debris and rocks, that's a problem below the intake as well.
All eight streams, with the possible exception of Shale, are fish-bearing streams, and 3,000 sockeye have been observed spawning in Boise Creek. Boise contains about 1,500 rare Dolly Varden, a bull trout cross which…. Apparently, they're above the fish barrier. It's interesting. It's thought that they've been there and developed a separate strain since the last ice age.
In Homer Creek 5,000 sockeye have been observed spawning, and up to 40,000 sockeye returned to Corbold Creek. Coho and pink salmon also spawn in the lower reaches of Corbold Creek. The sockeye in the Upper Pitt are unique in being on a six-year return cycle. They return every six years to their spawning beds — or redds, as they're called — which in the normal cycle is four or five years for sockeye. As in other areas, salmon and trout in the Upper Pitt are threatened, so the threat is throughout.
Steelhead and bull trout. Another species at risk. Coho — I already mentioned their precarious situation. Populations in the Upper Pitt are at their lowest levels ever known.
I also wanted to talk for a few minutes about the precedent-setting application that's now in place to sever the Pinecone Burke Park to put the transmission line through. This will be precedent-setting if it should happen; I certainly hope it doesn't. There was another additional line put through Mount Robson, but it was in an area where there was already a right-of-way beside a railway and highway, so it's quite different. This line would go up Steve Creek, over a pass, by a wetland and down into the creek on the other side, going down into the Mamquam River.
There are at least five species at risk in the study area, one of which is the grizzly, which is a blue-listed species of concern. I mentioned the wetland in Steve Creek, and it's one of two significant grizzly areas in the Upper Pitt. The draft management plan and the background report for Pinecone Burke Provincial Park noted that subalpine wetland habitats in Steve and Pinecone Creek watersheds provide valuable spring/summer forage for grizzly bears and that spring/summer forage is a limiting factor for grizzly bear conservation in the Pitt River watershed.
What they're saying, in fact, is that this is critical habitat, the destruction or disturbance of which could limit the viability of the grizzly population there. It's a serious issue. Documents on the integrated land management bureau site show that the intake on Steve Creek and the dam that will be built there are very close to that wetland. This may very well flood the wetland. But even without flooding, the construction of the dam, the transmission line and the ongoing maintenance threaten the ability of grizzlies to use this habitat. They're very sensitive to human disturbance.
It's disturbing to me to read the consultant's reports downplaying the negative impact that this could have on grizzlies. In fact, it's downplaying whether or not grizzlies even are there. The consultant says in the reports: "They did not locate any critical wildlife habitat." Yet what else is this wetland if not critical wildlife habitat? It's hard to understand how they could say that.
The study area that the consultants looked at falls within the Garibaldi Pitt grizzly population unit, which is considered threatened by COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, with an estimated population of 18. Wildlife habitat for grizzlies to the east of Pinecone Burke is "based on habitat suitability and not on evidence of grizzlies," they said.
Yet Dan Gerak from Pitt River Lodge told me that he saw tracks of grizzlies in Blue Creek just three kilometres from Steve Creek, the study area. He showed that to the consultant's biologist, yet they say there is no evidence of grizzlies in the area. It really brings into question the integrity of the work that's been done up there, and certainly they're trying to minimize the negative effect on a vulnerable species, the grizzly bear. That's of great concern.
Marbled murrelets are another species at risk in the area. In this case a red-listed species has been documented in the Upper Pitt. The northern spotted owl is a critically imperilled species that's likely found in the Upper Pitt — or it was before the government allowed a lot of logging of their habitat.
We know there is an active nest-site ten kilometres northeast of the study area. The consultant's report admits there is a potential that dispersing juveniles may use Crawford Creek–Steve Pass to move between the watersheds. So there is a very real possibility that they will run into power lines and be killed. Other species at risk in the area are coastal tailed frogs and red-legged frogs.
So the access to this area is a huge issue. The proponent suggests that they're going to use helicopters to build the transmission line, but what kind of access is that going to open up to increased fishing and hunting? A reputable source from one of the fishing organizations in British Columbia said to me that opening that up to access would essentially kill that fishery within ten years.
There is a newly developing predator-prey system in the Upper Pitt with the Roosevelt elk that have been transplanted there and the wolves that have moved into the area. It was on the front page of The Vancouver Sun not long ago. They're at risk from increased access.
This whole project also puts in jeopardy the tourism values of the area. There are going to be power lines all over the place. As Dan Gerak said, his clients would not be particularly interested, unfortunately, in going up there if the values are degraded in that manner.
This development, along with that of the related Pamawed Resources development on Crawford Creek, which is a related company to Run of River, would bring driveable roads 6.5 kilometres closer on the Pinecone Burke Park side and on the west side eight kilometres closer. So they're going to bring the access a lot closer. That's of great concern.
Putting up the power line through there might keep hikers out, but it's not going to keep out folks on snowmobiles, and it's not going to keep out people on ATVs — the all-terrain vehicles. The proponents' consultants themselves say it would be desirable to have snowmobile access in there, so we are really concerned. A lot of folks are really concerned.
I hope the government will look at this carefully and recognize that there may be appropriate places for these projects, but the Upper Pitt is definitely not one of those places. The proponents' consultants also say that road improvements associated with the construction of the proposed hydropower project at Crawford Creek will re-establish culverts at stream crossings and improve access to upper Crawford Creek. So they are admitting they are improving the access there, but it's not improving for the wildlife, and it's not improving for the fish.
I haven't had the opportunity to be there in person, but looking at a topographical map, where the intake for the power development on Crawford Creek would be is pretty flat wide-open country. So it would be very difficult, if they put the road up there to the intake, to not allow increased access to the Upper Pitt.
What about the dam that would be built with road access along Steve Creek? They're going to push that road in there another nine kilometres into the wilderness. I don't think they're going to be constructing and bringing all that heavy equipment in there by helicopter. I doubt it very much.
The proponent says: "Well, don't worry about all this potential destruction to a pristine area. We'll give you compensation. We'll add a piece onto the Pinecone Burke Park on the east side of the park." I don't get it. This is Crown land. It's not theirs to give. I don't quite understand how that would be compensation on their part.
What about the hazards that exist up there in the Upper Pitt with regard to snow and landslides? Looking at the consultant's report, they have hazard ratings that are moderate to high in many areas along where that power line would go through. I don't see anywhere any assessment of the dangers of rock and mudslides. Those are just the hazards on Steve Creek, where they've done some of the work around this park severance adjustment application that's before the government now.
I understand that the Environment Minister…. I have it on good authority that he feels strongly about wilderness, that he is a proponent for wilderness and that he is a proponent for maintaining those kinds of values. So I can't fathom how he could possibly be in favour of this project. I'm fearful, however, that he is. I'm hopeful that he's not and that he's prevailing upon his colleagues to say: "Let's look at this through the lens…."
You know, it's supposed to be a green budget, a green time that we're operating in now. Let's make sure that we truly are looking at these projects through an environmental lens. If we are, there's no way that the Upper Pitt projects that are on the books right now could be approved. I'm really hopeful that this government will have a hard look at that and will turn it down.
Just in the time I have remaining, I want to make a few comments about agriculture and the agriculture plan that the Minister of Agriculture talked about the other day. He talked about the hundred-mile diet and that it was a key fundamental principle on which this plan was written — about eating locally.
Well, those are good ideas, ones that I support. However, I want to see that the government is actually acting to protect the land itself. Without the land, we can't be eating locally because we won't have any land on which to grow the food. The member for Delta South is always talking about how we have to eat to live, but we also have to have land to produce the food which we eat to live.
When I look at what's happening with transportation, for example, I see the South Fraser perimeter road taking 500 acres or 300 acres — a large number of acres — out of the agricultural land reserve, and there's another route possible. I see in my constituency the Abernethy connector that has gone through two heritage farms and an organic farm.
The minister doesn't seem to have any concern about that and says that's TransLink's problem. Now I see another road being proposed through agricultural land in my community. Gateway tells me that it's not their project, but they're providing all the data on what would be the effect of this road in terms of traffic.
It's not very convincing data, by the way, but that's supposed to be the rationale for this road. Also, the district of Pitt Meadows say that if they build this road, they're going to have to get funding from the province.
I look at an order-in-council that this government passed recently, making it easier to get land out of the green zone. All our agricultural land in Maple Ridge is in the green zone. So this simply is a way to make it easier to develop agricultural land.
Where does the government come down on that? On the one side they're saying they're green, but on the other side the Agriculture Minister says they've got a great agricultural plan. But when you look at the protection for the land base, it's simply not there. What we see is erosion of the land base, and that's of great concern to me and to my constituents.
Finally, some points on the fees in B.C. parks. Fees are between $9 and $50. They introduced the parking fees for day use — very unpopular — and as of April 1, they're going to increase again by a dollar per night.
